Retroactive Bad Faith is Unquestionably Long Dead – vol. 4.27

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Retroactive Bad Faith is Unquestionably Long Dead It is somewhat surprising to see the discarded and discredited concept of ‘Retroactive Bad Faith’ try to come back from the dead as it did in this case. Retroactive Bad Faith in unquestionably contrary to the Policy as thoroughly discussed in this article: The Rise and Fall of the UDRP Theory of ‘Retroactive …

Panel: Four-letter .COMS May Be Inherently Valuable – vol. 4.26

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Panel: Four-letter .COMS May Be Inherently Valuable It is notable that the Panelist rightly recognized the inherent value of four-letter .com domain names. Time and time again, UDRP Panels have ruled in favor of respondents when it comes to domain names corresponding to three-letter domain names, including by domain name investors. As explained in SK Lubricants Americas v. Andrea Sabatini, …

Three-Letter .COM Registered in 1993, But No RDNH – vol 4.25

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Three-Letter .COM Registered in 1993, But No RDNH DNW .COM wrote about this case in its article. “GSF.com cybersquatting dispute should have been reverse domain name hijacking”. I understand the frustration expressed by DNW.com in criticizing the absence of an RDNH finding; “But despite this innocent domain owner having to hire a lawyer to defend against a baseless case, and …

Is a Trade Name Enough Under the Policy? – vol. 4.24

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

How to Lose a UDRP Case By Steven M. Levy, Esq. After more than two decades, over one hundred thousand published decisions, and the numerous secondary sources that are available to guide parties, there are now many resources available to prevent the filing of deficient UDRP pleadings. Plus, brand owners only get one bite at using this expedited dispute resolution …

Supplemental Registration Fails – Vol. 4.22

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Supplemental Registration Fails This case demonstrates how the particular facts matter, especially when scrutinized by a Panel. If the Complainant had a registered trademark for LEGALNOW in connection with legal services, had prominently used the mark on its website, and had provided evidence that it was very well known, the outcome would have been different. (continue reading commentary).  SIGN UP …

What’s Going on with the Passive Holding Doctrine? – vol 4.21

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

What’s Going on with the Passive Holding Doctrine? The Fairmont. Group dispute is more complex and nuanced than it first appears.  It raises four questions about how the UDRP is applied. Is the passive holding doctrine firmly rooted in the language of the UDRP? In a no-response dispute, how is the balance of probabilities determined for the allegation that there …

The Inaugural Levine Lecture by Tony Willoughby

Kamila SekiewiczBlog, UDRP, UDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Join us for the inaugural Levine Lecture, part of our annual lecture series honoring Gerald Levine, recipient of the ICA Lifetime Achievement Award for his significant scholarly contributions to the UDRP. Gerry is the author of “Domain Name Arbitration” and the forthcoming “The Clash of Trademarks and Domain Names on the Internet.” We are honored to have Tony Willoughby, an expert …

Failure to Amend Basis for Complaint Upon Revelation of Whois Details, is RDNH – vol 4.20

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries Leave a Comment

Failure to Amend Basis for Complaint Upon Revelation of Whois Details, is RDNH This case raises two particularly interesting issues. The first is whether a party that registers a domain name in good faith pursuant to an intellectual property rights policy can later be found to have registered the domain name in bad faith. The second particularly interesting issue that …

Panel: “Textbook Example of When RDNH is Warranted” – vol. 4.19

Ankur RahejaUDRP Case Summaries, Uncategorized Leave a Comment

Panel: “Textbook Example of When RDNH is Warranted” If you were the Panelist and if this case had been undefended, would you have checked the USPTO database yourself to ensure the veracity of the Complainant’s certified claim of having a registered trademark? Would you have closely examined the Complainant’s trademark registration to ascertain if it was on the Principal or …