Category Archive

Did the Panel Unjustly Deprive the Complainant of a Transfer? The Panel’s decision is confounding to me. Despite a lengthy and complex decision, the facts to me appear rather simple. The Complainant had a very well-known common law trademark for a music festival located in the Bahamas which preexisted the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent used the …

Contrived Complaint or Unsuccessful Complaint? When it comes to RDNH, I have consistently said that while Panelists are required to consider it when appropriate, RDNH is ultimately a matter of Panelist discretion having regard to the circumstances. Here, it appears that the Complainant apparently fumbled the case by failing to provide evidence of common law trademark rights, and as the …

Panel: Complainants Attempted to Pervert UDRP Process with Forged Trademark As the saying goes, “forewarned is forearmed”. We must thank Panelist Steven Maier for warning us all that such frauds can occur in the UDRP and that Panelists must always be vigilant when reviewing a case. Often such vigilance extends to examining the trademark register itself to verify whether the …

“Complete Absence of Evidence of Targeting” Leads to RDNH Although not expressly mentioned in the decision, the word, “ONIRIC” happens to be a dictionary word meaning “related to dreams or dreaming”. That provides an explanation of why the Respondent registered the Domain Name in the first place and also why the Complainant selected it for its brand as well.  Of …

Three-Letter .Com Domains Are Valuable Because They’re Easy to Remember and Scarce An exceptionally well-reasoned decision by the Panel. I particularly appreciate how the Panel observed that “there are some three letter trademarks where the evidence of fame and reputation is well established on a world-wide basis and it is generally straightforward to at least draw an inference that registration …

What is the Proper Scope of the UDRP? Panelists, including in the above dispute, are regularly making findings that disputes brought before the UDRP are outside of the scope of the UDRP.  What is the proper scope of the UDRP and what causes a dispute to be outside of this proper scope? The word “scope” does not appear in the …

Complaint Filed Despite “Voluntary” Rebranding Being overly aggressive with the UDRP can sometimes backfire, as we saw here. Having already completed the rebranding prior to the Complaint being filed, the Respondent demonstrated its willingness to voluntarily resolve this matter. Nevertheless, it was the Complainant’s allegation of bad faith registration and use combined with a lack of legitimate interest which was …

RDNH Rulings on Pace to Set Record – Nat Cohen The first six months of the year saw 36 RDNH findings.  If that pace continues there will be over 70 RDNH findings by year end. There are many different reasons why a panel may determine that a finding of RDNH is justified. Ignoring precedent was cited in twelve of those …

Panel Reformulates Oki Data Test and Proposes “Lost Mary Criteria” It is rare for a decision to expressly adopt a new interpretative framework. Yet that is what the Panel boldly did here; the Panel found “that it is time to adjust the Oki Data criteria according to current needs in the e-commerce world” and even renamed it as the “Lost …

Panel: Complainant Made a Farce of the Proceeding The Panel to its credit, expressly noted that the Policy enables a Respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interest in a Domain Name under Paragraph 4(c): “The Panel concludes that Respondent has a legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name.  It is clear from the record that Respondent registered the …