Registrant May Retain Legitimate Interest Despite Trademark Abandonment A tour de force decision in all respects, which is made even more interesting considering who the Respondent is. On Identical/Confusing Similarity, the Panel noted in particular, that the mere incorporation of a company and a printout of a homepage are insufficient to establish common law rights (See also, UDRPPerspectives.org at 1.3). …
The Importance of Including Material Facts in a Decision – vol 5.10
The Importance of Including Material Facts in a Decision The challenge for the reader of the LSAC .com decision is that not enough information is provided for the reader to understand why the Panel accepted the Complainant’s allegations and ordered the transfer of the disputed Domain Name from the Respondent. Perhaps the Panel had the benefit of compelling evidence and …
Finding Bad Faith Despite Lack of Evidence – vol. 5.9
Finding Bad Faith Despite Lack of Evidence In this case, a Domain Name that predates the Complainant’s registered trademark rights dropped and then was registered by a third-party. It apparently was never developed as it is currently on a default GoDaddy landing page. While there may be more evidence of bad faith use in the case file available to the …
Neither Party Knew Who it Was Negotiating With – vol 5.8
Neither Party Knew Who it Was Negotiating With In this thoroughly reasoned decision of <realsense .com>, the Panel made several important observations; 1) The parties did not negotiate directly. Rather, “the parties negotiated through an intermediary service so that neither the Respondents nor the Complainant seemingly knew with whom they were negotiating”… 2) Asking prices are just that – asking …
Panel: Complainant Misconstrues the Passive Holding Doctrine – vol 5.7
UDRP Perspectives has been updated with new perspectives on the topics of Trademark Infringement and Reputation, written by Igor Motsnyi and Zak Muscovitch. UDRP Perspectives welcomes you to review current jurisprudence as it relates to these two important topics or on any of the 50 topics that it covers. The goal of UDRP Perspectives is to provide guidance in the application of the UDRP through up-to-date case …
A Tale of Two Enrons – vol. 5.6
Two-Letter Domain Names, the Big Game, and the UDRP, by John Berryhill As a greater Philadelphia area practitioner, it is worth mentioning that the US held its football championship yesterday (real football, not soccer or that weird thing they do in Australia). The cost of television advertising during this game averages something like US $8 million for a 30-second spot. One …
Dealing With One Dispute and Two Respondents – vol 5.5
Please join the CIIDRC for an informative and free session, open to all via Zoom on February 26, 2025. Sign up here! Complimentary Webinar Register Here! UDRP Perspectives has been updated with new perspectives on the topics of Trademark Infringement and Reputation, written by Igor Motsnyi and Zak Muscovitch. UDRP Perspectives welcomes you to review current jurisprudence as it relates to these two important topics or on …
Reputation is Everything – vol. 5.4
UDRP Perspectives has been updated with new perspectives on the topics of Trademark Infringement and Reputation, written by Igor Motsnyi and Zak Muscovitch. UDRP Perspectives welcomes you to review current jurisprudence as it relates to these two important topics or on any of the 50 topics that it covers. The goal of UDRP Perspectives is to provide guidance in the application of the UDRP through up-to-date case …
Issues Sound in Trademark Infringement But Are Beyond Scope of Policy – vol 5.3
UDRP Perspectives has been updated with new perspectives on the topics of Trademark Infringement and Reputation, written by Igor Motsnyi and Zak Muscovitch. UDRP Perspectives welcomes you to review current jurisprudence as it relates to these two important topics or on any of the 50 topics that it covers. The goal of UDRP Perspectives is to provide guidance in the …
Who Solicited Who? – vol. 5.2
Who Solicited Who? As readers will know, different jurisdictions have different procedures for trademark registrations. As the Panel observed in this particular case, the Complainant’s French trademark was registered on October 14, 2011, but was made effective from March 30, 2011, i.e. the date of application, as is apparently the French practice. Usually, a registration with such retroactive effect wouldn’t …