UDRP Case Summaries

Complainant Stumbles on Creation Date vs. Registration Date, and RDNH Found This was tough luck for the Complainant but as the Panel noted, “the Complainant has not attempted to deal with the basic problem that the disputed Domain Name was first registered some three years before the Complainant was founded”. The Domain Name was created in 1995 – before the

Six Times Unlucky: Spanish Government Agency Fails Again to “Protect” Alhambra Monument What this case ultimately came down to, was the Complainant’s conflation of the reputation of the monument itself, with the Complainant’s trademark. As the Panel observed, “there is nothing before the Panel that suggests that the Complainant would be entitled to conflate such notoriety and goodwill as it

Law Firm Whose Client Escaped RDNH Last Time, Not as Lucky This Time Readers may recall the PitStop case from Digest Vol. 4.12 last month. In commenting upon the decision, I questioned whether the Panel was justified in declining to find RDNH. In that case, I pointed out that the Complainant, represented by a Brazilian law firm, proceeded headlong despite

Panel: Privacy Services are a Standard Feature of Contemporary Domain Name Registrations This case should finally put to rest the “Whois Privacy is evidence of bad faith” argument which continues to raised by both counsel and Panelists despite it being a relic from days gone by. As noted by the Panel, Whois privacy is a standard feature these days, either

Complainant’s ‘Sincere Belief’ Runs Contrary to Policy But Saves it from RDNH The denial of RDNH in this case, is frankly difficult to comprehend. On the facts as presented in the decision, this indeed seems to be amongst the very clearest of RDNH cases. First, the Respondent had an overt and clearly legitimate interest in the Domain Name… continue reading

Zak Muscovitch comments on the issue of common law rights raised in the decision on <lifefenefits .com> Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, NAF Claim Number: FA2204001991732, (UDRP Digest Vol 2.21) In this case, the Panel accepted the Complainant’s contention that the Complainant enjoyed common law trademark rights in the term, LIFEBENEFITS. Interestingly, from the

By Mr. Gerald M. Levine The commentaries in the Weekly Digest give a good account of the panelists’ reasoning for their decisions but I thought it would also be instructive to discuss the decisions from two other perspectives. The first is the evidentiary demands of the UDRP and the second is the accumulated wisdom of authoritative decisions which cumulatively constitute

Complainant’s failure to demonstrate timely trademark rights dooms complaint? Especially because it was decided on other grounds, the dispute over <FreshKidz .com> offers an opportunity to consider the current state of classic cybersquatting in an era where domain name investors have registered millions of domain names that they believe have at least a whiff of inherent attractiveness.  We hope you

Impersonating Retired Executive to Perpetrate Fraud There is often a disconnect between how UDRP decisions are reasoned and how they are written.  This is particularly evident with the finding of bad faith.  In making a finding about bad faith, a panelist weighs all the evidence as a whole within the context of the circumstances of the case to assess whether

An Unrepresented Complainant is Still Responsible for Understanding the Policy One of the most common mistakes that we see in Complaints is Complainants failing to provide background information about themselves. Often Complainants simply launch into their allegations and argument without so much as explaining who they are and what they do. In this particular case, the omission of background information