UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) was established and adopted at ICANN’s inception as a dispute resolution policy to resolve disputes between trademark holders and domain owners more quickly and cost-effectively than judicial litigation.
February 27, 2024
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
February 14, 2024
RDNH Finding in ‘No Response’ Case I found this decision particularly satisfying. It is well known that people do things online that they otherwise wouldn’t do in person. The same holds true with the UDRP. As counsel, would you dare certify an obviously incomplete or inaccurate pleading if you had to face the judge in person in a court room?
February 6, 2024
Respondent Fails to ‘Clearly and Accurately Disclose’ Relationship With Complainant Although the Oki Data test has consistently been applied since 2001, it is best used as a guide and adapted as necessary by Panels. In other words, it is not enshrined in stone, but rather can be a helpful yardstick by which to measure the good or bad faith of
January 30, 2024
Complainant Failing to Meet Standing Requirement of the Policy, Reprimanded: The first element of the Policy serves as a “standing requirement” under the UDRP. The threshold inquiry under the first element of the Policy typically involves a relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed Domain Name, read more. [Read further commentary] We hope you will enjoy this edition
January 24, 2024
No Love for 3-Paragraph Complaint Over Descriptive Domain, Despite Trademark It is noteworthy and gratifying that the Panel in this matter saw fit to declare Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. This does not appear to have been a cybersquatting case, but rather an instance of a Complainant coveting a similar domain name that had been lawfully used for over ten years.
January 16, 2024
We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 4.3), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us): ‣ Complainant Relies on Odd Copyright Registration But Escapes RDNH (jye .com *with commentary) ‣ Insufficient Evidence to Apply “Telstra” (hackensackmeridianhealth .xyz *with commentary) ‣ Refiled Complaint Succeeds But is this
January 9, 2024
We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 4.2), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us): ‣ Telstra Doctrine Narrow in Application (tractus .com *with commentary) ‣ Century Domain Alleged Stolen (century .com *with commentary) ‣ Complaint Inadequate but Succeeds Anyhow (thenaturesconservancy .org *with commentary) ‣ Lack
January 3, 2024
We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 4.1), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us): ‣ Respondent Had Right to Buy Trademarked Term at Auction (sleeprx .com) ‣ Non-Use of ‘GM Europe’ Leads to Inference of Bad Faith (gmeurope .com) ‣ Valuable Three-Letter .COM Not Registered
December 12, 2023
Complainant Attempts to “Monopolize” Common Indian Term Under the first part of the test, the Panelist quite rightly denied confusing similarity despite the fact that both the Complainant’s mark and the disputed Domain Name contained the word, “jodi”. As the Panelist inter alia pointed out, not only were the marks not confusingly similar in a side-by-side comparison, but since the
December 5, 2023
Mar-a-Lago is a Florida Man’s Pet Memorial? While the panel found that Respondent’s explanation for its registering the disputed Domain Name “strain[s] credulity”, it noted that the website content did provide at least some modicum of support. More importantly, the MAR-A-LAGO trademark registration submitted into evidence by the Complainant issued in April of 1997, one month after Respondent registered the