UDRP Case Summaries

Is This a Trademark Dispute or Cybersquatting? The Respondent in <ensure-nest .com> has an apparently genuine business and website selling ENSURE-branded bird nests, thereby demonstrating that this smacks of a trademark dispute rather than a cybersquatting dispute. Read more here.  We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 3.38), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with

The most notable aspects of <sage .ai> case are: Dealing in domain names in the secondary market is a legitimate trading activity. By its very nature, domain name investing is speculative. A domainer usually has the intention of reselling domain names at a price in excess of the purchase price. Being a domainer is a risky business and is not

The Challenge of Applying the Passive Holding Doctrine in the Absence of a Response by Nat Cohen. While most disputes are undefended, that usually poses little problem for a Panel as the Disputed Domain Name is often put to an obvious bad faith use or it is often the typosquat of a famous, distinctive mark. Read here We hope you will

Ultra Premium Two-Letter .COM Recovered in Theft Case Two-letter .com domain names like PV .com are extraordinarily valuable and sought after. They are the ultra-luxury real estate of the domain name space. Think, Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, the Peak in Hong Kong, and Belgravia in London. Just last week, the ultra-premium domain name, VT.com sold for USD $2.5 million.

How Would You Decide the Screencast .ai dispute? In the dispute over the screencast .ai domain name, the legally represented Respondent claims that the term “screencast” has become genericized over the 15 years that have passed since it was first registered as a trademark. The Complainant asserts that it is still a valid trademark and that by offering screencast .ai

Does the Policy Deal with a Business Dispute Between the Parties?  Although the UDRP is not intended to address “business disputes” per se, it is not uncommon for employers to bring Complaints against former employees who are alleged to have “absconded” with the employer’s domain name which was registered in the name of the employee… (for full commentary by Zak

How is fuck3cx .com confusingly similar to 3CX? The UDRP only applies where:  (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; The confusingly similar test is related to the legal concept of “likelihood of confusion…  Note: We will be taking next week off so there won’t be

Smartney .co: Did the Respondent target Smartney .com, when he registered Smartney .CO? We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (Vol. 3.31), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with commentary from our General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch and Editor, Ankur Raheja. (We invite guest commenters to contact us.) ‣ Cybersquatting on the .CO is Not So Smart (smartney

Undefended AKU .COM Transferred Despite No Evidence of Targeting This inactive high-value domain name is capable of a multitude of non-infringing uses and was never used to target the Complainant. How did it end up transferred? We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (Vol. 3.30), as we review these noteworthy recent decisions, with commentary from our Director,

Today in UDRP History On July 18, 2002, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a decision in Black v. Molson, overturning NAF Panelist Robert Merhige’s Order transferring “Canadian .biz” to Molson. Panelist Merhige had inter alia found that since the recorded registrant, “%2d%2d”, didn’t exist – despite it being an apparent URL encoding glitch – that neither “it” nor