UDRP Case Summaries

Recording Now Available from the Inaugural Levine Lecture by Tony Willoughby:  We were honored to have Tony Willoughby deliver the inaugural Levine Lecture.  His insights and unique perspectives on the UDRP made for a compelling talk. We are pleased to announce that the lecture is now available online for you to watch at your convenience. Here is the link to the

Panel: Complainant’s Representatives Likely Knew Case Bound to Fail To the Panel’s credit, the dismissal and finding of RDNH was of course entirely justified as a result of the domain name registration preceding the Complainant’s trademark rights by 16 years. But why did the Respondent have to deal with a case this meritless? Yes, meritless cases are part and parcel

Retroactive Bad Faith is Unquestionably Long Dead It is somewhat surprising to see the discarded and discredited concept of ‘Retroactive Bad Faith’ try to come back from the dead as it did in this case. Retroactive Bad Faith in unquestionably contrary to the Policy as thoroughly discussed in this article: The Rise and Fall of the UDRP Theory of ‘Retroactive

Panel: Four-letter .COMS May Be Inherently Valuable It is notable that the Panelist rightly recognized the inherent value of four-letter .com domain names. Time and time again, UDRP Panels have ruled in favor of respondents when it comes to domain names corresponding to three-letter domain names, including by domain name investors. As explained in SK Lubricants Americas v. Andrea Sabatini,

Three-Letter .COM Registered in 1993, But No RDNH DNW .COM wrote about this case in its article. “GSF.com cybersquatting dispute should have been reverse domain name hijacking”. I understand the frustration expressed by DNW.com in criticizing the absence of an RDNH finding; “But despite this innocent domain owner having to hire a lawyer to defend against a baseless case, and

How to Lose a UDRP Case By Steven M. Levy, Esq. After more than two decades, over one hundred thousand published decisions, and the numerous secondary sources that are available to guide parties, there are now many resources available to prevent the filing of deficient UDRP pleadings. Plus, brand owners only get one bite at using this expedited dispute resolution

Drawing an Inference of Bad Faith from An Asking Price The Converse .co dispute is directly on the fault line created by the different perspectives of a domain investor and a brand owner as to what is, or is not, permissible under the UDRP. It would make a great moot UDRP session, in the model of the one on redball.com

Supplemental Registration Fails This case demonstrates how the particular facts matter, especially when scrutinized by a Panel. If the Complainant had a registered trademark for LEGALNOW in connection with legal services, had prominently used the mark on its website, and had provided evidence that it was very well known, the outcome would have been different. (continue reading commentary).  SIGN UP

What’s Going on with the Passive Holding Doctrine? The Fairmont. Group dispute is more complex and nuanced than it first appears.  It raises four questions about how the UDRP is applied. Is the passive holding doctrine firmly rooted in the language of the UDRP? In a no-response dispute, how is the balance of probabilities determined for the allegation that there

Join us for the inaugural Levine Lecture, part of our annual lecture series honoring Gerald Levine, recipient of the ICA Lifetime Achievement Award for his significant scholarly contributions to the UDRP. Gerry is the author of “Domain Name Arbitration” and the forthcoming “The Clash of Trademarks and Domain Names on the Internet.” We are honored to have Tony Willoughby, an expert