SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 14
Domain Disputes
Overview of UDRP Procedures
6/5/2015
Domains = $$$$
• dellfinancialservices.com
• kodak.ru: 1 year + 20
lawsuits later
• myverizonwireless.com,
iphoneverizonplans.com,
and verizon-cellular.com:
$33 million later. . .
• scartletjohansson.com:
Scam sweepstakes to
collect e-mail addresses
• BBC.com: Had to win
back its domain
Why Dispute/Defend a Domain?
• Domain Hijacking (“Cyber Squatting”):
Register to resell
• Typo Squatting: Registering common
misspellings of famous domains to resell or
confuse consumers
• Reverse Domain Hijacking: Making false
cyber squatting claim to force domain transfer
• Confusion: Domain is like TM and site
markets similar products
UDRP Nuts and Bolts
• Uniform Domain-Name Resolution Policy (UDRP)
• Jurisdiction: Why UDRP?
– Registrant must "represent and warrant", registering
"will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights
of any third party”
– Registrant agrees to participate in UDRP process
• Who Can File: Any legal entity
– Owning a registered trademark
– Licensed to use a registered trademark
– Able to establish rights in a well known prior
trademark, or
– show an unregistered use
UDRP Nuts and Bolts: Cont.
• Available Relief:
– The transfer of the domain name: No opportunity
to recover damages
– top level domain names ("gTLDs": e.g. .com;
.info; .biz; .mobi; .net; .org)
– names corresponding to the codes of countries
("ccTLDs")which have adopted the UDRP
– Countries not adopting UDRP handled locally
• Cost: Depends on Forum and Panel Size
– WIPO Arbitration Center: $1500/$4000
– National Arbitration Forum: $1300/$2600
– Budget $1500 to $5000 (or more) attorney time
depending on complexity
UDRP Nuts and Bolts: Cont.
• Timing: Complaint through final Decision
– Average around 60 days, less if no response
– Extensions of time available for “extenuating”
circumstances
– Actual domain transfer estimate additional 2-4
weeks
• Losing Domain holder has 10 days after
decision to file a lawsuit before transfer
• Must request transfer! Not automatic
The Complaint: Prove Three Elements
• Domain name is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the complainant has rights
• Domain name holder has no rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain
name
• The domain name has been registered and is
being used in bad faith
The Complaint: Identical or Confusing
• Only similarity between the trademark and the
domain name is considered
• The panel makes a visual and verbal
comparison taking the trademark's distinctive
nature into account.
• Panel does not consider the products or
services (in this step) – not a substantive
likelihood of confusion analysis
The Complaint: No Legitimate Interest
• Must try to prove a negative
• Offer evidence of lack of rights:
– Parked domain: Not using it?
– Content of site: Is it a real company doing
business?
– Passing off?
– Commonly known by domain name?
• Burden of proof then on domain holder to
dispute complainant's evidence and show
legitimate interest
• Not an exclusive list: Bring any evidence
The Complaint: Used in Bad Faith
• Sell/rent to the Complainant/TM owner or to a competitor
for value beyond out-of-pocket costs directly related to the
domain
• Prevent the Complainant/TM owner from reflecting the
mark in a corresponding domain name (must show
pattern of such conduct)
• Trying to disrupt the business of a competitor
• Trying to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement
• Can show other evidence: Not an exclusive list
The Response: Disprove Only One Element
• Domain name is not identical or confusingly
similar: Sometimes tough to do.
• Have rights or legitimate interest:
– Put on proof of business activity using the mark
– More time is better
• Not registered in bad faith
– No need to prove bad faith if shown legitimate
interest in the mark
– Argue it, but Panel may stop at legitimate interest
• Laches: A recent defense but effective one.
– Complainant new about the domain and did nothing
until now. Longer is better! (ex. <15 years)
– Harm to legitimate interest of domain holder very
helpful
Overview of UDRP process
Practice Tips
• Read the rules and the policy! (and
supplemental rules for your forum!)
• Start with current copy of model
complaint/response
• Threaten registrar to give up domain holder’s
info: May be able to resolve early
• Understand the issues and try to resolve early
• Not a Trademark lawsuit: Stay on point
• Use past UDRP cases in arguments
• Exhibits: Include them! More is better
Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)
• Quicker/Cheaper: $350-$500, 20-25 days
• Applies only to new gTLDs, or ccTLDs adopting URS
• Additional defenses written into URS:
– Domain is descriptive, and making fair use
– Domain is operated as a tribute or criticism in FU
– Domain not part of a pattern
• No opportunity to amend complaint
• Higher Standard of Proof:
– Complaint denied where Panel finds contestable issue
– lack of clear and convincing evidence
• Cannot assert common law TM Rights
• Domain is suspended, not transferred
• Why use it? Registered TM vs. clear cybersquatting

More Related Content

What's hot

Intellectual property rights in cyberspace
Intellectual property rights in cyberspaceIntellectual property rights in cyberspace
Intellectual property rights in cyberspace
Ristya Anditha
 
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Uniform Domain Name Dispute ResolutionUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
libertyluver
 
International organizations, agencies and treaties
International organizations, agencies and treatiesInternational organizations, agencies and treaties
International organizations, agencies and treaties
Rajalingam Balakrishnan
 
Cybersquatting
CybersquattingCybersquatting
Cybersquatting
bobbyb85
 
Purpose, function &amp; acquisition of trade marks
Purpose, function &amp; acquisition of trade marksPurpose, function &amp; acquisition of trade marks
Purpose, function &amp; acquisition of trade marks
Rajalingam Balakrishnan
 
Chapter 8 – Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
Chapter 8 – Intellectual Property and Unfair CompetitionChapter 8 – Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
Chapter 8 – Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
UAF_BA330
 
Intellectual Property Management Learning Module
Intellectual Property Management Learning ModuleIntellectual Property Management Learning Module
Intellectual Property Management Learning Module
EnterpriseCulturalHeritage
 
International trade mark law &amp; copy right law
International trade mark law &amp; copy right lawInternational trade mark law &amp; copy right law
International trade mark law &amp; copy right law
Rajalingam Balakrishnan
 

What's hot (20)

Cyber law & Intellectual property issues
Cyber law & Intellectual property issuesCyber law & Intellectual property issues
Cyber law & Intellectual property issues
 
DOMAIN NAME AND CYBER SQUATTING
DOMAIN NAME AND CYBER SQUATTINGDOMAIN NAME AND CYBER SQUATTING
DOMAIN NAME AND CYBER SQUATTING
 
Intellectual property rights in cyberspace
Intellectual property rights in cyberspaceIntellectual property rights in cyberspace
Intellectual property rights in cyberspace
 
Unit 5 Intellectual Property Protection in Cyberspace
Unit 5  Intellectual Property Protection in CyberspaceUnit 5  Intellectual Property Protection in Cyberspace
Unit 5 Intellectual Property Protection in Cyberspace
 
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Uniform Domain Name Dispute ResolutionUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
 
International organizations, agencies and treaties
International organizations, agencies and treatiesInternational organizations, agencies and treaties
International organizations, agencies and treaties
 
Protectable matter
Protectable matterProtectable matter
Protectable matter
 
Copyright Law and Trademark Law in Cyberspace
Copyright Law and Trademark Law in CyberspaceCopyright Law and Trademark Law in Cyberspace
Copyright Law and Trademark Law in Cyberspace
 
Cybersquatting
CybersquattingCybersquatting
Cybersquatting
 
Trademark Intellectual Property Law
Trademark Intellectual Property LawTrademark Intellectual Property Law
Trademark Intellectual Property Law
 
Copyright issues in cyberspace
Copyright issues in cyberspaceCopyright issues in cyberspace
Copyright issues in cyberspace
 
Icann presentation (general)
Icann presentation (general)Icann presentation (general)
Icann presentation (general)
 
Right to privacy on internet and Data Protection
Right to privacy on internet and Data ProtectionRight to privacy on internet and Data Protection
Right to privacy on internet and Data Protection
 
Purpose, function &amp; acquisition of trade marks
Purpose, function &amp; acquisition of trade marksPurpose, function &amp; acquisition of trade marks
Purpose, function &amp; acquisition of trade marks
 
Chapter 8 – Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
Chapter 8 – Intellectual Property and Unfair CompetitionChapter 8 – Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
Chapter 8 – Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
 
Trademark infringement and passing off remedies
Trademark infringement and passing off remediesTrademark infringement and passing off remedies
Trademark infringement and passing off remedies
 
Case study on trademark infringement
Case study on trademark infringementCase study on trademark infringement
Case study on trademark infringement
 
Cyberspace jurisdiction meaning and concept
Cyberspace jurisdiction meaning and conceptCyberspace jurisdiction meaning and concept
Cyberspace jurisdiction meaning and concept
 
Intellectual Property Management Learning Module
Intellectual Property Management Learning ModuleIntellectual Property Management Learning Module
Intellectual Property Management Learning Module
 
International trade mark law &amp; copy right law
International trade mark law &amp; copy right lawInternational trade mark law &amp; copy right law
International trade mark law &amp; copy right law
 

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

UDRP and other acronyms: reshaping online rights protection through ADR
UDRP and other acronyms: reshaping online rights protection through ADRUDRP and other acronyms: reshaping online rights protection through ADR
UDRP and other acronyms: reshaping online rights protection through ADR
 
Dr. David Taylor - Protecting your brand in new gTLDs
Dr. David Taylor - Protecting your brand in new gTLDsDr. David Taylor - Protecting your brand in new gTLDs
Dr. David Taylor - Protecting your brand in new gTLDs
 
ICANN RPMs: Evolution, Revolution, or Better the Devil you know?
ICANN RPMs: Evolution, Revolution, or Better the Devil you know?ICANN RPMs: Evolution, Revolution, or Better the Devil you know?
ICANN RPMs: Evolution, Revolution, or Better the Devil you know?
 
Tmch 101 -u587_en_june_2013_screen
Tmch 101 -u587_en_june_2013_screenTmch 101 -u587_en_june_2013_screen
Tmch 101 -u587_en_june_2013_screen
 
Case Study On Domain Name Dispute
Case Study On Domain Name DisputeCase Study On Domain Name Dispute
Case Study On Domain Name Dispute
 
Masterclass on Cyberlaw---Practical Guide on Internet Domain Names Disputes
Masterclass on Cyberlaw---Practical Guide on Internet Domain Names DisputesMasterclass on Cyberlaw---Practical Guide on Internet Domain Names Disputes
Masterclass on Cyberlaw---Practical Guide on Internet Domain Names Disputes
 
ICANN &amp; UDRP Update 2009
ICANN &amp; UDRP Update 2009ICANN &amp; UDRP Update 2009
ICANN &amp; UDRP Update 2009
 
ICANN 51: Rights Protection Mechanisms: User Feedback Session
ICANN 51: Rights Protection Mechanisms:  User Feedback SessionICANN 51: Rights Protection Mechanisms:  User Feedback Session
ICANN 51: Rights Protection Mechanisms: User Feedback Session
 
Neuroscience Brightens Up the Grey Area of User Feedback
Neuroscience Brightens Up the Grey Area of User FeedbackNeuroscience Brightens Up the Grey Area of User Feedback
Neuroscience Brightens Up the Grey Area of User Feedback
 
.brand -Trade Mark Protection and the Internet Revolution
.brand -Trade Mark Protection and the Internet Revolution.brand -Trade Mark Protection and the Internet Revolution
.brand -Trade Mark Protection and the Internet Revolution
 
Three Layers of Digital Governance Infographic (English)
Three Layers of Digital Governance Infographic (English)Three Layers of Digital Governance Infographic (English)
Three Layers of Digital Governance Infographic (English)
 
August 2015 Litigation Luncheon
August 2015 Litigation LuncheonAugust 2015 Litigation Luncheon
August 2015 Litigation Luncheon
 
2015 October Patent Prosecution Lunch
2015 October Patent Prosecution Lunch 2015 October Patent Prosecution Lunch
2015 October Patent Prosecution Lunch
 
July 2015 Trademark Update
July 2015 Trademark UpdateJuly 2015 Trademark Update
July 2015 Trademark Update
 
Federal Rules Update
Federal Rules UpdateFederal Rules Update
Federal Rules Update
 
August 2015 Patent Prosecution Lunch
August 2015 Patent Prosecution LunchAugust 2015 Patent Prosecution Lunch
August 2015 Patent Prosecution Lunch
 
January 2016 Patent Prosecution Lunch
January 2016 Patent Prosecution LunchJanuary 2016 Patent Prosecution Lunch
January 2016 Patent Prosecution Lunch
 
2016 07-Patent Prosecution Lunch
2016 07-Patent Prosecution Lunch2016 07-Patent Prosecution Lunch
2016 07-Patent Prosecution Lunch
 
In re tam presentation
In re tam presentationIn re tam presentation
In re tam presentation
 
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016
 

Similar to Domain Dispute Presentation

Recent Developments KU 2016 - 646344_1
Recent Developments KU 2016 - 646344_1Recent Developments KU 2016 - 646344_1
Recent Developments KU 2016 - 646344_1
Crissa (Seymour) Cook
 
Inventor boot camp 2010
Inventor boot camp 2010Inventor boot camp 2010
Inventor boot camp 2010
dr2tom
 
Bond e commerce lecture 113
Bond e commerce lecture 113Bond e commerce lecture 113
Bond e commerce lecture 113
Pod Legal
 

Similar to Domain Dispute Presentation (20)

13530912_2.PPT
13530912_2.PPT13530912_2.PPT
13530912_2.PPT
 
Recent Developments KU 2016 - 646344_1
Recent Developments KU 2016 - 646344_1Recent Developments KU 2016 - 646344_1
Recent Developments KU 2016 - 646344_1
 
Kieran moore ip and contracts for web developers
Kieran moore   ip and contracts  for web developersKieran moore   ip and contracts  for web developers
Kieran moore ip and contracts for web developers
 
Lean IP
Lean IPLean IP
Lean IP
 
Social Media and Your Staff by Brian Miller and Jean Boyle, solicitors at Sto...
Social Media and Your Staff by Brian Miller and Jean Boyle, solicitors at Sto...Social Media and Your Staff by Brian Miller and Jean Boyle, solicitors at Sto...
Social Media and Your Staff by Brian Miller and Jean Boyle, solicitors at Sto...
 
Smx 2010 Gripe Domains
Smx 2010 Gripe DomainsSmx 2010 Gripe Domains
Smx 2010 Gripe Domains
 
Rambus v. FTC
Rambus v. FTCRambus v. FTC
Rambus v. FTC
 
WordCamp Talk 2014
WordCamp Talk 2014WordCamp Talk 2014
WordCamp Talk 2014
 
April 2011 - Business Law & Order - Mark G. Malven
April 2011 - Business Law & Order - Mark G. MalvenApril 2011 - Business Law & Order - Mark G. Malven
April 2011 - Business Law & Order - Mark G. Malven
 
Inventor boot camp 2010
Inventor boot camp 2010Inventor boot camp 2010
Inventor boot camp 2010
 
PLS 780 Week 8
PLS 780 Week 8PLS 780 Week 8
PLS 780 Week 8
 
Pls 780 week 8
Pls 780 week 8Pls 780 week 8
Pls 780 week 8
 
Master of Your Domain?
Master of Your Domain?Master of Your Domain?
Master of Your Domain?
 
Introduction to IP - Part 2: Some Basics of U.S. Patents
Introduction to IP - Part 2: Some Basics of U.S. PatentsIntroduction to IP - Part 2: Some Basics of U.S. Patents
Introduction to IP - Part 2: Some Basics of U.S. Patents
 
Patent Litigation Issues and the America Invents Act
Patent Litigation Issues and the America Invents ActPatent Litigation Issues and the America Invents Act
Patent Litigation Issues and the America Invents Act
 
Avoid Patent Pitfalls and Obstacles Over the Lifetime of Your Innovation by P...
Avoid Patent Pitfalls and Obstacles Over the Lifetime of Your Innovation by P...Avoid Patent Pitfalls and Obstacles Over the Lifetime of Your Innovation by P...
Avoid Patent Pitfalls and Obstacles Over the Lifetime of Your Innovation by P...
 
DomainSkate NYEBN Presentation 5-14-14
DomainSkate NYEBN Presentation 5-14-14DomainSkate NYEBN Presentation 5-14-14
DomainSkate NYEBN Presentation 5-14-14
 
Trademark Law - Brand protection in the digital age
Trademark Law - Brand protection in the digital ageTrademark Law - Brand protection in the digital age
Trademark Law - Brand protection in the digital age
 
Bond e commerce lecture 113
Bond e commerce lecture 113Bond e commerce lecture 113
Bond e commerce lecture 113
 
Business Law & Order - January 21, 2012
Business Law & Order - January 21, 2012Business Law & Order - January 21, 2012
Business Law & Order - January 21, 2012
 

More from Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP

More from Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP (20)

2017 08-patent prosecution lunch
2017 08-patent prosecution lunch2017 08-patent prosecution lunch
2017 08-patent prosecution lunch
 
Recent Developments in US Trademark Law
Recent Developments in US Trademark LawRecent Developments in US Trademark Law
Recent Developments in US Trademark Law
 
2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch
2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch
2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch
 
February 2017 Patent Prosecution Lunch
February 2017 Patent Prosecution LunchFebruary 2017 Patent Prosecution Lunch
February 2017 Patent Prosecution Lunch
 
Alice Corp Update 2016 Cases
Alice Corp Update 2016 CasesAlice Corp Update 2016 Cases
Alice Corp Update 2016 Cases
 
2017 January Patent Prosecution Lunch
2017 January Patent Prosecution Lunch2017 January Patent Prosecution Lunch
2017 January Patent Prosecution Lunch
 
2016 September Patent Prosecution Lunch
2016 September Patent Prosecution Lunch2016 September Patent Prosecution Lunch
2016 September Patent Prosecution Lunch
 
2016 August Patent Prosecution Lunch
2016 August Patent Prosecution Lunch2016 August Patent Prosecution Lunch
2016 August Patent Prosecution Lunch
 
Review of Recent IP Supreme Court Cases
Review of Recent IP Supreme Court CasesReview of Recent IP Supreme Court Cases
Review of Recent IP Supreme Court Cases
 
July 2016 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Update
July 2016 Trademark Prosecution Lunch UpdateJuly 2016 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Update
July 2016 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Update
 
January 2016 Trademark Prosecution Lunch
January 2016  Trademark Prosecution LunchJanuary 2016  Trademark Prosecution Lunch
January 2016 Trademark Prosecution Lunch
 
International Copyright Protection Primer
International Copyright Protection PrimerInternational Copyright Protection Primer
International Copyright Protection Primer
 
CLE - Introduction to IP Law
CLE - Introduction to IP LawCLE - Introduction to IP Law
CLE - Introduction to IP Law
 
July 2015 Patent Case Update
July 2015 Patent Case UpdateJuly 2015 Patent Case Update
July 2015 Patent Case Update
 
Patent Prosecution Lunch of July 2015
Patent Prosecution Lunch of July 2015Patent Prosecution Lunch of July 2015
Patent Prosecution Lunch of July 2015
 
Recent Change to the Indiana Code to Address Patent Demand Letters from Paten...
Recent Change to the Indiana Code to Address Patent Demand Letters from Paten...Recent Change to the Indiana Code to Address Patent Demand Letters from Paten...
Recent Change to the Indiana Code to Address Patent Demand Letters from Paten...
 
Using Intellectual Property as Collateral for Security Interests - May 2015
Using Intellectual Property as Collateral for Security Interests - May 2015Using Intellectual Property as Collateral for Security Interests - May 2015
Using Intellectual Property as Collateral for Security Interests - May 2015
 
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- PCT How to Amend the Application as well as ...
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- PCT How to Amend the Application as well as ...Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- PCT How to Amend the Application as well as ...
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- PCT How to Amend the Application as well as ...
 
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- PCT Search, Written Opinion, & Publication P...
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- PCT Search, Written Opinion, & Publication P...Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- PCT Search, Written Opinion, & Publication P...
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- PCT Search, Written Opinion, & Publication P...
 
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- How to File a PCT Application
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- How to File a PCT ApplicationPatent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- How to File a PCT Application
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)- How to File a PCT Application
 

Recently uploaded

一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
Airst S
 
一比一原版(JCU毕业证书)詹姆斯库克大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(JCU毕业证书)詹姆斯库克大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(JCU毕业证书)詹姆斯库克大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(JCU毕业证书)詹姆斯库克大学毕业证如何办理
Airst S
 
Code_Ethics of_Mechanical_Engineering.ppt
Code_Ethics of_Mechanical_Engineering.pptCode_Ethics of_Mechanical_Engineering.ppt
Code_Ethics of_Mechanical_Engineering.ppt
JosephCanama
 
Audience profile - SF.pptxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Audience profile - SF.pptxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAudience profile - SF.pptxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Audience profile - SF.pptxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MollyBrown86
 
COPYRIGHTS - PPT 01.12.2023 part- 2.pptx
COPYRIGHTS - PPT 01.12.2023 part- 2.pptxCOPYRIGHTS - PPT 01.12.2023 part- 2.pptx
COPYRIGHTS - PPT 01.12.2023 part- 2.pptx
RRR Chambers
 
Appeal and Revision in Income Tax Act.pdf
Appeal and Revision in Income Tax Act.pdfAppeal and Revision in Income Tax Act.pdf
Appeal and Revision in Income Tax Act.pdf
PoojaGadiya1
 
PowerPoint - Legal Citation Form 1 - Case Law.pptx
PowerPoint - Legal Citation Form 1 - Case Law.pptxPowerPoint - Legal Citation Form 1 - Case Law.pptx
PowerPoint - Legal Citation Form 1 - Case Law.pptx
ca2or2tx
 

Recently uploaded (20)

PPT- Voluntary Liquidation (Under section 59).pptx
PPT- Voluntary Liquidation (Under section 59).pptxPPT- Voluntary Liquidation (Under section 59).pptx
PPT- Voluntary Liquidation (Under section 59).pptx
 
Shubh_Burden of proof_Indian Evidence Act.pptx
Shubh_Burden of proof_Indian Evidence Act.pptxShubh_Burden of proof_Indian Evidence Act.pptx
Shubh_Burden of proof_Indian Evidence Act.pptx
 
Philippine FIRE CODE REVIEWER for Architecture Board Exam Takers
Philippine FIRE CODE REVIEWER for Architecture Board Exam TakersPhilippine FIRE CODE REVIEWER for Architecture Board Exam Takers
Philippine FIRE CODE REVIEWER for Architecture Board Exam Takers
 
Hely-Hutchinson v. Brayhead Ltd .pdf
Hely-Hutchinson v. Brayhead Ltd         .pdfHely-Hutchinson v. Brayhead Ltd         .pdf
Hely-Hutchinson v. Brayhead Ltd .pdf
 
$ Love Spells^ 💎 (310) 882-6330 in Utah, UT | Psychic Reading Best Black Magi...
$ Love Spells^ 💎 (310) 882-6330 in Utah, UT | Psychic Reading Best Black Magi...$ Love Spells^ 💎 (310) 882-6330 in Utah, UT | Psychic Reading Best Black Magi...
$ Love Spells^ 💎 (310) 882-6330 in Utah, UT | Psychic Reading Best Black Magi...
 
ARTICLE 370 PDF about the indian constitution.
ARTICLE 370 PDF about the  indian constitution.ARTICLE 370 PDF about the  indian constitution.
ARTICLE 370 PDF about the indian constitution.
 
Transferable and Non-Transferable Property.pptx
Transferable and Non-Transferable Property.pptxTransferable and Non-Transferable Property.pptx
Transferable and Non-Transferable Property.pptx
 
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版埃克塞特大学毕业证如何办理
 
KEY NOTE- IBC(INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY CODE) DESIGN- PPT.pptx
KEY NOTE- IBC(INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY CODE) DESIGN- PPT.pptxKEY NOTE- IBC(INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY CODE) DESIGN- PPT.pptx
KEY NOTE- IBC(INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY CODE) DESIGN- PPT.pptx
 
一比一原版(JCU毕业证书)詹姆斯库克大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(JCU毕业证书)詹姆斯库克大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(JCU毕业证书)詹姆斯库克大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(JCU毕业证书)詹姆斯库克大学毕业证如何办理
 
WhatsApp 📞 8448380779 ✅Call Girls In Nangli Wazidpur Sector 135 ( Noida)
WhatsApp 📞 8448380779 ✅Call Girls In Nangli Wazidpur Sector 135 ( Noida)WhatsApp 📞 8448380779 ✅Call Girls In Nangli Wazidpur Sector 135 ( Noida)
WhatsApp 📞 8448380779 ✅Call Girls In Nangli Wazidpur Sector 135 ( Noida)
 
The doctrine of harmonious construction under Interpretation of statute
The doctrine of harmonious construction under Interpretation of statuteThe doctrine of harmonious construction under Interpretation of statute
The doctrine of harmonious construction under Interpretation of statute
 
Code_Ethics of_Mechanical_Engineering.ppt
Code_Ethics of_Mechanical_Engineering.pptCode_Ethics of_Mechanical_Engineering.ppt
Code_Ethics of_Mechanical_Engineering.ppt
 
Audience profile - SF.pptxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Audience profile - SF.pptxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAudience profile - SF.pptxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Audience profile - SF.pptxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Jim Eiberger Redacted Copy Of Tenant Lease.pdf
Jim Eiberger Redacted Copy Of Tenant Lease.pdfJim Eiberger Redacted Copy Of Tenant Lease.pdf
Jim Eiberger Redacted Copy Of Tenant Lease.pdf
 
COPYRIGHTS - PPT 01.12.2023 part- 2.pptx
COPYRIGHTS - PPT 01.12.2023 part- 2.pptxCOPYRIGHTS - PPT 01.12.2023 part- 2.pptx
COPYRIGHTS - PPT 01.12.2023 part- 2.pptx
 
Appeal and Revision in Income Tax Act.pdf
Appeal and Revision in Income Tax Act.pdfAppeal and Revision in Income Tax Act.pdf
Appeal and Revision in Income Tax Act.pdf
 
PowerPoint - Legal Citation Form 1 - Case Law.pptx
PowerPoint - Legal Citation Form 1 - Case Law.pptxPowerPoint - Legal Citation Form 1 - Case Law.pptx
PowerPoint - Legal Citation Form 1 - Case Law.pptx
 
CAFC Chronicles: Costly Tales of Claim Construction Fails
CAFC Chronicles: Costly Tales of Claim Construction FailsCAFC Chronicles: Costly Tales of Claim Construction Fails
CAFC Chronicles: Costly Tales of Claim Construction Fails
 
Smarp Snapshot 210 -- Google's Social Media Ad Fraud & Disinformation Strategy
Smarp Snapshot 210 -- Google's Social Media Ad Fraud & Disinformation StrategySmarp Snapshot 210 -- Google's Social Media Ad Fraud & Disinformation Strategy
Smarp Snapshot 210 -- Google's Social Media Ad Fraud & Disinformation Strategy
 

Domain Dispute Presentation

  • 1. Domain Disputes Overview of UDRP Procedures 6/5/2015
  • 2. Domains = $$$$ • dellfinancialservices.com • kodak.ru: 1 year + 20 lawsuits later • myverizonwireless.com, iphoneverizonplans.com, and verizon-cellular.com: $33 million later. . . • scartletjohansson.com: Scam sweepstakes to collect e-mail addresses • BBC.com: Had to win back its domain
  • 3. Why Dispute/Defend a Domain? • Domain Hijacking (“Cyber Squatting”): Register to resell • Typo Squatting: Registering common misspellings of famous domains to resell or confuse consumers • Reverse Domain Hijacking: Making false cyber squatting claim to force domain transfer • Confusion: Domain is like TM and site markets similar products
  • 4. UDRP Nuts and Bolts • Uniform Domain-Name Resolution Policy (UDRP) • Jurisdiction: Why UDRP? – Registrant must "represent and warrant", registering "will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party” – Registrant agrees to participate in UDRP process • Who Can File: Any legal entity – Owning a registered trademark – Licensed to use a registered trademark – Able to establish rights in a well known prior trademark, or – show an unregistered use
  • 5. UDRP Nuts and Bolts: Cont. • Available Relief: – The transfer of the domain name: No opportunity to recover damages – top level domain names ("gTLDs": e.g. .com; .info; .biz; .mobi; .net; .org) – names corresponding to the codes of countries ("ccTLDs")which have adopted the UDRP – Countries not adopting UDRP handled locally • Cost: Depends on Forum and Panel Size – WIPO Arbitration Center: $1500/$4000 – National Arbitration Forum: $1300/$2600 – Budget $1500 to $5000 (or more) attorney time depending on complexity
  • 6. UDRP Nuts and Bolts: Cont. • Timing: Complaint through final Decision – Average around 60 days, less if no response – Extensions of time available for “extenuating” circumstances – Actual domain transfer estimate additional 2-4 weeks • Losing Domain holder has 10 days after decision to file a lawsuit before transfer • Must request transfer! Not automatic
  • 7. The Complaint: Prove Three Elements • Domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights • Domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name • The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
  • 8. The Complaint: Identical or Confusing • Only similarity between the trademark and the domain name is considered • The panel makes a visual and verbal comparison taking the trademark's distinctive nature into account. • Panel does not consider the products or services (in this step) – not a substantive likelihood of confusion analysis
  • 9. The Complaint: No Legitimate Interest • Must try to prove a negative • Offer evidence of lack of rights: – Parked domain: Not using it? – Content of site: Is it a real company doing business? – Passing off? – Commonly known by domain name? • Burden of proof then on domain holder to dispute complainant's evidence and show legitimate interest • Not an exclusive list: Bring any evidence
  • 10. The Complaint: Used in Bad Faith • Sell/rent to the Complainant/TM owner or to a competitor for value beyond out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain • Prevent the Complainant/TM owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name (must show pattern of such conduct) • Trying to disrupt the business of a competitor • Trying to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement • Can show other evidence: Not an exclusive list
  • 11. The Response: Disprove Only One Element • Domain name is not identical or confusingly similar: Sometimes tough to do. • Have rights or legitimate interest: – Put on proof of business activity using the mark – More time is better • Not registered in bad faith – No need to prove bad faith if shown legitimate interest in the mark – Argue it, but Panel may stop at legitimate interest • Laches: A recent defense but effective one. – Complainant new about the domain and did nothing until now. Longer is better! (ex. <15 years) – Harm to legitimate interest of domain holder very helpful
  • 12. Overview of UDRP process
  • 13. Practice Tips • Read the rules and the policy! (and supplemental rules for your forum!) • Start with current copy of model complaint/response • Threaten registrar to give up domain holder’s info: May be able to resolve early • Understand the issues and try to resolve early • Not a Trademark lawsuit: Stay on point • Use past UDRP cases in arguments • Exhibits: Include them! More is better
  • 14. Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) • Quicker/Cheaper: $350-$500, 20-25 days • Applies only to new gTLDs, or ccTLDs adopting URS • Additional defenses written into URS: – Domain is descriptive, and making fair use – Domain is operated as a tribute or criticism in FU – Domain not part of a pattern • No opportunity to amend complaint • Higher Standard of Proof: – Complaint denied where Panel finds contestable issue – lack of clear and convincing evidence • Cannot assert common law TM Rights • Domain is suspended, not transferred • Why use it? Registered TM vs. clear cybersquatting