Digital Pandit
Well-Known Member
In February of this year, I wrote about Celgene’s UDRP filing against the CellGene.com domain name. The three member WIPO UDRP panel not only ruled against Celgene, but the panel found that the UDRP was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The domain registrant was permitted to keep the domain name.
Following this UDRP loss, Celgene has apparently filed a cybersquatting lawsuit, according to Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review. Here’s what the publication wrote about the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) lawsuit filed by Celgene:
“In the suit, filed at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday, May 29, Celgene claimed that cellgene.com was an example of “typosquatting” or “cybersquatting”, a process where a domain name is created with a typographical error to closely imitate a more reputable website.”
I believe the requirements to prove cybersquatting in a ACPA lawsuit are different than the UDRP requirements. I am not sure if the UDRP / RDNH decision will have any sort of impact on this federal lawsuit.
Read the full post here
Following this UDRP loss, Celgene has apparently filed a cybersquatting lawsuit, according to Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review. Here’s what the publication wrote about the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) lawsuit filed by Celgene:
“In the suit, filed at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday, May 29, Celgene claimed that cellgene.com was an example of “typosquatting” or “cybersquatting”, a process where a domain name is created with a typographical error to closely imitate a more reputable website.”
I believe the requirements to prove cybersquatting in a ACPA lawsuit are different than the UDRP requirements. I am not sure if the UDRP / RDNH decision will have any sort of impact on this federal lawsuit.
Read the full post here
