Overreaching: Priority of Rights to Domain Names ?
- Thread starter Wanda
- Start date
CyberKing
Domain Investor
Thanks @Wanda , great article with reference to these cases in public domain over the last two weeks. @Jeff It is not about complainant or their attorneys awareness, it is about "Reverse high jacking" being full aware and looking for loopholes to wrest control. Here the technicality of "renewal" is interestingly expounded upon.
Quite a few punch lines and right on, some key statements for me were:
"Both the UDRP and ACPA are dedicated to evicting squatters, but not all holders of domain names corresponding to trademarks are squatters. Priority of right or legitimate interest is a significant factor in determining whether there is an actionable claim for cybersquatting under either regime."
"If the new use spells out a claim for trademark infringement it belongs in federal court. "
"The consensus is firm in holding that renewal is not a triggering event for bad faith even with proof of bad faith use."
"Owners of arguably suggestive generic terms and descriptive phrases registered or claimed as trademarks have no privileged rights to domain names whether or not the trademarks existed prior to domain name registrations."
"This presupposes that the business of buying, selling, and holding domain names in inventory is unlawful in itself, which it isn’t as UDRP Panels have overwhelmingly affirmed."
Wish INDRP proceedings are overhauled and appointed panelists kept pace and were educated in such complex times we live in as these cases illustrate.
In summary IMO a higher threshold needs to be met before a claim can be entertained and when no evidence of bad faith exists, then deemed frivolous, claimant should be penalized.
Quite a few punch lines and right on, some key statements for me were:
"Both the UDRP and ACPA are dedicated to evicting squatters, but not all holders of domain names corresponding to trademarks are squatters. Priority of right or legitimate interest is a significant factor in determining whether there is an actionable claim for cybersquatting under either regime."
"If the new use spells out a claim for trademark infringement it belongs in federal court. "
"The consensus is firm in holding that renewal is not a triggering event for bad faith even with proof of bad faith use."
"Owners of arguably suggestive generic terms and descriptive phrases registered or claimed as trademarks have no privileged rights to domain names whether or not the trademarks existed prior to domain name registrations."
"This presupposes that the business of buying, selling, and holding domain names in inventory is unlawful in itself, which it isn’t as UDRP Panels have overwhelmingly affirmed."
Wish INDRP proceedings are overhauled and appointed panelists kept pace and were educated in such complex times we live in as these cases illustrate.
In summary IMO a higher threshold needs to be met before a claim can be entertained and when no evidence of bad faith exists, then deemed frivolous, claimant should be penalized.
Similar threads
