The UDRP Blog™

In Forever 21 v. Matthias Moench , WIPO Case No. D2008-0258 (J. Nelson Landry, April 16, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of foever.com. The Complainant owned the registered mark FOREVER 21, and the Panel was readily satisfied that the omission of the first "r" in FOREVER within the disputed domain evidenced actionable typosquatting. This conclusion was bolstered by the fact that the Respondent used the disputed domain in connection with a website containing a link farm, and had been on the losing end of four prior UDRP decisions. In reaching its decision, the Panel addressed two "potential" defenses. I say "potential" because these defenses would have had a better chance of success if the Respondent filed an argumentative response. As in the majority of UDRP cases, however, the Respondent defaulted and suffered the consequences of such default. The first potential defense related to the scope of the Complainant's trademark rights and the Respond...

In Georgia Power Company, the Southern Company v. Wang Congming , WIPO Case No. D2008-0234 (David Taylor, April 16, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of gerogiapower.com to the Complainant. Aside from the addition of the top level domain (.com) and the inversion of the "o" and "r" in "Georgia," the domain name was identical to the Complainant's registered GEORGIA POWER trademark. The case is a classic example of typosquatting, where domain profiteers seek to capture on typing mistakes made by Internet surfers seeking a particular website. In this case, the Panel found that "[t]he misspelling of the GEORGIA POWER mark in the domain name is with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination and direct them to the Respondent’s website." This conclusion was easy for the Panel, as "[t]he website under the disputed domain name contains links to 'Georgia Power', 'Georgia Power New Service', 'O...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

In Red Bull GmbH v. Carl Gamel , WIPO Case No. D2008-0253 ( Debrett G. Lyons, April 14, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of redbullsucks .com to the Complainant. In many "sucks" cases (where a party registers a domain name identical to another's trademark with the mere addition of "sucks" and a top-level domain (e.g. ".com")) the Panel refuses to transfer the "sucks" domain. In such cases, it is held that the Respondent is making a "fair use" of the domain name in that it uses the domain's corresponding website solely as a non-commercial gripe site about the trademark owner. In this case, however, the Respondent used its website to complain about the trademark owner and sell competing goods. Therefore, judgment in favor of the Complainant was predictable based on prior decisions. The Panel did go out of its way, however, to specifically disagree with two assertions made by the Complainant, which are discussed below. Fi...

In Futurebazaar India Ltd. v. Rashid Arashid , Chen Xianshang , Bao Shui Chen , WIPO Case No. D2008-0175 (John Swinson , April 10, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of futurebazar.com to a Complainant claiming rights in FUTUREBAZAAR and (more importantly) the domain name futurebazaar.com . With the Respondents defaulting, having a reputation as cyber pirates, and using the disputed domain in connection with a website featuring sponsored links, this matter appeared to be another straightforward typosquatting dispute. The plot thickened, however, when it became clear that the initial Respondent registered the disputed domain before the Complainant filed trademark applications for FUTUREBAZAAR and before Complainant embarked on a $2 million advertising campaign to generate goodwill and establish common law rights in the FUTUREBAZAAR mark. Faced with these facts, the Panel had to acknowledge that "[s] ometimes in similar circumstances, it is difficult to prove bad fait...

Welcome! I've always had an interest in and followed decisions pertaining to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (" UDRP "). Perhaps my interest stems from the fact that, as a young lawyer fresh out of law school, nobody really thought I had much knowledge or experience-- except in the area of Internet law. It was the very fact that I was young that gave people confidence in my understanding of the laws in this area of practice. So I ran with it and determined that I would live up to the reputation that apparently preceded me. And here today more than eight years later, I am still practicing in the area of Internet law, enforcing my clients' rights as they pertain to domain names, keyword advertising, use of Google AdWords, hyperlinking, framing, and use of metatags . I have the privilege of serving on the International Trademark Association's Whois Subcommittee to the Internet Committee, a group that develops policy pertaining to use of proxy se...