DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES EDWARD E. SHARKEY 4641 MONTGOMERY AVENUE SUITE 500 BETHESDA, MD (301)
|
|
- Cory Roberts
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES EDWARD E. SHARKEY 4641 MONTGOMERY AVENUE SUITE 500 BETHESDA, MD (301)
2 CONTENTS Introduction... 3 Domain Name Basics... 4 Trademark Basics... 5 Trademarks in Domain Names... 7 Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Recommendations
3 INTRODUCTION Not surprisingly, the recent boom in online commercial activity has been accompanied by an increase in domain name disputes. On one side are businesses and trademark owners, aware of the value of a domain name that corresponds to the name of their company or trademark. Often, these businesses and trademark owners discover that their desired domain, the one that is the same as their corporate name or trademark, is already registered and being used by someone else an individual who has unwittingly registered the domain, a non-profit that has chosen the domain for a non-commercial purpose, or another business that has selected the domain for the unlawful purpose of profiting from the other s name or mark. Historically, those corporations who have acted to take their desired domain from another user have filed trademark lawsuits, asserting that the use of the domain infringes on or dilutes their trademark. The traditional principles of trademark law, however, were developed without the Internet in mind, and, for this reason, often make it difficult for the business or trademark owner to present a strong trademark case for the domain. Accordingly, Congress passed the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act to make it easier for companies and individuals to take over domain names that are confusingly similar to their names and trademarks. In addition, most accredited domain name registrars require that registrants submit to an arbitral proceeding, governed by the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, to resolve domain disputes. While the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy have filled the gap in protection left by traditional trademark law, many corporate entities use them as swords against legitimate domain name registrants. For example, some companies routinely file claims each time they see their name or mark used on the Internet, without investigating the lawfulness of the use. As a result, many legitimate registrants lose their domain names. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Name Dispute Resolution Policy provide a means for these registrants to get their domains back. Under both regimes, registrants can file a claim for reverse domain name hijacking. names. This paper provides an overview of the law of the use of trademarks in domain 3
4 DOMAIN NAME BASICS Definition: A domain name is an Internet address. It is used to find a website. For example, the web address for The Law Office of Edward E. Sharkey LLC is Without the domain name, a computer would have no idea where to look for the web page of The Law Office of Edward E. Sharkey LLC. Characteristics: Every domain name is divided into a hierarchy. The top-level hierarchy appears after the last dot in a domain name. In the example above,.com is the toplevel domain name. Sharkeylaw is the second-level domain, and www is the subdomain. Domain name disputes concern the second-level name. This is because it is impossible for two identical second-level domain names to exist under the same top-level domain. Registration: United Technologies and United Healthcare would probably both like to have the domain united.com. It is, however, United Airlines that uses the domain. Why would United Airlines trump United Technologies, United Healthcare, or any other business operating under the name United? Presuming that united.com has not been bought, sold, or transferred since its initial registration, it is because United Airlines was the first to apply to register the domain. In order to register a second-level domain name under a top-level domain, a request must be made to the registrars that have the power to assign names for that top-level domain. Registrars of.com,.net, and.org domain names are accredited by The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit formed to control domain name management and perform similar functions. All registrars assign domain names on a first-come, first-served basis, regardless of the registrant s trademark rights in the name. 4
5 TRADEMARK BASICS Definition: A trademark is any word, symbol, or phrase used to identify and distinguish one s goods. The trademark Starbucks, for example, identifies and distinguishes the coffee of one particular company from that of another (e.g., Seattle Coffee Company). When such marks are used to identify services rather than products, they are called service marks. [This paper s discussion of topics related to trademarks applies equally to service marks.] Characteristics: To serve as a trade or service mark, and to be subject to protection under the law, a mark must be distinctive, or capable of identifying the source of a particular good or service. To determine the distinctiveness of marks, courts group them into four categories based on their relationship with the underlying product or service. Generic terms describe the general category to which the underlying product or service belongs, and they cannot serve as trade or service marks. Descriptive terms, those that merely describe the underlying product or service, can serve as a mark only after the consuming public primarily associates them with a particular producer or provider, rather than the underlying product or service. Fanciful and arbitrary marks (those that do not bear a logical relationship to the underlying product or service) and suggestive marks (terms that suggest a characteristic of the underlying product or service without actually describing it) function as marks as soon as they are used in commerce. The Lanham Act: By making goods and services easier to identify, trade and service marks give manufacturers and service providers an incentive to invest in the quality of their goods and services. Trademark law developed to protect these investments and regulate the proper use of marks. Federal trademark law is codified in the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C Assuming a mark is distinctive, rights in the mark can be acquired in two ways. The first way to acquire rights in a mark is by being the first to use the mark in commerce. Trade or service mark rights acquired through use extend only to the geographic area in which the mark is actually used. The second way to obtain rights in a mark is by being the first to register it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Registration of a mark provides its owner with national rights to the mark. Trademark Infringement: The Lanham Act provides a mark owner with a civil cause of action for infringement against parties that use its mark. The remedies available in an infringement action include injunctive relief, costs, and, in exceptional cases, attorney s fees. Where the owner gave the user notice of, or the user had actual notice of, the owner s registration of the mark, the owner may be entitled to the user s profits from use of the mark and/or damages. To succeed on a claim of trademark infringement, the owner must establish that the other party s use of the trademark in connection with the sale of goods is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of the goods or the sponsorship or approval of such goods. Courts typically look at a number of factors in determining the likelihood of confusion, among them: (1) the strength of the mark; 5
6 (2) the similarity of the marks; (3) the similarity of the products or services; (4) the likelihood that the consuming public will perceive that the owner crossed over into the defendant s business; (5) instances of actual confusion; (6) good faith in using the mark; (7) the quality of the defendant s product or service; and (8) the sophistication of the consumers. Trademark Dilution: In addition to a trademark infringement action, the Lanham Act provides that the owner of a famous mark may bring a civil cause of action for dilution. In a dilution claim, the owner must establish (1) that its mark is famous and (2) dilution by blurring (weakening the mark s power by identifying it with dissimilar goods) or by tarnishment (casting the mark in an unflattering light, typically by associating it with inferior or unseemly goods or services). In deciding whether a mark is famous, courts consider many factors, including the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness, the duration and extent of use, the amount of advertising and publicity, the geographic extent of the market, the channels of trade, the degree of recognition in trading areas, any use of similar marks by third parties, and whether the mark is registered. Lawful Trademark Use: There are two basic defenses to a trademark infringement or dilution claim: parody and fair use. It is lawful to use a mark to parody, as long as the parody is not too directly tied to commercial use. Fair use occurs when a term is used descriptively, rather than in a trademark sense. In other words, the mark is used for its primary meaning to describe the product rather than to identify it with a particular source. For example, Ocean Spray s use of sweet-tart to advertise its juice is a descriptive, fair use of the SweeTART candy mark. Some courts have recognized nominative use, closely-related to fair use. Nominative use refers to use of a mark where it is necessary for the purpose of identifying another producer s product, not the user s own product. For example, an America Online mailing directed at AARP members that stated if you tuned into Dick Clark is a nominative, fair use of Dick Clark. 6
7 TRADEMARKS IN DOMAIN NAMES Use: There are a variety of ways in which a registrant can use another s trademark in connection with a domain name. Cybersquatting refers to the purposeful registration of marks as domain names in order to sell them to the mark owner for a hefty price. Similarly, typosquatting involves the registration and use of a domain name that contains a common misspelling of a mark. Cybergriping is the incorporation of a mark into a domain name at which a website critical of the owner is posted. Application of the Lanham Act: Although traditional trademark law does govern the use of a trade or service mark in a domain name, it does not provide adequate protection for the trade or service mark owner in all circumstances. For example, to succeed on a claim of infringement, a mark owner must establish that the registrant of a domain name that corresponds to its mark is using it in a manner that is likely to cause confusion. Because cybersquatting involves the registration of a domain name, rather than its use, a mark owner could not get its domain through an infringement action. For this reason, additional laws and policies have developed in the area of domain name disputes. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA): In November 1999, Congress enacted ACPA, 15 U.S.C The ACPA provides a mark owner with a civil cause of action for cybersquatting. To succeed on a claim under ACPA, a plaintiff must establish that it is the owner of a distinctive or famous mark and that the defendant used, registered, or trafficked in a domain name that is identical, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of the plaintiff s mark, with the bad faith intent to profit therefrom. Where the owner succeeds on its claim under the Act, relief may include injunction, damages, profits, costs, or attorney s fees. Courts use traditional trademark rules and standards to determine if the mark at issue is distinctive or famous, and to determine if the defendant s domain is identical or confusingly similar thereto. The ACPA provides several factors to guide courts in determining whether the defendant has acted in bad faith. Among these are: whether the defendant has trademark rights or other intellectual property rights in the disputed domain, the extent that the domain is the defendant s legal name or a name by which the defendant is commonly known, whether the defendant has made prior use of the domain to identify bona fide goods or services, whether the defendant has made bona fide non-commercial or fair use of the domain, whether it is the defendant s intent to divert consumers from the trademark owner s site to the defendant s site either for commercial gain or to tarnish, dilute or disparage the trademark owner s mark by confusing consumers into believing that the defendant s site is sponsored by the trademark owner, whether the defendant offers the domain for sale to the trademark owner, with the intent to profit from the sale, without intending to use the domain for a bona fide purpose, or there is an indication of a pattern of such conduct, whether the defendant uses false contact information when registering the domain, or has a pattern of such conduct, whether the defendant has acquired multiple domain names which the defendant knows are similar to famous or distinctive marks, and to what extent the trademark used in the domain of the defendant is distinctive or famous. 7
8 The ACPA provides a safe harbor for defendants who have acted in good faith: if the defendant had a good faith belief that its use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful, there will be no bad faith intent. A defendant who has acted, even partially, in bad faith is not entitled to the protection of this provision. For example, in Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, 238 F.2d 264 (4 th Cir. 2001), Virtual Works, Inc. was required to turn over its domain even though it had some legitimate interest in the domain at issue. Virtual Works, an internet service provider, registered the domain vw.net despite the facts that, at the time it did so, it knew that it might be confused with Volkswagen and that other domains, including virtualworks.net, were available. When it chose the name, Virtual Works had in mind the possibility of one day selling it to Volkswagen for a substantial sum, and, when Volkswagen expressed interest in the domain, Virtual Works demanded that it purchase it within twenty-four hours or the domain would be sold to someone else. Volkswagen filed a cybersquatting claim against Virtual Works, and the court entered judgment in Volkswagen s favor. Virtual Works appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that, although Virtual Works had used its initials in the domain in connection with its business, part of the reason it selected the domain was the chance to profit from the association with Volkswagen s famous VW mark. In this manner, Virtual Works engaged in unlawful cybersquatting, and, for that reason, it was forced to turn the domain over to Volkswagen. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): In most instances, an aggrieved trademark owner can opt to institute an administrative proceeding under the UDRP rather than bring a judicial cause of action for the misuse of its mark in a domain name. The UDRP was developed by ICANN, and, within each domain name registration granted by an accredited ICAAN registrar, there is an agreement to submit disputes concerning the domain to a UDRP proceeding for resolution. At any stage of the proceeding, and until ten days following the decision, either party can submit the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution. A complainant must establish three elements to succeed on its claim under the UDRP (1) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (2) the current domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and (3) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The UDRP provides that a registrant has rights or legitimate interest in the domain if, before becoming aware of the dispute, the registrant used, or prepared to use, the domain name or a name corresponding thereto in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, the registrant has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired trade or service mark rights to it, or the registrant is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to mislead customers, or to tarnish the trade or service mark at issue. Factors that are considered to evidence bad faith, in terms of the UDRP, include: the domain was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the owner of the trade or service mark, or its competitor, for valuable consideration in excess of the costs directly related to the domain name; the domain was registered to prevent the trade or service mark owner from reflecting its mark in a domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or the domain was used to intentionally attempt to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant s mark as to the source, 8
9 sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location or of a product or service thereon. An example of the bad faith use of a domain name in which the registrant had no rights can be found in The Sports Authority Michigan, Inc. v. Banks, Nat l Arb. Forum Decision, Claim Nos. FA , FA , and FA (October 6, 2003). The complainant was the operator of The Sports Authority sporting good stores. The complainant owned the Sports Authority and The Sports Authority trademarks, and it operated websites at and The respondents typosquatted by registering domain names corresponding to misspellings of the Sports Authority sites, including sportsauthoroty.com and sportsauthoity.com. In addition, the respondents registered with the complainant s affiliate program so that each time they directed an Internet user from one of their sites to the complainant s sites, they received a commission. The panel concluded that the disputed domains were confusingly similar to the complainant s protected marks and that the respondents use of the names to earn commissions from Internet users inadvertent typing errors was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use under the UDRP. To the contrary, the panel held that, because they were using the domains to profit from the complainant s marks, the respondents were acting in bad faith. Accordingly, the panel ordered that the domains be transferred to the complainant. The UDRP proceeding is conducted in writing, and, in that manner, it avoids much of the cost and time associated with legal proceedings. Most often, a mark owner submits a single page complaint presenting its factual and legal arguments, and the domain name registrant has twenty days to submit a written response. At that point, the dispute is given to a single arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators for decision within fourteen days. If the arbitrator(s) determines that the claimant has succeeded, it can order that the disputed domain name be canceled or turned over to the complainant. If such an order is entered, unless the registrar receives notice that the registrant has commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in court, the registrar will turn over or cancel the domain name within ten business days. 9
10 REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING Under the ACPA: When a domain has been transferred, suspended, or cancelled as the result of a UDRP proceeding, the ACPA permits the registrant to bring a reverse domain name hijacking claim in court to establish that its use of the domain was lawful. A successful registrant is entitled to injunctive relief, including the reactivation or transfer of the domain back to the registrant. The elements of a reverse domain name hijacking claim are: (1) that the plaintiff is the domain name registrant, (2) that its registered domain was suspended, disabled, or transferred under the registrar s policy, (3) that the owner of the mark who prompted the domain to be suspended, disabled, or transferred is on notice of the action, and (4) that the plaintiff s use or registration of the name is not unlawful pursuant to the Lanham Act. In Barcelona.com., 330 F.3d 629, the registrant, an individual who used the domain barcelona.com as a tourist portal with information about Barcelona, Spain, successfully asserted a claim for reverse domain name hijacking. The Barcelona City Council, which owned many trademarks incorporating the term Barcelona, filed a UDRP claim against the registrant, resulting in an order by the panelist that the domain be turned over to the City Council. The registrant filed a declaratory action in District Court for reverse domain hijacking. Reasoning that the term Barcelona has geographical significance because it designates a specific area, the court found that it is not entitled to trademark protection until it has acquired secondary meaning. Because Barcelona had not yet achieved the secondary meaning, the court held that the registrant s use of the domain was not unlawful and ordered its immediate transfer back to the registrant. Under the UDRP: The UDRP permits a registrant against whom a claim has been filed to assert, in response, reverse domain name hijacking to request that the arbitration panel find that the complainant is misusing the arbitration process to take a domain or to harass the registrant. To prevail on such a claim, the registrant must show that the complainant knew of the registrant s right or legitimate interest in the domain or its clear lack of bad faith but brought the complaint anyway. The UDRP fails to establish any specific penalties for reverse domain name hijacking, and panels rarely find that it has taken place. The keys to those decisions in which the panel does find reverse domain name hijacking appear to be (1) the generic nature of the disputed term(s) and (2) the obviousness of the registrant s good faith. 10
11 RECOMMENDATIONS Because the freedom of the internet conflicts with the territorial nature of trademark law, it is likely that most trademark owners, and most domain name registrants, will become involved in a domain name dispute. Whether your business is the owner of a mark or a domain name, there are steps you can take to protect your property. Protect your marks: (1) Register your trade and service marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2) Once you have established rights in a mark, police the internet for its use by others. The more the mark is used by others, the weaker it becomes. (3) Register the domain names that correspond to: your name, your trade and service marks, common misspellings of your name and marks, yourtrademarksucks.com, and yourbusinesssucks.com. (4) When communicating with registrants of domains containing your mark(s), use appropriate tone. If the registrant is fairly using the mark, the only way to obtain the domain is via agreement with the registrant. (5) Prior to selecting a panelist for a UDRP proceeding, check panelist track records at Keep in mind that statistics show that, in an overwhelming majority of cases, the decisions handed down by single panelists favored the complainant. Protect your domain names: (1) Register only domains in which you have a legitimate interest. (2) When in receipt of a cease and desist letter, buy time to research the domain name by responding with a letter acknowledging receipt and advising the sender that you are investigating the matter and will contact them in due time. (3) If a UDRP complaint is filed against you, respond with more than a naked denial. Attempt to demonstrate facts that evidence your rights or legitimate interest in the domain or that you are not using it in bad faith. Useful facts include: you are not a competitor of the complainant, you have not tried to sell the domain to the complainant or anyone else, you are not making trademark use of the word or phrase in which the complainant has trademark rights, and the word or phrase is common. (4) Keep in mind number (5), above. 11
ARIZONA JOURNAL / DAILY JOURNAL. Domain Name Rules Require Good Faith Ray K. Harris
ARIZONA JOURNAL / DAILY JOURNAL Domain Name Rules Require Good Faith Ray K. Harris Two recent developments relating to resolution of domain name disputes have a common focus: preventing bad faith use of
More informationDomain Name Disputes: How to Get the Bad Guys Off Your Domain
Domain Name Disputes: How to Get the Bad Guys Off Your Domain By Karen McDaniel and Rebecca Bishop Introduction In times of great exploration, there always seem to be those who wish to share in the bounty
More information1. This policy is now in effect. See www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-schedule.htm for the implementation schedule.
Policy Adopted: August 26, 1999 Implementation Documents Approved: October 24, 1999 Notes: 1. This policy is now in effect. See www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-schedule.htm for the implementation schedule. 2.
More informationCase 1:14-cv-00946-BNB Document 1 Filed 04/02/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:14-cv-00946-BNB Document 1 Filed 04/02/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. HUGEDOMAINS.COM, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
More informationUNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY FOR.TZ
UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY FOR.TZ 1. Purpose and application. This Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for.tz (the "Policy") has been adopted and is incorporated in the Registration
More informationDomain Names & Trademarks: UDRP Fundamentals in the Context. Christopher R. Smith and Garrett M. Weber
Domain Names & Trademarks: UDRP Fundamentals in the Context of Real-World Cases Christopher R. Smith and Garrett M. Weber Internet Structure Basics ICANN -Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS UDRP FUNDAMENTALS: NAVIGATING DOMAIN NAME TRADEMARK DISPUTES I. OVERVIEW OF THE UNIFORM DOMAIN-NAME DISPUTE-RESOLUTION POLICY...
UDRP FUNDAMENTALS: NAVIGATING DOMAIN NAME TRADEMARK DISPUTES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW OF THE UNIFORM DOMAIN-NAME DISPUTE-RESOLUTION POLICY.... 2 A. Internet Structure Basics.... 2 B. The UDRP and
More informationMisappropriation of Trademarks on the Internet
SM Misappropriation of Trademarks on the Internet September 14, 2010 2010 Patterson Thuente Christensen Pedersen, P.A., some rights reserved - www.ptslaw.com DISCLAIMER: This presentation and any information
More informationHOW TO ACQUIRE A DOMAIN NAME
DOMAIN NAMES Computers on the Internet, called host computers, are identified by both numbers and names. The number consists of four parts separated by periods, for example 36.152.66.39. This number is
More informationRESERVED NAMES CHALLENGE POLICY
RESERVED NAMES CHALLENGE POLICY 1.0 Title: Reserve Names Challenge Policy Version Control: 1.0 Date of Implementation: 2015-03-16 2.0 Summary This Reserved Names Challenge Policy (the Policy ) has been
More informationSingapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
1. Purpose. a. This Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") has been adopted by the Singapore Network Information Centre (SGNIC) Private Limited ("SGNIC") as the registration authority
More informationNATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION. American Society of Plumbing Engineers v. Lee Youngho Claim Number: FA0701000882390
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION American Society of Plumbing Engineers v. Lee Youngho Claim Number: FA0701000882390 PARTIES Complainant is American Society of Plumbing Engineers ( Complainant ), represented
More informationDomain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Copyright 2011 Supreme Council of Information and Communication Technology (ictqatar) Table of Contents 1. Definitions... 4 2. Purpose... 4 3. Your Representations... 5 4.
More informationChappell Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
Chappell Law Firm, P.L.L.C. Cherie M. Chappell, M.A., J.D. Attorney & Counselor At Law P.O. Box 5243 Edmond, OK 73083-5243 Phone: 405.340.7755 Facsimile: 405.340.7757 Email: cmc@chappelllawfirm.com Web:
More informationStrategies & Tactics for Domain Disputes. Presented by: Gretchen M. Olive Director of Marketing, CSC
Strategies & Tactics for Domain Disputes Presented by: Gretchen M. Olive Director of Marketing, CSC What we will cover today The typical scenarios which trigger the desire to obtain a domain from 3 rd
More informationIn the context of these regulations, the following definitions apply: the list of potential panelists published by the center;
These Dispute Resolution Regulations for.nl Domain Names came into effect on February 28, 2008 and were most recently amended on March 4, 2010. From that first date, any registrant of a.nl domain name
More informationWIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Net2Phone Inc. vs. Basheer Hallak Case No. D2000-0665 1. The Parties Complainant is Net2Phone Inc., a Delaware Corporation, located at
More informationImportance of Website Domain Ownership for Managing your Brand
Importance of Website Domain Ownership for Managing your Brand Kerigan Marketing Associates Ford Henley Digital Marketing Manager February 24, 2015 850.229.4562 3706 Hwy 98, Suite 103 Mexico Beach, FL
More informationTHE MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES and SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE CANADIAN DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION SYSTEM. David Allsebrook LudlowLaw
THE MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES and SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE CANADIAN DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION SYSTEM. David Allsebrook LudlowLaw Since January 1, 2000 a fast, inexpensive arbitration
More informationCPR Institute for Dispute Resolution
- 1 - CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution COMPLAINANT I & J Fisnar Inc. 2-07 Banta Place File Number: CPR 0113 Fair Lawn, NJ 07410-3002 U.S.A. Date of Commencement: September 28, 2001 Telephone 201-796-1477
More informationDomain Name Dispute Resolution - A Dealing With the Administration
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for.ae.aedrp AEDA-POL-014a Version 1.0 Issue Date 21/04/2008 The.ae Domain Administration.aeDA PO Box 116688 Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) www.aeda.ae Copyright
More informationProtecting internet domain names, recent cases
Protecting internet domain names, recent cases Nicholas Smith Barrister, Blackstone Chambers, Panellist at WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center nicholas.smith@blackstone.com.au A CLE Presentation for
More informationNATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION. Hennion & Walsh, Inc. v. Robert Isom Claim Number: FA0712001118409
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Hennion & Walsh, Inc. v. Robert Isom Claim Number: FA0712001118409 PARTIES Complainant is Hennion & Walsh, Inc. ( Complainant ), represented by Debbie Williams, 2001
More informationCan A Domain Name Trump Trademark Rights? --By Roberta L. Horton and Rachel Baylis, Arnold & Porter LLP
Published by Intellectual Property Law360 on July 17, 2014. Also ran in Media & Entertainment Law360. Can A Domain Name Trump Trademark Rights? --By Roberta L. Horton and Rachel Baylis, Arnold & Porter
More informationArtisan Metal Works. and. Mr. Dave Bennett
PO Box 2502 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 CAYMAN ISLANDS Tel: (345) 946-ICTA (4282) Fax: (345) 945-8284 Web: www.icta.ky.ky DISPUTE RESOLUTION Information and Communications Technology Authority (the 'Authority'
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0 Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 LAKESHORE LAW CENTER Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. (State Bar No. 0 0 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 0-0 Yorba Linda, CA --0 --0 (fax jeff@lakeshorelaw.org Attorney and Plaintiff
More informationADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sanofi v. Domain Manager, eweb Development Group / ProxyTech Privacy Services Inc. / Privacy Manager Case No.
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sanofi v. Domain Manager, eweb Development Group / ProxyTech Privacy Services Inc. / Privacy Manager Case No. D2014-1185 1. The Parties Complainant
More informationNATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION. Combined Insurance Group Ltd v. Xedoc Holding SA c/o domain admin Claim Number: FA0905001261545
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Combined Insurance Group Ltd v. Xedoc Holding SA c/o domain admin Claim Number: FA0905001261545 PARTIES Complainant is Combined Insurance Group Ltd ( Complainant ),
More informationDECISION. Richard O Barry v. Private Registrant / A Happy DreamHost Customer Claim Number: FA1509001639391
DECISION Richard O Barry v. Private Registrant / A Happy DreamHost Customer Claim Number: FA1509001639391 PARTIES Complainant is Richard O Barry ( Complainant ), represented by Henry L. Self III of Self
More informationICM Registry White Paper Legal Analysis of.xxx Registry Trademark Liability. Executive Summary
ICM Registry White Paper Legal Analysis of.xxx Registry Trademark Liability As a part of the launch of the.xxx top-level domain ( TLD ), a number of questions arose regarding the protections for existing
More informationWorking Through the Internet: Intellectual Property, Privacy, and Other Issues for Non-Profits. September 28, 2010
Working Through the Internet: Intellectual Property, Privacy, and Other Issues for Non-Profits September 28, 2010 Presenters David L. Cavanaugh is co-vice chair of s Intellectual Property Department. Michael
More informationNATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION. Aeropostale, Inc. v. Private Registration (name) c/o Private Registration (name) Claim Number: FA0912001296979
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Aeropostale, Inc. v. Private Registration (name) c/o Private Registration (name) Claim Number: FA0912001296979 PARTIES Complainant is Aeropostale, Inc. ( Complainant
More informationDECISION OF THE THIRD-PARTY DECIDER. Henkel KGaA v. MADEurope.com. Case No. 4014: fa.be
BELGIAN CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION DECISION OF THE THIRD-PARTY DECIDER Henkel KGaA v. MADEurope.com Case No. 4014: fa.be 1. The Parties The Complainant in the administrative proceeding is Henkel
More informationOverview of Trademark Infringement
Overview of Trademark Infringement Actionable use Likelihood of confusion Forward confusion Initial interest confusion Post sale confusion Reverse confusion Section 2(d) confusion Likelihood of dilution
More informationCase 1:15-cv-04941-LAK Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:15-cv-04941-LAK Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OFFICE SPACE SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT JASON KNEEN, -against-
More informationCase 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1
Case 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BEST LITTLE PROMOHOUSE IN TEXAS LLC, Plaintiffs,
More informationCASE 0:12-cv-02397-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE 0:12-cv-02397-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA QUALITY BICYCLE PRODUCTS, INC. v. Plaintiff, BIKEBARON, LLC SINCLAIR IMPORTS, LLC and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Atlanta Division COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Atlanta Division CHARLES SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) WAL-MART STORES, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
More informationCIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Version 1.3 (August 22, 2011) PARAGRAPH 1 INTRODUCTION
CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Version 1.3 (August 22, 2011) PARAGRAPH 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy ) is to provide
More informationRules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") As approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 30 October 2009.
Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") As approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 30 October 2009. These Rules are in effect for all UDRP proceedings in which a complaint
More informationTo avoid infringement suits, we can screen your proposed trademarks nationally and internationally within hours.
Trademarks Monetize Your Ideas Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets are assets that can be worth many more times their cost. By harnessing our skills and experience, we can help protect your
More informationTLD Registry LTD Registration Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy
TLD Registry LTD Registration Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy This Registration Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy (the REDRP ) is incorporated by reference into the Terms and Conditions for TLDs
More informationDomain Names: Tackling Infringement & the UDRP & Nominet DRS. Nick Wood Nick.wood@comlaude.com September 2005
Domain Names: Tackling Infringement & the UDRP & Nominet DRS Nick Wood Nick.wood@comlaude.com September 2005 Summary Why domain infringement happens Who does it Remedies Negotiation Dispute Resolution
More informationVGSO Seminar Series April 2008. Government Branding. Sam Funnell Principal Solicitor Commercial & Property
VGSO Seminar Series April 2008 Government Branding Sam Funnell Principal Solicitor Commercial & Property Table of Contents Page 2 Introduction...3 Preventative Measures...4 Trade Marks... 4 Domain Names...
More informationFAGNELLI PLUMBING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. GILLECE PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC. ET AL., Defendants. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15090 (W.D. Pa.
FAGNELLI PLUMBING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. GILLECE PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC. ET AL., Defendants. Arthur J. Schwab, United States District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15090 (W.D. Pa.
More informationNATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. statefarmc.com c/o Guro-gu Claim Number: FA0607000746782
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. statefarmc.com c/o Guro-gu Claim Number: FA0607000746782 PARTIES Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
More informationChapter I. 1. Purpose. 2. Your Representations. 3. Cancellations. 4. Mandatory Administrative Proceeding. dotversicherung-registry GmbH
Chapter I.versicherung Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP) 1. This policy has been adopted by all accredited Domain Name Registrars for Domain Names ending in.versicherung. 2. The
More informationP A U L, W E I S S, R I F K I N D, W H A R T O N & G A R R I S O N SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW CYBERSQUATTING MARTIN FLUMENBAUM - BRAD S.
P A U L, W E I S S, R I F K I N D, W H A R T O N & G A R R I S O N SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW CYBERSQUATTING MARTIN FLUMENBAUM - BRAD S. KARP PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL FEBRUARY 2000 PAUL, VVEISS,
More informationDomain Name Control Considerations
Domain Name Control Considerations When implementing an Internet presence, credit unions should establish controls to facilitate control over domain names. Credit unions should: 1. understand the Domain
More informationTHE POLICY. 2003-2013 MYNIC BERHAD. All rights reserved.
MYNIC'S (.my) DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY THE POLICY 2003-2013 MYNIC BERHAD. All rights reserved. MYNIC's (.my) Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy THE POLICY 1. Purpose 1.1 MYNIC's (.my) Domain
More informationCIRA POLICIES, RULES, AND PROCEDURES
CIRA POLICIES, RULES, AND PROCEDURES CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Version 1.2 PARAGRAPH 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this CIRA Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy ) is to
More informationTrademark Infringement Complaint. No. Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys,, I. PARTIES
Trademark Infringement Complaint [Name/Address] Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ALPHA, INC., a Washington corporation, v. Plaintiff, MR, DELTA
More information.scot Registration Policy
.scot Registration Policy Definitions This Registration Policy sets forth the terms and conditions, which govern.scot domain name registrations. In this Registration Policy: a. Registrant, "You" and "Your"
More informationWHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER TO PROTECT YOUR TRADEMARK
OVERVIEW: Page 1 A trademark indicates the name of the source of the product or, if a service mark, the source of the service. It should be a symbol of your reputation for quality, dependability, and value.
More informationChallenging and Acquiring Third Party Domain Names
White Paper Challenging and Acquiring Third Party Domain Names Reasons to Acquire a Domain Name...1 Campaign Launches...2 Administration Errors...2 Domain Name Audits...3 The Cost of Not Recovering...3
More informationNATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
1 1 1 GEORGE SABIN P.O. Box Los Angeles, CA 00 () -0 CURT MANUFACTURING, INC. Industrial Drive Eau Claire, Wisconsin 01 Complainant, vs. GEORGE SABIN P.O. Box Los Angeles, CA 00 Respondent. NATIONAL ARBITRATION
More informationCase 1:14-cv-12193-WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Case 1:14-cv-12193-WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS PRIVATE BUSINESS JETS, L.L.C. Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. PRVT, Inc. Defendant. COMPLAINT
More informationBEFORE THE INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA ARBITRATION AWARD ARBITRATOR: S.SRIDHARAN. DATED: 10 th April 2011. Versus
BEFORE THE INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA ARBITRATION AWARD ARBITRATOR: S.SRIDHARAN DATED: 10 th April 2011 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company... Complainant Versus Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft,
More informationCANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY
CANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY Dispute Number: DCA-1123-CIRA Domain name: extremefitness.ca Complainant: Extreme Fitness, Inc. Registrant: Gautam Relan Registrar:
More information19 Trademark-related Issues Raised by the Internet with a Focus on Injunctions against Domain Name Use (*)
19 Trademark-related Issues Raised by the Internet with a Focus on Injunctions against Domain Name Use (*) Research Fellow: Azusa Ichimasa We have the issue of infringement of a trademark by a third party
More information.ME. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") (As approved by domen on November 13, 2015)
.ME Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") (As approved by domen on November 13, 2015) Administrative proceedings for the resolution of disputes under the Uniform Dispute
More informationTRADEMARKS AND THE INTERNET
TRADEMARKS AND THE INTERNET TRADEMARK LAW A trademark or service mark is a word, name, symbol or device used to identify goods or services and distinguish them from others. Trademarks and service marks
More informationQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON.EU DOMAIN NAME
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON.EU DOMAIN NAME Introduction... 2 1) What are the goals underlying the creation of the Top Level Domain (TLD).eu?... 2 2) Who can act as an.eu TLD Registry?... 2 3) Has the Registry
More informationOUTLINE FOR TRADEMARK OWNERS? John G. White
OUTLINE ICANN S DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY IN ACTION: A DEFAULT VICTORY FOR TRADEMARK OWNERS? John G. White Strategy: Thanks to the ongoing ICANN elections and increasingly vocal critics, UDRP is a hot
More informationREGISTRATION ELIGIBLITY DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY
REGISTRATION ELIGIBLITY DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY 1.0 Title: Registration Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy Version Control: 1.0 Date of Implementation: 2015-03-16 2.0 Summary This Registration Eligibility
More informationCase4:15-cv-04219-DMR Document1 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 11
Case:-cv-0-DMR Document Filed0// Page of MICHAEL G. RHODES () (rhodesmg@cooley.com) California Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: Facsimile: BRENDAN J. HUGHES (pro hac vice to be filed) (bhughes@cooley.com)
More informationIntellectual Property is the body of law that protects the fruits of human intelligence: our inventions, our creative works, and the logos and brand names that we adopt for the goods and services we sell.
More informationNATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 DATE: December 2002 LETTER NO.: 02-CU-16 TO: All Federally-Insured Credit Unions SUBJ: Protection of Credit Union Internet Addresses
More informationSUNRISE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY
SUNRISE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY This Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (the SDRP ) is incorporated by reference into the Registry-Registrant Agreement. This SDRP shall become effective as of February
More informationDomain Name Disputes: Technology Outpaces the Legal System
Domain Name Disputes: Technology Outpaces the Legal System Sam Ramanujan, University of Central Missouri, ramanujan@ucmo.edu Someswar Kesh, University of Central Missouri, kesh@ucmo.edu Steve Ewens, University
More informationEXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION TLDDOT GmbH v. InterNetWire Web-Development GmbH Case No. LRO2013-0052
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION TLDDOT GmbH v. InterNetWire Web-Development GmbH Case No. LRO2013-0052 1. The Parties The Objector/Complainant is TLDDOT GmbH,
More informationDOMAIN NAME DISPUTE & COPYRIGHT CLAIMS POLICY
DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE & COPYRIGHT CLAIMS POLICY INMOTION HOSTING, INC. ("INMOTION") supports the protection of intellectual property. Therefore, we have established the following policies regarding copyright
More informationCITIES AS COMMERCIAL ENTITIES TRADEMARKS AND DOMAIN NAMES
CITIES AS COMMERCIAL ENTITIES TRADEMARKS AND DOMAIN NAMES Garner K. Weng Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy, LLP San Francisco, California Web site: www.hansonbridgett.com E-mail: gweng@hansonbridgett.com
More informationThis case involves a dispute over the ownership of two domain names:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OLYMPIC SPORTS DATA : SERVICES, LTD., : MISCELLANEOUS ACTION Plaintiff : : v. : NO. 07-117 : SANDY MASELLI, Jr., et al., : Defendants
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JPM NETWORKS, LLC, ) d/b/a KWIKBOOST ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 3:14-cv-1507 JCM FIRST VENTURE, LLC )
More informationJoint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks. adopted by
833(E) Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of
More informationProtection and Enforcement of Trademarks, in the U.S. and Abroad
Protection and Enforcement of Trademarks, in the U.S. and Abroad Susan Anthony, Acting Director Global Intellectual Property Academy Office of Policy and International Affairs Susan.Anthony@uspto.gov -
More informationUDRP extension beyond the domain name
UDRP extension beyond the domain name UDRP-like alternative dispute resolution remedies should be made available for a broader range of IP violations. Lawrence Nodine Partner Ballard Spahr LLP, Atlanta
More information.MOTORCYCLES Registration Policy
.MOTORCYCLES Registration Policy This Registration Policy sets forth the terms and conditions that govern.motorcycles domain name registrations. In this Registration Policy: a. Registrant, "You" and "Your"
More informationDomain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Rules
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Copyright 2011 Supreme Council of Information and Communication Technology (ictqatar) Table of Contents Rules for Qatar Domains Registry Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy...
More information.Brand TLD Designation Application
.Brand TLD Designation Application Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ( ICANN ) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 Attention: New gtld Program Staff RE: Application
More informationSecretary of State - A Home Based Trademarks And Applications For Registration
4-71-201. Definitions. As used in this subchapter: Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin Arkansas Trademark Law (1) A mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned" when either of the following occurs: (A)(i)(a)
More informationINTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CONFLICT PREVENTION AND RESOLUTION DECISION
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CONFLICT PREVENTION AND RESOLUTION DECISION File: Domain Names Registrar: CPR-06-21 , , , and Network Solutions,
More informationDECISION OF THE THIRD-PARTY DECIDER
BELGIAN CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION DECISION OF THE THIRD-PARTY DECIDER Vanguard Trademark Holdings / Domain Solutions Corp. Case n 44309 : alamocar.be, alamocarrental.be, alamocarrentals.be,
More informationICANN s Internet Domain Name Dispute Resolution Mechanism Hemmed in by Domestic Courts?
ICANN s Internet Domain Name Dispute Resolution Mechanism Hemmed in by Domestic Courts? Disputes over the registration of offending internet domain names and their misuse are being brought increasingly
More informationSunrise Challenge Policy
Sunrise Challenge Policy 1. Purpose. This Sunrise Registration Challenge Policy (the Policy ) has been adopted by domen d.o.o. ( domen ) and is incorporated by reference into the Sunrise registration agreement
More informationUNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT Dispute Settlement World Intellectual Property Organization 4.2 Domain Name Dispute Resolution ii Dispute Settlement N O T E The Course on Dispute Settlement
More informationCANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY DECISION
CANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY DECISION Domain Name: thedeckstoreinc.ca Complainant: The Deck Store Inc. Registrant: 1527977 Ontario Inc. o/a Deck Masters
More informationTrademark Infringement and Likelihood of Confusion
Trademark Infringement and Likelihood of Confusion Michael G. Atkins Graham & Dunn, PC April 27, 2007 Copyright 2007. All rights reserved 1 Road map Trademark basics Why confusion matters Forms of confusion
More informationDefensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot
Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot Contributed by Angie M. Hankins, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Many companies inadvertently mark their products with expired patents.
More informationUse of Competitor's Trademark in Keyword Advertising: Infringement or Not?
Use of Competitor's Trademark in Keyword Advertising: Infringement or Not? Grady M. Garrison and Laura P. Merritt Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz P.C. Michael M. Lafeber Briggs and Morgan,
More informationThe development and protection,
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Bureau of Business Research McCombs School of Business The University of Texas at Austin JUNE 2001 Location, Location, Location in Cyberspace E-Commerce and the Domain Name System
More informationAdministration and Dispute Resolution of.hk Domain Names. By: Jonathan Shea CEO of HKIRC/HKDNR
Administration and Dispute Resolution of.hk Domain Names By: Jonathan Shea CEO of HKIRC/HKDNR Outline Administration of the.hk Domain Name About HKIRC and HKDNR.hk Domain Name Categories Chinese Domain
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSIDERATIONS FOR YOUR BUSINESS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSIDERATIONS FOR YOUR BUSINESS Shannon S. Sheldon MCKEON SHELDON MEHLING A Limited Liability Law Company 2145 Kaohu Street, Suite 203 Wailuku, Hawaii 96793 p. 808.242.6644 f. 808.244.9775
More informationCouncil of Country Code Administrators ( CoCCA ) Dispute Resolution Service
Council of Country Code Administrators ( CoCCA ) Dispute Resolution Service CoCCA Case No. mn-2015-01 facebook.mn 1. Parties Complainant: Facebook, Inc 1601 Willow Road Menlo Park California 94025 United
More information.gal Registration Policy
De2initions.gal Registration Policy This Registration Policy sets forth the terms and conditions, which govern.gal domain name registrations. In this Registration Policy: a. Registrant, "You" and "Your"
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 Brian P. Kinder ( THE KINDER LAW GROUP, APC 0 Von Karman Avenue, Fourth Floor Irvine, California 1 Telephone: ( -00 Facsimile: ( -0 Email: bkinder@tklglaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff VIRTUALPOINT,
More informationProtecting your trademarks online. FACTS & FAQs
Protecting your trademarks online FACTS & FAQs 2 TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE 101 Protecting your trademarks online The launch of new web addresses, known as generic top level domain names (gtlds) will greatly
More informationADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION. InfoMedia Services Ltd v Bugel Pty Ltd. LEADR Case No. 04/2003
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION InfoMedia Services Ltd v Bugel Pty Ltd LEADR Case No. 04/2003 Panel Member: Name of complainant: Name of respondent: Domain name at issue: S F Stretton InfoMedia Services
More informationDISTRICT CT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO Case No.. 96-CV-4693
DISTRICT CT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO Case No.. 96-CV-4693 ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ROBERT LEWIS, STOREFRONTS IN CYBERSPACE, a Colorado limited liability company, and
More information