Author name: fairwindsp

By Steve Levy Those who are familiar with the UDRP know that par. 4(a)(i) requires a brand owner to prove that a disputed “domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”. It’s important to note that this latter portion is not the same as […]

By Steve Levy A defense to a UDRP complaint, under par. 4(a)(ii), is for a domain name owner to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. One of the specified ways to do this is mentioned in par. 4(c)(iii) which says that rights or legitimate interests can be shown

By Steve Levy As with general trademark law, the concept of fair use is incorporated into the UDRP in paragraph 4(c)(iii) which says that a domain name owner has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name if it can show that it is “making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain

By Steve Levy I just decided a case that involved the combination of a typosquatted domain name and a separate email hacking incident. While this may be the first of its kind to hit the UDRP, this sort of scam has been around since at least 2021 and perhaps longer. Here’s the setup. The Complainant, a law

By Steve Levy Does your company have a website and social media posts? Of course, it does. Do you own the copyrights in that content? Of course, you do (or you certainly should through work-for-hire agreements with independent contractors). These assets can be of immense value when going after online copycats, scams, and even cybersquatting

By Steve Levy I only started handling UDRP cases after a couple of decades of dealing with other trademark disputes through a combination of demand letters and litigation. Like many brand enforcement lawyers, I would sometimes use the threat of litigation as leverage when trying to nudge the opposing party towards a settlement of the

By Steve Levy On June 3, 2024, I wrote a piece titled Falsified Evidence In The Age Of AI. Well, it’s happened again. Only this time, the forger is a Complainant asserting trademark rights. The disputed domain name is lemeilleur.com and Complainant claimed ownership of a US trademark registration for LE MEILLEUR, Serial Number 98864499, with a registration date

By Steve Levy The reality of the UDRP is that nearly 90% of cases involve no-show Respondents (a “default” case). This is for a number of reasons, the most prevalent of which is that most cases involve abusive domain names and cybersquatters usually consider UDRP losses to be a routine part of their business model.

By Steve Levy Before my career took a sharp turn into the world of domain name disputes, I was in-house intellectual property counsel for The Home Depot. My responsibilities included protecting the marquis trademark all over the world and, due to the fame of the mark and its orange square logo, we found ourselves taking

By Steve Levy Not all domain name disputes are suited for resolution through the UDRP. In a July 24, 2024 comment, it was highlighted that other business disputes (contracts, proof of common law trademark rights, prior business relationships, etc.) can place a dispute outside the scope of the UDRP and better suited for resolution through the

By Steve Levy Sports cars have a reputation for speed and so does the UDRP. As a stripped-down version of litigation, a UDRP claim can accomplish in less than three month what would take nearly a year, or possibly even more, through the courts. In 2022, Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. won a UDRP case against the domain name

By Tom Wells Introduction In a rapidly expanding digital landscape, the demand for unique and targeted domain extensions is reaching new heights. As the Internet continues to evolve, the role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in managing domain names has become increasingly pivotal. ICANN’s upcoming round of New gTLDs (Generic