DOCSLIB.ORG

Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Trademark Cybersquatting in Gtlds Old Style, Cctld Style and Gtld New Style

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Trademark Cybersquatting in Gtlds Old Style, Cctld Style and Gtld New Style Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Trademark Cybersquatting In ccTLD, Old Style gTLD and New Style gTLD Systems COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE US, EU AND INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES By Waddah Al-rawashdedh University of Szeged Faculty of Law and Political Sciences Graduate School Hungary 2017 Spring Dispute Resolution Mechanisms & Trademark Cybersquatting Table of Contents Page DEDICATION ............................................................................................ 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ 12 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 1 DOMAIN NAMES AND TRADEMARKS ................................................ 22 1.1. Overview ....................................................................................... 22 1.2. Meaning of Domain Names and Domain Name System (DNS) ............................................................................................. 22 1.3. The Need and Importance of Domain Names ........................... 25 1.4. Types of Domain Names ............................................................. 26 1.4.1. “Country-code” TLDs ............................................................................... 26 1.4.2. “generic” TLDs ......................................................................................... 27 1.5. Who Runs gTLDs and ccTLDs? ................................................ 30 1.6. What are New gTLDs? ................................................................ 34 1.7. The Contractual Nature of Domain Name Registration Processes ...................................................................................... 37 1.7.1. The Contractual Relationship under ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) ..................................................................................... 39 1.7.2. The Contractual Relationship between the Registrar and the Registrant under the Umbrella of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) .......... 42 1.8. The Correlation between Trademarks and Domain Names .. 44 1.9. Comparing Distinctions and Similarities between Trademarks and Domain Names ............................................... 47 2 Dispute Resolution Mechanisms & Trademark Cybersquatting CHAPTER 2 CYBERSQUATTING AS A GLOBAL PROBLEM AND ICANN AS A GLOBAL SOLUTION ........................................................................... 52 2.1. Overview ..................................................................................... 52 2.2. Basic Understanding of Cybersquatting ................................... 54 2.2.1. Registering a Domain Name Completely Identical with a Registered Trademark (Domain Name Piracy) (Cybersquatting) ............................... 57 2.2.2. Registering a Domain Name Largely Similar to a Registered Trademark (Typosquatting) ......................................................................................... 58 2.2.3. Registering a Trademark as a Domain Name to Express the Dissatisfaction with a Product or Service Provided by a Certain Corporation (Cybersmearing) (Derogatory Domain Names) ................... 60 2.2.4. The Attempt to Deprive a Properly Registered Domain Name Holder from the Domain Name that he Registered (Reverse Domain Name Hijacking) ................................................................................................. 63 2.2.5. Inadvertent Failing to Renew Registration of Domain Name .................. 64 2.2.6. Registering a Trademark of a Competitor as a Domain Name (Competing Use) or Registering a Trademark of Non-Competitor as a Domain Name (Non-Competing Use) ...................................................... 66 2.3. ICANN’s UDRP as a Model for Trademark Cybersquatting Disputes Settlement ..................................................................... 67 2.3.1. The Dispute Resolution Mechanism for Cybersquatting under ICANN’s UDRP ........................................................... 69 2.3.1.1. Identical or Confusingly Similar ................................................... 71 2.3.1.2. Rights or Legitimate Interests ....................................................... 73 3 Dispute Resolution Mechanisms & Trademark Cybersquatting 2.3.1.3. Bad Faith Registration and Use .................................................... 76 2.3.2. Remedies of ICANN’s UDRP ................................................ 78 2.3.3. ICANN’s WHOIS Service .................................................... 79 2.3.4. Jurisdiction of ICANN’s UDRP…………………………… 82 2.3.5. Pros and Cons of ICANN’s UDRP ...................................... 86 2.3.5.1. Pros of ICANN’s UDRP ............................................................... 86 2.3.5.2. Cons of ICANN’s UDRP .............................................................. 88 2.4. Cybersquatting and ICANN’s New gTLD ................................ 89 2.4.1. New Pre- and Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures under ICANN ..................................................... 89 2.4.1.1. Pre-Delegation Dispute Resolution Cybersquatting under ICANN’s DRSP ............................................................................ 90 2.4.1.2. Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure under ICANN’s PDDRP .......................................................................................... 96 2.4.2. Extra Protection Mechanisms in the New gTLD Space .... 101 2.4.2.1. ICANN’s URS as an Extra Protection Mechanisms in the New gTLD Space .................................................................................. 101 2.4.2.2. ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse Model ................................. 105 4 Dispute Resolution Mechanisms & Trademark Cybersquatting CHAPTER 3 CYBERSQUATTING UNDER US AND EU APPROACHES .............. 108 3.1. Overview ....................................................................................... 108 3.2. Cybersquatting in the United States ......................................... 110 3.2.1. Roots and Development of the Legal Framework of Anti- cybersquatting statute in USA ............................................................... 111 3.2.2. U.S. Courts Treated Domain Names before 2014 as Property and in 2014 ICANN told U.S. Courts that ccTLDs are not Property ........ 113 3.2.3. The Mechanism of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) .............................................................................................. 116 3.2.3.1. “Identity or Confusing Similarity” Standard ................................ 117 3.2.3.2. The “Bad Faith” Requirement ...................................................... 119 3.2.3.3. The Defense in Cybersquatting Claim .......................................... 121 3.2.3.4. Remedies under the ACPA ........................................................... 123 3.2.3.5. In Rem Jurisdiction and the ACPA ............................................... 125 3.2.4. Registrar's Liability and the ACPA ..................................... 128 3.2.5. National Registration of Domain Names under ccTLD (.us) .............................................................................. 130 3.2.5.1. usTLD Nexus Dispute Policy (usNDP) ........................................ 131 3.2.5.2. usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP) ................................. 132 5 Dispute Resolution Mechanisms & Trademark Cybersquatting 3.3. Cybersquatting in the European Union ................................. 135 3.3.1. Overview of Anticybersquatting Claims in EU Member States ....................................................................................... 136 3.3.1.1. Austria .............................................................................. 137 3.3.1.1.1. Anticybersquatting Claims under Austrian Trade Mark Act ........... 137 3.3.1.1.2. Anticybersquatting Claims under Austrian Unfair Amendment Competition Act .............................................................................. 138 3.3.1.1.3. National Registration of Domain Names under ccTLD (.at) ............ 140 3.3.1.2. Hungary ............................................................................ 141 3.3.1.2.1. Anticybersquatting Claims under Hungarian Act on Trademarks .... 142 3.3.1.2.2. Anticybersquatting Claims under Hungarian Unfair Market Practices Act ...................................................................................... 144 3.3.1.2.3. Anticybersquatting Crime under Hungarian Criminal Code ............. 146 3.3.1.2.4. National Registration of Domain Names under ccTLD (.hu) ............ 147 3.3.1.3. France ................................................................................ 149 3.3.1.3.1. Anticybersquatting Claims under French Intellectual Property Code.150 3.3.1.3.2. Anticybersquatting Claims under French Civil Code ........................ 154 3.3.1.3.3. National Registration of Domain Names under ccTLD (.fr) ............. 156 3.3.1.4. Germany ............................................................................ 159 3.3.1.4.1. Anticybersquatting Claim under German Trademark Law ............... 160 3.3.1.4.2. Anticybersquatting Claim under German Unfair Competition Law . 162 3.3.1.4.3. National Registration of Domain Names under ccTLD (.de) ........... 164 3.3.1.5. United Kingdom
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Global Brand Management Landscape: Strategies for 2017 and Beyond
    The Global Brand Management Landscape: Strategies for 2017 and Beyond October 4, 2016 Gabriela Kennedy Partner and Head of Asia IP & TMT Group Mayer Brown JSM Michael Adams Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP Mayer Brown LLP Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities ("Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liabilitypartnership incorporated in England and Wales;and JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia. The Mayer Brown Practices are known as Mayer Brown JSM in Asia. 1 Overview of Program • Elements of a Brand Management Program • Trademarks and Brands • Domain Names • Social Media • Policy and Advocacy Engagement for Brand Owners 2 2 Elements of a Brand Management Program • Importance of a Cohesive Global Brand Management Program • Trademarks – Domestic and International Portfolio • Internet Presence – Domain Names, Social Media, and Other Web Content • Policy and Advocacy Engagement – Domestic and Global 3 Trademarks and Brands: Trademark Portfolio Best Practices • Trademark searching and clearance strategies • Trademark applications and registrations • Trademark enforcement strategy program • Trademark in transitions – rebranding, mergers / acquisitions and more 4 Trademark Searching and Clearance Strategies: U.S. PRELIMINARYKNOCK-OUTSEARCH • A knock-out search locates blatant conflicts with existing marks that would prevent use and registration of the proposed mark • This search saves time and money! • Mayer Brown can usually provide results in approximately 48 hours, or on a more expedited basis if requested urgently 5 Trademark Searching and Clearance Strategies: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Opposition to Trade Mark Application No. 303659310Ab
    TRADE MARKS ORDINANCE (Cap. 559) OPPOSITION TO TRADE MARK APPLICATION NO. 303659310AB MARK: CLASSES: 16, 18, 25 APPLICANT: KABUSHIKI KAISHA MIXI (MIXI, INC.) (now changed name to MIXI, INC.) OPPONENT: MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION Background 1. On 14 January 2016, Kabushiki Kaisha Mixi (Mixi, Inc.) (the “applicant”) filed an application (the “subject application”) under the Trade Marks Ordinance, Cap. 559 (the “Ordinance”) for registration of the following mark:- (the “subject mark”). 2. Registration is sought in respect of various classes of goods. The subject application was subsequently divided into 303659310AA and 303659310AB. The present proceedings is only in relation to the latter which seeks to register the following goods (“subject goods”) in Classes 16, 18, 25:- Class 16 pastes and other adhesives for stationery or household purposes, printed lottery tickets [other than toys]; paper and cardboard; stationery; printed matter; paintings [pictures]; calligraphic works; photographs [printed]; photograph stands; cards; card files; trading cards; note books; file folders; mechanical pencils; ballpoint pens; stickers [stationery]; notepads; calenders; sacred lots [Omikuji]. 1 Class 18 handbag frames; purse frames; horseshoes; clothing for pets; straps for luggage; bags; pouches; portable vanity cases [not fitted]; umbrellas; tote bags; purses; credit card cases [wallets]. Class 25 tee-shirts; clothing; garters; sock suspenders; braces for clothing [suspenders]; waistbands; belts [clothing]; footwear [other than boots for sports]; masquerade costumes; clothing for sports; boots for sports; sleep masks. 3. Particulars of the subject application were published on 27 May 2016. Monster Energy Company (the “opponent”) filed a notice of opposition which includes a “Statement of Grounds of Opposition” (the “Grounds of Opposition”) on 17 August 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice
    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION INTRODUCTION TO TRADEMARK LAW & PRACTICE THE BASIC CONCEPTS A WIPO TRAINING MANUAL GENEVA 1993 (Second Edition) ( ( WIPO PUBLICATION No 653 (El ISBN 92-805-0167-4 WIPO 1993 PREFACE The present publication is the second edition of a volume of the same title that was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1987 and reprinted in 1990. The first edition was written by Mr. Douglas Myall, former Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, United Kingdom. The present revised edition of the publication has been prepared by Mr. Gerd Kunze, Vevey, Switzerland, and reflects his extensive expertise and experience in the administration of the trademark operations of a large international corporation, Nestle S. A., as well as his intensive involvement, as a leading representative of several international non-governmental organizations, in international meetings convened by WIPO. This publication is intended to provide a practical introduction to trademark administration for those with little or no experience of the subject but who may have to deal with it in an official or business capacity. Throughout the text, the reader is invited to answer questions relating to the text. Those questions are numbered to correspond to the answers that are given, with a short commentary, in Appendix I. Arpad Bogsch Director General World Intellectual Property Organization February 1993 ( ( LIST OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY 7 1.1 Use of trademarks in commerce . 9 1.2 What is a trademark?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 1.3 Need for legal protection .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 1.4 How can a trademark be protected? .
    [Show full text]
  • The Trend Towards Enhancing Trademark Owners' Rights-A Comparative Study of U.S. and German Trademark Law, 7 J
    Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 7 | Issue 2 Article 2 March 2000 The rT end Towards Enhancing Trademark Owners' Rights-A Comparative Study of U.S. and German Trademark Law Rudolf Rayle the University of Iowa Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Rudolf Rayle, The Trend Towards Enhancing Trademark Owners' Rights-A Comparative Study of U.S. and German Trademark Law, 7 J. Intell. Prop. L. 227 (2000). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol7/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rayle: The Trend Towards Enhancing Trademark Owners' Rights-A Comparativ JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW VOLUME 7 SPRING 2000 NUMBER 2 ARTICLES THE TREND TOWARDS ENHANCING TRADEMARK OWNERS' RIGHTS-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF U.S. AND GERMAN TRADEMARK LAW Rudolf Rayle* I. INTRODUCTION Conventionally trademarks are said to serve primarily as source identifiers. They are the medium through which consumers identify a particular product with a specific source (i.e., serve an identification or origin function). The origin function is therefore claimed to be the main function of trademarks and at first glance the definitions of trademarks in the Lanham Act as well as in the German Trademark Act, seem to confirm this traditional view.' * Rudi Rayle attended the Universities of Bonn and Tuebingen, Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 93 TMR 1035
    Vol. 93 TMR 1035 RECONSIDERING INITIAL INTEREST CONFUSION ON THE INTERNET By David M. Klein and Daniel C. Glazer∗ I. INTRODUCTION Courts developed the theory of initial interest confusion (or “pre-sale confusion”) to address the unauthorized use of a trademark in a manner that captures consumer attention, even though no sale is ultimately completed as a result of any initial confusion. During the last few years, the initial interest confusion doctrine has become a tool frequently used to resolve Internet- related disputes.1 Indeed, some courts have characterized initial interest confusion on the Internet as a “distinct harm, separately actionable under the Lanham Act.”2 This article considers whether the initial interest confusion doctrine is necessary in the context of the Internet. Courts typically have found actionable initial interest confusion when Internet users, seeking a trademark owner’s website, are diverted by identical or confusingly similar domain names to websites in competition with, or critical of, the trademark owner. A careful analysis of these decisions, however, leads to the conclusion that a distinct initial interest confusion theory may be unnecessary to resolve cases involving the unauthorized use of a trademark as a domain name. In fact, traditional notions of trademark infringement law and multi-factor likelihood of confusion tests may adequately address the balancing of interests required in cases where courts must define the boundaries of trademark owners’ protection against the use of their marks in the domain names of competing websites. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)3 and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)4 provide additional protection against the unauthorized use of domain names that dilute famous marks or evidence a bad ∗ Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Master of the Domain (Name)
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 17 | Issue 2 Article 5 January 2001 Master of the Domain (Name): A History of Domain Name Litigation and the Emergence of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Colby B. Springer Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Colby B. Springer, Master of the Domain (Name): A History of Domain Name Litigation and the Emergence of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, 17 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 315 (2000). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol17/iss2/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Master of the Domain (Name): A History of Domain Name Litigation and the Emergence of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Colby B. Springer" TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 316 II. Internet Fundamentals ......................................................................... 317 III. The Domain Name System: IP Addresses and Domain Names .......... 318 IV. Getting Stuck in the Web: Domain Name Registration
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry"
    Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry" In preparation for the handover, Hong Kong en- En vue de la r6trocession, l'ancien conseil 16gis- acted local ordinances in the areas of patents, designs latif de Hong-Kong a adopt6 diverses ordonnances and copyright. A new Trade Marks Ordinance is ex- dans les domaines des brevets, du design et des droits pected after the handover. Interestingly, much of this d'auteurs. On s'attend 6galement . ce qu'une ordon- legislation is based on United Kingdom statutes. The nance sur les marques de commerce soit adoptde peu success of this legislation in safe-guarding intellectual- de temps apr~s la r6trocession. Plusieurs de ces textes property rights ("IPRs") will depend less upon its con- 16gislatifs sont bas6s sur le module anglais. Le succ~s tents, and more upon a clear separation of the state and de la protection des droits de propridt6 intellectuelle judiciary in the Special Administrative Region ddpendra toutefois moins du contenu de ces lois que de ("S.A.R.") of Hong Kong. Despite the absence of a la s6paration claire entre le systime judiciaire et l'tat 1997 CanLIIDocs 49 tradition of the formal protection of IPRs, China has dans la nouvelle Zone administrative sp6ciale de Hong- identified a need to enact comprehensive intellectual- Kong. Bien qu'elle n'ait pas de tradition de protection property legislation. However, the absence of Western- de Ia propri6t6 intellectuelle, la R6publique populaire style rule of law in China has contributed to foreign de Chine a reconnu la n6cessit6 d'adopter une 16gisla- dissatisfaction with the enforcement of IPRs.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore
    Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore IP Newsletter We are delighted to share with you the latest edition of our May 2015 Intellectual Property newsletter covering the latest developments in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. We trust you will find this newsletter useful. If you would like any further information, please contact the team in your jurisdiction. Best regards, Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow (Singapore) Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners (Indonesia) In This Issue Wong & Partners (Malaysia) Recent Developments In: Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Indonesia Latest News Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of For more information, please Operational License and Evaluation of Collecting contact: Societies Kuala Lumpur Chew Kherk Ying Pursuant to the enactment of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Partner +60 3 2298 7933 Copyright ("Copyright Law"), the Ministry of Law and Human [email protected] Rights ("MOLHR") has issued Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of Operational Singapore License and Evaluation of Collecting Management Society Andy Leck Managing Principal, ("Regulation No. 29"). Tel: +65 6434 2525 [email protected] The Copyright Law urges authors, copyright holders and Jakarta performers to be members of collecting societies in order to Daru Lukiantono manage and collect royalties from the commercial use of their Partner copyright and neighboring rights from the public. The Tel: +62 21 2960 8588 [email protected] Copyright Law indicates that collecting societies should be non-profit in nature and obtain operational licenses from the MOLHR by fulfilling certain requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybersquatting: Threat to Domain Name
    International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8, Issue- 6S4, April 2019 Cybersquatting: Threat to Domain Name Sukrut Deo, Sapna Deo Abstract— The present article deals with conflicts arising out cybersquatters use combination of illicit and legal work. The of registration of domain names of existing trade names with the end results in the legitimate owner suffering a huge loss. intention to resell it and/or encash the goodwill. Such practice is known as ‘Cybersquatting’. Registration of Domain names and METHODOLOGY acquiring a domain name of choice has become a rage over the time. It is the first come first get thing for getting registered. In The methodology opted by the researcher is “doctrinal”. this paper the researcher has explained what a cybersqatting is Such Doctrinal legal research has been carried out through alongwith various types of cybersquatting and its prevention and following sources such as International Treaties, Covenants targets. This paper also suggests remedial measures to deal with and Conventions; Constitutional Provisions; Information cybersquatting. The Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), an enactment by United States, needs a special Technology Act, 2000; Trademarks Act, 1999; Copyrights applaud for being the first country to have introduced a special Act, 1957; ICANN, WIPO, UNDRP etc.; Reported act for dealing with the menace of cybersquatting which was the decisions of the courts and Secondary Sources such as need of the hour. It so happens that people opt to buy the domain Commentaries and reference books; Journals; Magazines; name from squatters as it being cheap instead of seeking remedy Newspaper articles; Official Statistics; Internet sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology Law
    Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL 62791 IDC Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 3 (16.3.30) Technology Law By: Michael C. Bruck* Crisham & Kubes, Ltd. Chicago Jerry Falwell’s Ears are Burning - Gripe Sites, Domain Names, And Rejecting the Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine The ease and accessibility of the internet has made it an ideal place for people to create personal blogs, gripe sites, and rant forums. This broad-based expansion of personal communication has provided ample opportunity for internet users to share ideas and voice their opinions on an array of subjects. It also has generated substantial litigation involving same-name or similar name websites and their impact on free speech and trademark law. In late April, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to Lamparello v. Falwell, a case from the Fourth Circuit involving trademark infringement and cybersquatting that could have major implications for free speech and the impact of trademark law on the internet. 126 S. Ct. 1772 (2006). Background The Lamparello case, decided by the Fourth Circuit on August 24, 2005, centers around Reverend Jerry Falwell, “a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs” who owns the trademarks “Jerry Falwell,” “Falwell,” “Listen America with Jerry Falwell,” and “www.falwell.com.” 420 F.3d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 2005). The plaintiff, Christopher Lamparello, created a website that responded to Falwell’s opinions about homosexuality. Id. Lamparello registered the domain name “www.fallwell.com,” which is one letter off the correct spelling of Jerry Falwell’s last name and website address.
    [Show full text]
  • UDRP Versus ACPA: Choosing the Right Tool to Challenge Cybersquatting by Connie L
    UDRP Versus ACPA: Choosing the Right Tool to Challenge Cybersquatting by connie l. ellerbach One of the most frequent sources of conflict on the Internet has of bad faith can be easily demonstrated. Complex disputes, resulted from the unauthorized registration and use of domain such as determining which of two users has superior rights to names containing other parties’ trademarks or company names, the mark contained in a domain, or where there are complicated a practice commonly referred to as cybersquatting. Fortunately, evidentiary issues, are beyond the scope of the UDRP. trademark law has evolved to offer a variety of increasingly Another drawback of UDRP proceedings is that due to the focused and effective remedies to address such abuses, two lack of evidentiary guidelines, lack of requirement to follow of the most recent of which are: the Internet Corporation for precedent, and the varying experience and political philosophy Assigned Names and Numbers’ Uniform Domain Name Dispute of the panelists, rulings can be unpredictable and inconsistent Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), and the federal Anticybersquatting with previous decisions addressing similar fact patterns. Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). It is important that Nowhere has this been more true than in celebrity domain name trademark owners appreciate the strengths and weaknesses disputes. Compare Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, Case No. of each when selecting the appropriate forum to challenge the D2000-1210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (awarding Ms. Roberts the registration of domains containing their trademarks. <juliaroberts.com> domain based on her common law service A. The UDRP mark rights in her name) with Reverend Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry"
    Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry" In preparation for the handover, Hong Kong en- En vue de la r6trocession, l'ancien conseil 16gis- acted local ordinances in the areas of patents, designs latif de Hong-Kong a adopt6 diverses ordonnances and copyright. A new Trade Marks Ordinance is ex- dans les domaines des brevets, du design et des droits pected after the handover. Interestingly, much of this d'auteurs. On s'attend 6galement . ce qu'une ordon- legislation is based on United Kingdom statutes. The nance sur les marques de commerce soit adoptde peu success of this legislation in safe-guarding intellectual- de temps apr~s la r6trocession. Plusieurs de ces textes property rights ("IPRs") will depend less upon its con- 16gislatifs sont bas6s sur le module anglais. Le succ~s tents, and more upon a clear separation of the state and de la protection des droits de propridt6 intellectuelle judiciary in the Special Administrative Region ddpendra toutefois moins du contenu de ces lois que de ("S.A.R.") of Hong Kong. Despite the absence of a la s6paration claire entre le systime judiciaire et l'tat tradition of the formal protection of IPRs, China has dans la nouvelle Zone administrative sp6ciale de Hong- identified a need to enact comprehensive intellectual- Kong. Bien qu'elle n'ait pas de tradition de protection property legislation. However, the absence of Western- de Ia propri6t6 intellectuelle, la R6publique populaire style rule of law in China has contributed to foreign de Chine a reconnu la n6cessit6 d'adopter une 16gisla- dissatisfaction with the enforcement of IPRs.
    [Show full text]