Downloads/Tap Udrp 2Paper2002.Pdf (Last Included in the Complaint and Response – If a Response Is Ever Filed – Visited May 11 2009))
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
News in brief The Federal Court of implemented informally by the in bad faith (Lindt Bunny Case IBM, as well as head of the IP law Australia has dismissed Mars court in the context of IP (Case C-529/07, June 11 2009)). team. Practitioners and mark Australia Pty Ltd’s claims of litigation. Overall, the court’s The dispute centred on the use by owners are generally in favour of passing off, misleading conduct objective is to facilitate, where two competing confectionery the appointment, noting that and trademark infringement possible, the scheduling of trials companies of a chocolate rabbit Kappos has the experience and against Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd to commence within two years shape. The European court did credibility needed for the role. (Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet of the start of the proceeding. not provide exhaustive guidance Google changed its keyword Rewards Pty Ltd ([2009] FCA 606, New rules for the Regulations on how bad faith can be proved. advertising policy for the United June 5 2009)). The decision on Customs Protection of IP However, it did clarify some States on June 15. Under the suggests that where a Rights came into force in China on aspects of the test, which will be new rules, certain third parties trademark has become very well July 1. The rules require IP rights of assistance to brand owners in will be permitted to use known among consumers, the owners to file a more detailed contesting ‘register squatters’ and trademark terms in sponsored likelihood of deception or form when making an application others who seek to misuse the ad text. The change came soon confusion will be reduced. for the recordal of their rights trademark system. after the search engine The Canadian Federal Court with Customs. Customs officials The White House has extended its policy of permitting has issued a practice direction are also vested with greater announced President Obama’s third-party use of trademark aimed at streamlining complex discretionary powers with regard intention to nominate David terms as keywords – but not in litigation. The practice direction to the monitoring of goods. Kappos as director of the United ad text – to 190 countries. formalizes and extends to all The ECJ has issued its first States Patent and Trademark Google has also been hit with a practice areas various initiatives ruling on what it means to file a Office. Kappos is vice president series of actions over keywords that have recently been Community trademark application and assistant general counsel at in the United States. Erratum: On page 10 of Issue 19 of WTR adidas and eBay should have appeared as nominees in the North America Team of the Year category in place of Apple and Levi Strauss. ©iStockphoto.com/Andrey Prokhorov ©iStockphoto.com/Andrey 6 World Trademark Review August/September 2009 www.WorldTrademarkReview.com The Uniform Doman Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) celebrates its 10th anniversary this year at a time when the entire domain name system is on the cusp of change. Now seems the perfect moment to The reflect on the achievements of the UDRP over the past 10 years and to assess the challenges that lie ahead for trademark owners as the Internet opens up to new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). In this two-part name special, domain name experts from Silverberg Goldman & Bikoff first provide a detailed analysis of landmark rulings issued under the UDRP since its creation; WTR’s Adam Smith then examines the latest controversy game surrounding the expansion of the gTLD space. www.WorldTrademarkReview.com August/September 2009 World Trademark Review 7 Feature By James L Bikoff, David K Heasley, Phillip V Marano and Michael T Delaney On October 24 1999, less than a year after its inception, ICANN approved perhaps its most notable achievement to date – the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). All ICANN-accredited domain name registrars for top-level domain names (TLDs) such as ‘.com’, ‘.org’ and ‘.net’ are required to abide by the UDRP. All parties registering a domain name with these registrars must also agree to abide by the UDRP. This mandatory agreement between registrars and registrants contains the substantive and procedural rules for resolution of any trademark-based domain name dispute. In short, it provides trademark owners with a relatively inexpensive and expeditious method of cancelling or transferring domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to their own marks. With the 10th anniversary of the UDRP rapidly approaching, it is fitting that we examine its defining characteristics, as well as some notable decisions made under its auspices, to predict and prepare for future UDRP practice. The basics Under the UDRP, trademark owners that believe a registered domain name infringes or dilutes their marks may file a complaint with one of four ICANN-approved dispute resolution service providers: • the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); • the National Arbitration Forum (NAF); • the Asia Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre; and • the Czech Arbitration Court. A UDRP complaint must specify, among other things: • the domain names in dispute; • the registrar with whom the domain names are registered at the time the complaint is filed; • the name of the registrant; and The UDRP • adequate grounds for the complaint. As adequate grounds, a UDRP complainant bears the burden of establishing all the following three elements. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a turns 10 trademark in which the complainant has rights – Generally, a national trademark registration or well-established common law rights will prove that a complainant has rights to a trademark. However, the more challenging, fact-specific question is whether a A review of the UDRP’s defining characteristics and key domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s decisions is in order as the policy prepares to celebrate mark. its 10th anniversary at a time of intense speculation The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the regarding the future direction of the Internet domain name – A registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name where: • no demonstrable preparations have been made to use the Since the inception of the Domain Name System in 1983, domain domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or services; names have generally been granted registration on a first come, first • the registrant is not commonly known by the domain name; or served basis. Not surprisingly, when the Internet was opened to • the registrant has not made a legitimate, non-commercial or fair commercial traffic, trademark disputes over domain names use of the domain name. proliferated. Cybersquatters or cyberpirates sought to hold well- known trademarks hostage in domain names by quickly registering The registrant has both registered and used the domain name the names, then extorting a significant profit from the rightful in bad faith – Bad-faith registration contemplates, “without owners or using the names to misdirect internet traffic to their own limitation”, the following primary motivations of a registrant: sites. In the mid to late 1990s, the unbridled growth of the Internet • intent to sell a domain name, at a profit, to a complainant had convinced all the major stakeholders that the existing method trademark owner; of administering the Domain Name System – at the time a • intent to prevent a complainant from reflecting its trademark in cooperative agreement between the US National Science Foundation a corresponding domain name; and a company called Network Solutions – needed to be changed. So • intent to disrupt the business of a competitor; and in November 1998, the Domain Name System began a gradual • intent to attract and misdirect internet traffic by creating a transition to privatization; responsibility for its administration was likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s trademark. handed to a new non-profit organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Use in bad faith exists in myriad circumstances developed over 8 World Trademark Review August/September 2009 www.WorldTrademarkReview.com time in UDRP jurisprudence and is generally established in connection with limited opportunity to supplement these filings. There is no to the registrant’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in a domain discovery in UDRP actions, so they avoid the delays and costs name. For example, bad-faith use typically exists where a registrant is associated with lawsuits. not using a domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or services, Lastly, and most importantly for trademark owners, the vast but is attempting to sell the domain name for a profit. majority of domain name disputes decided under the UDRP are Notably, the UDRP is the first trademark-based dispute policy to resolved in favour of the complainant. Since the first UDRP consider ‘reverse domain name hijacking’. This refers to a complaint was filed with WIPO on December 2 1999 over 15,200 complainant’s bad-faith use of the UDRP and abuse of the additional complaints – involving over 25,000 domain names administrative proceeding to deprive a registrant of a domain name. – have been filed with WIPO. Of the total UDRP complaints filed Such hijacking generally occurs where a ‘big business bully’ of a with WIPO, approximately 84% resulted in transfer of the domain complainant files a UDRP complaint against a proverbial ‘little guy’ name to the complainant. Since the first UDRP complaint was filed of a registrant who, for instance, has been using a domain name in with NAF on January 10 2000, over 11,100 complaints have been good faith but who also has inferior trademark rights. A filed. Of the total complaints filed with NAF, over 8,200 – or roughly complainant must have knowledge of a registrant’s legitimate 73% – resulted in transfer of the domain name to the complainant interest in a domain name; without it, imposition of reverse domain and only slightly over 1,300 – or roughly 11% – were denied (WIPO name hijacking is unduly harsh (see MAHA Maschinenbau Domain Name Dispute Resolution Statistics are available at Haldenwang GmbH & Co KG v Rajani, WIPO Case D2000-1816).