THE TROUBLE WITH THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY mRP):DECONSTRUCTINC COMMON ASSUMPTIONS AND DEVELOPING A NEW APPROACH TO CCCYBERSOUATTING" Madeleine Lamothe-Samson thesis submitted in confomity with the requirernents For the degree of Master of Laws (LL.M.) Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto October 1,200 1 O Copyright by Madeleine Lamothe-Samson (2001) National Library Bibiiiéque nationale WD ~fc-da du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Welicrglon Street 395. rue Wellington OtîawaON KlAOW OttawaON KlAW canada CaMda The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exciusive Licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Libmy of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seil reproduire, prêter, disûibuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur consewe la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT THE TROUBLE WITH THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY VRP): DECONSTRUCTING COMMON ASSUMPTIONS AND DEVELOPING A NEW APPROACH TO "CYBERSOUATTING" Madeleine Lamothe-Samson Master of Law (LL.M.) 2001 Faculty of Law University of Toronto This thesis challenges the association between cybersquatting and trademark infiingement. It shows that only a small number of domain namehademark disputes constitute trademark infkingement, passing off or dilution as prohibited in Canada and the Unites States. It argues that it is a mistake to use trademark law to justim the granting of relief against "cybersquatting", because it arnounts to an unjustified expansion of trademark owner's nghts over the general public's fieedom to use trademarks for non-trademark purposes. It then argues that in order to reduce the number of bad decisions under the ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), it is necessq to identify what exactly is wrong with cybersquatting. After concluding that none of the rationales most often put forward are truly satisfactory, this thesis suggests that the civil law doctrine of abuse of rights is a better legal framework for dispute resolution mechanisms like the UDRP. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 thank rny supervisor, Professor Abraham Drassinower, for his time and helpfùl comments. 1 also thank Dr. Andrew Christie, fiom University of Melbourne, for offering me a different perspective on a topic he knows well and for playing devil's advocate with my arguments, which contnbuted to make thern stronger. 1 thank the Faculty of Law, as well as the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy, for permitting me to pursue graduate studies, and for offenng me a stimulating environment. Thanks, also, to al1 my fellow graduate students fiom al1 over the world, for a wonderfùl year in Toronto. Je remercie mes parents, Denis, Denyse, Roger et Micheline, pour leur présence et leur support à toutes les étapes de ce périple d'un an à travers les subtilités du droit, mais aussi à travers les émotions. J'aimerais enfin exprimer tout mon amour et toute ma gratitude à Jean-Christophe, dont la présence, en personne et au téléphone, a grandement contribué à ma réussite. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 1- TRADEMARK LAW IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES .......................O.......... 8 A- Canada ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 1. Passing Off .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 a) The Existence of Goodwill ........................................................................................................................... 12 b) The Likelihood of Confiision Due to Misrepresentation ............................................................................. 13 (i) Intent to Deceive .................................................................................................................................... 13 (ii) Cognizable Confusion ........................................................................................................................... 13 -Average Consumer .............................................................................................................................. 14 OReasonable Care .................................................................................................................................. 15 c) The Damage ................................................................................................................................................. 16 d) Passing Offand Domain Names .................................................................................................................. 16 (i) A Trip to the United Kingdom ................................................................................................................ 16 (ii) Back in Canada ...................................................................................................................................... 19 2 . Trademark Infiingement ................................................................................................................................... 25 a) The "Use" Requirement .............................................................................................................................. -28 b) The "Confusion" Requirement ................................................................................................................... 29 c) Trademark Infnngement and Domain Names .............................................................................................. 31 B- United States......................................... ...............................................................................................................32 1. Unfair Competition under the Lariham Act ...................................................................................................... -32 2 . Tradernark Infringement under the Lanharn Act ............................................................................................... 32 a) The "Use" Requirement ............................................................................................................................... 33 b) The "Confusion" Requirernent ..................................................................................................................... 36 c) Trademark Infringement and Domain Names .............................................................................................. 37 II- DILUTION: A MOVE FORWARD IN THE RECOGNITION OF TRADEMARKS AS COMMODITIES....................................................................................................................... 46 A- What is Dilution? ........................................ ................................................................................................... 46 8- The United States Model: the Federal Trademark Dilurion Act ..................................................................... 48 1 . Requirements for the Grantins of Relief Under the FTDA ............................................................................. 49 a) "Famousness" of the Trademark ............................................................................................................ 50 b) "Commercial Use in Commerce" ............................................................................................................. 50 c) Likelihood of Dilution ................................................................................................................................. 52 (i).. Dilution by Blurring ................................................................................................................................ 52 (il)Dilution by Tarnishment ....................................................................................................................... 55 2 . Dornain Names. Cybersquatting and the FTDA ............................................................................................ 58 C- The Canadian Version: Section 22 of the Trrrde-marks Act ...................................................................... 65 1. The "Use" Requirement .................................................................................................................................... 65 2 . The "Depreciation" Requirement ...................................................................................................................... 67 3. Domain Names, Cybersquatting and Section 22 ............................................................................................... 72 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................