Are Pay Per Click Sites Legitimate?

Pay per click sites are legitimate under WIPO’s Overview 3.0. However, at least two ADR Forum decisions disagree and say that “Use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to a site featuring unrelated pay-per-click hyperlinks may not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.” WIPO and […]

Continue Reading

Viking.com Domain Name Dispute – RDNH

The viking .com domain name dispute resulted in a finding of RDNH. Office Depot, the Respondent won the domain name dispute. Key points in the Viking .com Domain Name Dispute The Complainant’s rights, however, are not global nor exclusive and do not blot out the Respondent’s current rights to certain VIKING trademarks, … The Respondent […]

Continue Reading

How to Avoid Domain Name Disputes

Most domain name disputes are avoidable. Statistically, just over half of the domain name disputes are justified, according to the transfer vs denied panelist decisions of fair minded panelists. Many domain name disputes are unavoidable because complainants are over reaching or just trying to hijack a domain name because they want it without paying for […]

Continue Reading

Armani UDRP Decision and Analysis

Armani UDRP Decision and Analysis: The failed Armani.com UDRP complaint is an example where legitimate interests exist in an otherwise famous brand name. Armani UDRP Complaint Summary The UDRP panel found that the then owner of armani.com, Mr. Anand Ramnath Mani, had a legitimate interest in the armani.com domain name because his initials were A.R. and […]

Continue Reading

hakoba.com RDNH: Hakoba Lifestyle Limited v. Mukesh Shah, WIPO Case No. D2017-0675

The WIPO panel found that Hakoba Lifestyle Limited tried to hijack the domain hakoba.com from Mukesh Shah in a UDRP complaint, WIPO Case No. D2017-0675. The respondent won even though it offered to license hakoba.com for USD 500,000 because: The panel noted that although Mukesh Shah emailed the Complainant on June 26, 2013, offering a “counter-proposal” […]

Continue Reading

Domain hijacking and bias in UDRP panelists

Statistically, the UDRP panelists are predisposed to find for complainants. Some panelists find for the complainant in 87% of the cases. Many of these panelists have decided hundreds of cases. Trademark owners filed an all-time record 3,036 cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) with WIPO in 2016, an increase of 10% over the […]

Continue Reading

Holding a domain name without use is not udrp bad faith

In a 2015 case about nanosonics.com under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) before the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), a panel has denied a domain name transfer on the basis that there was no UDRP bad faith use, even though the respondent had held the domain name without using it for almost […]

Continue Reading

UDRP Complaint

A UDRP complaint is a way to obtain a domain name that was registered in bad faith by someone else. A complainant should make sure that it is bringing its complaint in good faith, otherwise, a UDRP panel may label it as a reverse domain name hijacker. Moreover, a complainant could be hit with a $100,000 […]

Continue Reading

Domain Hijacking

Domain hijacking is also called RDNH or reverse domain name hijacking Domain hijacking happens when someone files a UDRP complaint or a court action in bad faith to get a domain name from its registered owner. A domain hijacking complaint is often called a plan B complaint. A classic plan B complaint to secure a […]

Continue Reading

WebMagic Ventures wins UDRP Dispute over dataminer.com

WebMagic Ventures won a UDRP Dispute over its dataminer.com domain name in a WIPO 3-member panel decision, on November 1, 2016. The WIPO UDRP panel also found that the complainant was guilty of reverse domain hijacking “RDNH.” Skyline Communications filed a UDRP complaint regarding the dataminer.com domain name claiming that it has used the DataMiner brand […]

Continue Reading