Category Archives: Abusive intent

Inadvertent Lapse of Both Trademark Registration and Domain Name

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Gmlevine

Falling out of the trademark registry for failure to file a section 8 affidavit may be embarrassing but not fatal; losing a domain name for inadvertence may be fatal depending on the strength or weakness of the trademark. In the canon of defenses, however, lapse does not prejudice a complainant’s standing to challenge a domain name holder. In Department of General Services, State of Maryland v. Domain Privacy Group, FA130300 1488524 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 2, 2013) Complainant’s trademark EMARYLAND MARKETPLACE was cancelled on October 5, 2012: the cause, “changeover in State personnel.” The Maryland Department of General Services re-applied for the trademark on February 13, 2013. Respondent jumped on the expired domain name immediately upon lapse.

In response … Read the rest

Posted in Abusive intent, bad faith use, Common law protection, Complainant "in mind", Cybersquatting, Inadvertent lapse of renewal, Para. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, Renewal / Re-registration, Targeting, UDRP, Website content | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Insufficient Evidence for Respondent’s Lack of Rights or Legitimate Interests – Not Even the Iconic Trademark Owner Is Excused From Having to Offer Proof

Posted on April 10, 2013 by Gmlevine

Just as complainants cannot prevail on the strength of their trademarks which only proves the first requirement that it has standing to maintain the proceedings, so respondents do not forfeit their domain names on default of responding to the complaint. This message continues to be lost even to the most prestigious law firms and the wisest counselors. If nothing but suppositional allegations are offered as proof for paragraphs 4(a)(ii) or 4(a)(iii) relief will be denied. Should that verdict be applied to iconic trademarks such as AOL, as it was in AOL, Inc. v. ChengshuangLi, FA1302001483339 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 26, 2013)? The Panel made the following pronouncement: the “Complainant’s entire argument” on the issue of rights or legitimate interests … Read the rest

Posted in Abusive intent, Burden of proof, Burden of proof / persuasion, Cybersquatting / Not cybersquatting, Default, Insufficiency of evidence, Intent / Tartgeting, Para. 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Para. 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, Reputation in the marketplace, UDRP Rule 10(d) (evidence) | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Untrue Allegations In and False Certification of Complaint: Major International Corporation Represented By Counsel

Posted on March 17, 2013 by Gmlevine

Respondents default in responding to complaints approximately 85% of the time so that if there are materially false allegations in the complaint and there is no response the untruths will likely not be picked up. When a respondent appears and challenges the truth of material allegations Complainant (and no less the attorney if complaint bears his certification) has an ethics problem. As the Panel states in The Procter & Gamble Company v. Marchex Sales, Inc., D2012-2179 (WIPO February 22, 2013) () in considering Respondent’s request for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking:

Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International [trademark] registration [which Complainant acquired by

… Read the rest

Posted in Abusive intent, Para. 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Para. 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, Para. 4(c)(i) of the Policy, Priority of use, Reputation in the marketplace, Reverse domain name hijacking, Successor in interest, Targeting / Not targeting, Trademark in mind, UDRP Rule 3(b)(xiv) | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Recovering Lapsed Domain Names

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Gmlevine

For a complainant to succeed in recapturing a lapsed domain name it must both anticipate and overcome respondent’s rebuttal that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. To fail on the prima facie case is to fail utterly because failure ends the case. Geographic proximity may make a difference in the assessment as does the relative strength or weakness of the trademark, but these factors are not alone sufficient against a respondent’s persuasive explanation for choosing the lapsed domain name. This is true even where parties presently compete if there are intervening circumstances favoring respondent. An example of complainant’s challenge, how difficult it can be, is illustrated in PFIP, LLC v. Blast Fitness Group, LLC / Thomas … Read the rest

Posted in Abusive intent, Burden of proof / persuasion, Common law protection, Cybersquatting / Not cybersquatting, Descriptive phrases, Inadvertent lapse of renewal, Opportunism, Para. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, Para. 4(c)(i) of the Policy, Timing of registration, Unregistered trademark | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Registrability of Words Standing Alone in Design Trademarks

Posted on February 15, 2013 by Gmlevine

Design trademarks combine figurative element(s) with word(s). The words may or may not be registrable standing alone. That they are or are not registrable is critical to determining confusing similarity. Non registrable terms are non-actionable because they fall into a category that cannot take on trademark status. The outcome of words disclaimed is more obvious; they cannot be used as a basis for infringement. The term “Minibar Systems” for example in Minibar North America Inc. v. Ian Musk & GEMS Global Electronic Minibar Systems AS, D2005-0035 (WIPO March 2, 2005) cannot be resuscitated as being a suggestive phrase when it is “merely” or “purely” descriptive.

Such words cannot be read as the mark, but an integral feature of it.  … Read the rest

Posted in Abusive intent, Generic/Descriptive terms, IP-Trademark, Para. 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Standing, Targeting / Not targeting, Trade names | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment