When you use a service which tends to boilerplate all of your pleadings, you sometimes get what you pay for. CitizenHawk does a variety of different online brand protection activities. But a bunch of what it does is automated and boilerplate.
A UDRP complaint seeking arbitration to transfer a domain name which you believe is infringing your trademark mark to you and to obtain control of that domain name. A common question we often have is whether or not there is a difference between the various arbitration authorities who can hear your UDRP dispute.
Marc Randazza (Complainant) of The Randazza Legal
Group wins UDRP action against Cybersquatter Crystal Cox (Respondnent) for the
bad faith registration and use of domain names incorporating the Complainant’s
the Respondent, in registering multiple domain names which each incorporated the
Complainant’s personal name or surname – all of which are identical to corresponding ones of the Complainant’s RANDAZZA
Marks, certainly denied the Complainant the right to reflect any of those marks
in a domain name and exhibited a pattern of conduct in doing so.
the Respondent’s websites, to which the disputed domain names resolved, contained
pay-per-click (click-through) links to third-party websites, including that of
a competitor of the Complainant.
Obviously, in doing so, the Respondent relied on the confusion she
caused to Internet users who thought they were reaching the Complainant’s website but in actuality
were diverted to one of the Respondent’s websites instead for her own pecuniary
benefit in subsequently collecting click-through revenue as a result of some of
those users interacting with those sites – revenue she would not have gained
but for the diversion, and denying the Complainant legal business and his
resulting revenue which he and his law firm may have otherwise received had
those users not been so diverted.
Hence, the Panel concludes
that the Respondent violated paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy including both
the general bad faith provision in paragraph 4(b) and also the specific
exemplary bad faith conduct set forth in each of paragraphs 4(b)(ii), (iii) and
Here are the lessons that we've learned as a result of actually getting out in front of a judge and a jury, and trying these ACPA cases. Number one, they are challenging cases because there's so little case law out there to help judges understand cybersquatting law issues. The other thing that is very clear is that so few judges have trademark law experience, let alone cybersquatting law experience that you have to be very careful about educating the judge.
We’re broadcasting from the International Trademark Association Conference in Washington D.C. Over 9,000 trademark attorneys and in-house counsel from around the world are here to talk about brands, brand protections, trademarks, trademark registration. Today, we’re talking, again, with Anthony Don, CTO of keepalert.com a monitoring platform that helps trademark owners and their lawyers gather information about brand attacks on the internet, help them prioritize that information, assess that information and capture that information for future use. Anthony, welcome to the show.
Protecting your trademarks and brands from attack on the Internet continues to become more difficult. From cybersquattters who register variations of your trademarks or a domain name as their own in order to divert your business and customers, to keyword advertising infringement and social media trademark infringement, your company needs help protecting tradeamrks online. The most challenging aspect of online brand protection is identifying, categorizing and prioritizing the various problems which occur. At the International Trademark Association Conference in Washington DC, I was able to meet with numerous employees from KeepAlert.com, which provides one of the most comprehensive online brand protection platforms I have seen. Further, the pricing makes sense on a return on investment basis. The folks at KeepAlert provided me access to their platform and have been allowing me to test the platform since early May, 2012. Here is an Interview of Anythony Don, CTO of KeepAlert.
Now the first thing you need to know is that the ACPA, the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, has a very limited number of cases that have been decided under it. The language of the statute is fairly clear, but, as with any law, there's room for disagreement about what the statute really means. One of the defenses a cybersquatter will put forward if you sue them under the ACPA is that they did not have the bad faith intent to profit from your trademark when they registered, used, or trafficked in the domain.
Welcome to Cybersquatting Law Radio where domain name, cybersquatting, and trademark domain name issues are always the hottest topic of discussion. Whether you are a trademark owner who believes they are a victim of cybersquatting or a domain owner wrongly accused of trademark infringement, you will find all the tips you need to protect your rights right here.
My name is cybersquatting law attorney Enrico Schaefer. Today what we're going to do is we're going to talk a little bit about a lawsuit that we concluded recently, an Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act lawsuit brought by our client, the plaintiff, against a number of defendants who had registered en masse, not tens, not dozens, but hundreds of typographical variations of our client's famous and incontestable trademarks. There were a lot of lessons learned along the way, and I want to share some of those lessons with you as we talk about what kinds of defenses you might expect to see if you file an anti-cybersquatting consumer protection act lawsuit as a plaintiff against a defendant in court.
...the whole concept of cybersquatting is something that's foreign to many people. Maybe, they've never heard the term cybersquatting before. They may register domain names for fun, or maybe even for a living without a high level understanding of cybersquatting law. And all of a sudden they find themselves being accused of cybersquatting. The last thing you want to do is be a cybersquatter.
Cybersquatting law addresses trademark infringement under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP Policy) and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). But a new law which will directly affect domainers is gaining traction in Washington, D.C.. The Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) are working their way through Congress and appear to have enough traction to lead to the conclusion that some variation of these bills may eventually pass Congress. The Protect IP Act seeks to kill websites (i.e. domain names) which engage in copyright and trademark infringement when those websites/domain names are “dedicated to infringing activities.” Essentially, The Protect IP Act works at the DNS level. A website is taken down by pulling the domain name from domain name servers which serve up results in the United States. Essentially, the domain name is blacklisted from the Internet if it is determined that the primary activity of that website is to engage in trademark infringement or copyright infringement. Of course, trademark infringement on the Internet is primarily expressed by cybersquatting.
MGM Resorts International files cybersquatting lawsuit in US District Court in Las Vegas against four individuals and two companies for cybersquatting on its casino and poker related domain names such as bellagioonlinepoker.com, circuscircuspoker.com, excaliburpoker.com, luxorpoker.com, mandalaybayonlinepoker.com and ariapoker.com.
MGM alleges that the defendants have registered "confusingly similar" domain names with the bad faith intent to profit from the registrations. Read full complaint below:
Our leading internet law firm has lawyers and law offices in the following locations. Our internet attorneys handle matters and litigation cases throughout the Untied States on a pro hac vice basis, for clients like you from around the world. Speak with an internet lawyer from our law firm today for more information.
Traverse Legal Internet Law - Traverse City, Michigan Office | 810 Cottageview Drive, G20, Traverse City, MI 49684 | (231) 932-0411
Traverse Legal Internet Law - Austin, Texas Office | 106 E. Sixth Street, Suite 900, Austin, TX 78701 | (866) 936-7447
Traverse Legal Internet Law - Los Angeles, California Office | 301 E. Colorado Blvd, Suite 514, Pasadena, CA 91101 | (626) 793-8607
Traverse Legal Internet Law - Encino, California Office | 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 358, Encino, CA 91436-1707 | (866) 936-7447