Cybersquatting & Domain Dispute Attorneys / Lawyers

Avoiding Adverse UDRP Decisions: A NAF Transfer Order of The Million Dollar Domain LH.com Does Not Bode Well For Domainers

On April 17, 2008 a NAF Arbitration Panel (David Sorkin Dissenting) ordered the transfer of lh.com from Future Media Architects, Inc. to Deutsche Lufthansa AG. Read the cybersquatting and transfer decision here. The most interesting part of the decision was the Panel's conclusion that buying and holding domain names was not a legitimate use. The Panel stated:

"Respondent’s business model involves the indiscriminate acquisition and use of as many such domain names as possible. The traditional analyses of the rights to or legitimate interests element should not apply in gross when a registrant is not seeking to use any particular domain name to conduct business, is not otherwise known by that name, and has no interest in the nature of the transferor’s rights there from."

S. 2661 is a Fox in Sheep’s Clothing? Why Call it an Anti-Phishing Bill When It Is Also A Trademark Bill?

Chuck Kisselburg at the ICANNblog makes a good point about he so-called Anti-Phishing Bill, Senate Bill 2661. While the bill is not close to becoming a law at this juncture, Chuck correctly notes that "the bill feels like a fox in sheep’s clothing as the bill’s name suggests a bill against anti-phishing. Instead the bill not only discusses anti-phishing but seems to be based around the use, or misuse of domain names."

Failure to Respond To Trademark Threat Letters & Use of Privacy Services Can Support a Finding Of Bad Faith

There are many trademark risks to domain investors under the UDRP.   The opportunity to capitalize on strong generic or descriptive domain names is in many ways dependent on a solid understanding of UDRP decisions and avoiding behavior which would increase a risk of transfer.  As investors purchase domains at higher prices, the ability to protect those domains from transfer later on becomes more important.  A serious domainer needs to understand that their own behavior can provide ammunition to a complainant seeking a domain transfer order of a high value domain for trademark violations under the UDRP.  The WIPO panelists in creditkeeper.com ordered a transfer of a domain purchased by a domain investor for $48,000 based, in large part, on avoidable behavior and poor decision making by the domain investor.

[Trademark law is a key part of your business model.  Be smart. Educate yourself on trademark registration and other trademark infringement issues].

Parking Pages Can Create Risk Of A Finding Of Bad Faith Under the UDRP

Auto-generated websites equal bad faith under the UDRP « The Legal Satyricon

This lack of direct control is often a central theme in a cybersquatter’s response to a UDRP complaint. At least one UDRP panel bought this argument. See Admiral Insurance Services v. Dicker, WIPO Case No. D2005-0241 (“the Panel accepts that the terms under which Google makes its Adsense advertisements available do not permit the Respondent to control them . . .”). However, that panel included David Sorkin, which makes its findings suspect. (He rules for complainants less than 1/3 of the time, and has earned more than $100,000 in UDRP panelist fees. Do the math).

The prevailing trend is that the “willful blindness” argument is not valid, as illustrated in the recent decision: State of Florida, Florida Department of Management Services v. Bent Pettersen, WIPO Case No. D2008-0039 ... In coming to this conclusion, the Panels referred to another recent case, Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna, WIPO Case No. D2007-1912.

Technorati Tags: domaining, cybersquatting, bad faith