- Impact
- 32,434
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to hear NISSAN.COM Appeal
After being rebuked by a federal district court when it threw a barrage of legal claims at Uzi Nissan, the owner of NISSAN.COM and NISSAN.NET, the Japanese auto maker Nissan Motor Co. had its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court rejected without comment. While the decision means that the Ninth Circuit's decision not to strip Mr. Nissan of his domains will stand, so will the court's decision that Mr. Nissan not use the site to disparage the auto company or to post commercial content that would cause "initial interest confusion" with Internet users looking for the car maker.
WIPO Panelist Refuses to Expand Scope of UDRP
Disputes between business owners and web contractors over control of company domains is a matter for contract law and should be heard by courts with jurisdiction over the agreement and not by Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) panels, according to a World Intellectual Property Organization panelist in a decision regarding TRADEPALS.COM. The panelist held that when a dispute is primarily contractual and dependant upon the law governing the contract it should be adjudicated in a forum that can provide proper procedures for a proper hearing on the details of the dispute complete with discovery, testimony and oral argument.
Trademark Elephant Dealt Blow by UDRP Panel
After purchasing the domain for more than $20,000, the owner of ELEPHANT.COM won a dispute brought before UDRP by a large insurance company with a UK trademark registration for ELEPHANT and operating under the domain ELEPHANT.CO.UK. The panel of three domain experts held that use of the domain with advertisement listings provided by Google's AdSense program did not render his use of the domain illegitimate due to the lack of control allowed by Google with regards to their AdSense program and the fact that his purchase of the domain was not done in bad faith.
Intent at Registration Determinative According to UDRP Panelist
Another large domain portfolio owner was successful defending one their domains when they won a UDRP dispute regarding its ownership of the domain YEL.COM. Despite finding that the domain was confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark in YELL and that the domain was not being used legitimately, the panel found that the portfolio owner had not bought the domain in bad faith and allowed its continued registration. The decision illustrates a trend among panelists to narrowly interpret the third element of UDRP concerning registration and use in bad faith in contrast with the broadly drafted standards used by certain country-code top-level domains like Nominet and their Dispute Resolution Service Policy for .co.uk domains.
After being rebuked by a federal district court when it threw a barrage of legal claims at Uzi Nissan, the owner of NISSAN.COM and NISSAN.NET, the Japanese auto maker Nissan Motor Co. had its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court rejected without comment. While the decision means that the Ninth Circuit's decision not to strip Mr. Nissan of his domains will stand, so will the court's decision that Mr. Nissan not use the site to disparage the auto company or to post commercial content that would cause "initial interest confusion" with Internet users looking for the car maker.
WIPO Panelist Refuses to Expand Scope of UDRP
Disputes between business owners and web contractors over control of company domains is a matter for contract law and should be heard by courts with jurisdiction over the agreement and not by Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) panels, according to a World Intellectual Property Organization panelist in a decision regarding TRADEPALS.COM. The panelist held that when a dispute is primarily contractual and dependant upon the law governing the contract it should be adjudicated in a forum that can provide proper procedures for a proper hearing on the details of the dispute complete with discovery, testimony and oral argument.
Trademark Elephant Dealt Blow by UDRP Panel
After purchasing the domain for more than $20,000, the owner of ELEPHANT.COM won a dispute brought before UDRP by a large insurance company with a UK trademark registration for ELEPHANT and operating under the domain ELEPHANT.CO.UK. The panel of three domain experts held that use of the domain with advertisement listings provided by Google's AdSense program did not render his use of the domain illegitimate due to the lack of control allowed by Google with regards to their AdSense program and the fact that his purchase of the domain was not done in bad faith.
Intent at Registration Determinative According to UDRP Panelist
Another large domain portfolio owner was successful defending one their domains when they won a UDRP dispute regarding its ownership of the domain YEL.COM. Despite finding that the domain was confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark in YELL and that the domain was not being used legitimately, the panel found that the portfolio owner had not bought the domain in bad faith and allowed its continued registration. The decision illustrates a trend among panelists to narrowly interpret the third element of UDRP concerning registration and use in bad faith in contrast with the broadly drafted standards used by certain country-code top-level domains like Nominet and their Dispute Resolution Service Policy for .co.uk domains.
