|
Monday January 21, 2013 |
American Girl, the well-known doll maker, recently lost a domain name battle over AmericanGirl.ca as panelist Bradley Freedman
ruled that the company failed to meet the basic requirements in the
dot-ca dispute resolution policy. The case should have been a slam dunk
as the company's trademark pre-dates the domain name registration, the
domain was being used for a pay-per-click site, and the domain name
registrant did not even respond to the complaint. Yet American Girl
still lost as it failed meet one of the policy's basic requirements of
providing some evidence that the registrant did not have a legitimate
interest in the domain name. In reading Freedman's decision, it is
readily apparent that there was ample opportunity to do so, yet the
company oddly did not take advantage of a CIRA policy that would have
assisted it in making the case. The left Freedman with little
alternative but to conclude:
Policy paragraph 1.1 provides that the purpose of the Policy is to provide a forum in which cases of bad faith domain name registration can be dealt with relatively inexpensively and quickly. Nevertheless, a proceeding under the Policy affects the respective rights of the parties regarding a disputed domain name, and the Policy and Rules expressly require a panel to consider all of the evidence and argument presented in the proceeding and render its decision in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and applicable law. Accordingly, a panel must determine whether a complainant has met its onus regarding each of the elements specified in Policy paragraph 4.1, and if a complainant has failed to do so the panel must dismiss the complaint.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel is compelled to conclude that the Complainant has failed to satisfy the onus to provide "some evidence" that the Registrant has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name as described in Policy paragraphs 3.4(e) and (f). Consequently, the Complaint cannot succeed.american girl, cdrp, cira, domain name disputes Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday January 21, 2013 |
|
|
Tuesday August 09, 2011 |
Domain name disputes emerged as one of the first Internet legal issues
in the mid-1990s as speculators recognized the value of domain names
and the potential to resell them to the highest bidder. The growth of
"cybersquatting" led to several unsuccessful attempts to establish a
dispute resolution system. Finally, in 1999, the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the agency responsible for
administering the domain name system, created the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which has since resolved tens of
thousands of disputed domains.
The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), which manages the
dot-ca domain, adopted its own dispute resolution policy, the CIRA
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) in 2002. My weekly
technology law column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) notes that using the UDRP as
a model, CIRA developed a Canadian version that borrows much of its
structure and content from the international approach, yet reflects
Canadian law and policy.
cdrp, cira, domain names Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday August 09, 2011 |
|
View
|
|
|
Tuesday August 09, 2011 |
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on August 7, 2011 as New rules for domain disputes
Domain name disputes emerged as one of the first Internet legal issues
in the mid-1990s as speculators recognized the value of domain names
and the potential to resell them to the highest bidder. The growth of
"cybersquatting" led to several unsuccessful attempts to establish a
dispute resolution system. Finally, in 1999, the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the agency responsible for
administering the domain name system, created the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which has since resolved tens of
thousands of disputed domains.
The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), which manages the
dot-ca domain, adopted its own dispute resolution policy, the CIRA
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) in 2002. Using the UDRP as
a model, CIRA developed a Canadian version that borrows much of its
structure and content from the international approach, yet reflects
Canadian law and policy.
The "Canadianization" of the ICANN UDRP reflected a consensus that the
CDRP should be balanced and impartial and that Canada was positioned to
correct perceived flaws in the international model. The result was a
policy that borrowed its structure from the ICANN UDRP, since that
process was familiar to many within the legal and Internet communities.
The Canadian policy calls for quick adjudication of all disputes in a
cost-effective manner and ensures that either party may still launch a
court action if they are left unsatisfied.
Trademark holders who believe a dot-ca domain name registration
involves cybersquatting may file a claim supported by evidence of their
rights to the trademark, bad faith by the domain name registrant, and
the fact that the registrant has no legitimate interest in the
name. The domain name registrant is then provided with an
opportunity to rebut the claim. Expert panelists adjudicate the cases
with written decisions delivered within a few months.
The CDRP has dealt with many well-known trademarks over the years.
Recent cases include the transfer of ultimatefightingchampionship.ca,
ufc.ca, jockey.ca, mentos.ca, and americanidol.ca to trademark holders.
The organization recently announced a series of reforms set to take
effect later this month that, once implemented, will more closely
mirror the ICANN UDRP and could lead to an increase in complaints.
The most important change involves an expanded definition of what
constitutes "bad faith" under the policy. Both the ICANN and CIRA
dispute models are intended to be limited to clear cases of
cybersquatting and the bad faith definition establishes the boundaries
of potential claims.
The CDRP initially included an exhaustive list of bad faith
characteristics including registering a domain name with the intent to
sell it to the trademark holder or registering multiple domain names
that correspond to trademarks (a practice known as warehousing
domains).
The exhaustive list was intended to guard against the ICANN experience
where dispute panelists ventured well beyond clear cases of
cybersquatting by creating their own categories of bad faith. Under the
new CIRA policy, the bad faith list is now non-exhaustive, opening the
door to more domain name dispute claims and increasing the risk of
inconsistent decisions.
The new policy does, however, provide greater protection for
registrants of generic domain names. These include generic words that
may correspond to a trademark, but are widely used for many other
purposes. Registrants will no longer be required to marshall
evidence they have used the generic domain in order to claim a
legitimate interest.
Other changes include shortening the implementation period to allow for
faster domain name transfers after a decision is released and allowing
for domain names to change hands during the dispute process should the
parties settle the case.
Michael Geist holds the Canada
Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of
Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online
at www.michaelgeist.ca.
cdrp, cira, domain names Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday August 09, 2011 |
|
|
Friday July 22, 2011 |
|
CIRA has announced changes
to the dot-ca domain name dispute resolution policy. The changes expand
the scope of bad faith, but also eliminate the need for use for generic
domain names. The changes take effect on August 22nd.
cdrp, cira, domain name disputes Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday July 22, 2011 |
|
|
