Saturday, April 17, 2010

Domain name disputes and cyberquatting

Domain name disputes and cyberquatting

What are the common elements of domain name dispute resolution process?

For a good overview of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP), and the factors relevant to each element, see the WIPO website.

The Australian Dispute Resolution Process for domain names (managed by auDA), can be found here.

What are the differences between these two policies.

We will be discussing some of the following cases, which would be good to review before class:

brisbane.com

q1resort.com

"sucks" cases - red bull and bakersdelightlies

personal names

Who should win in this case?

We will also discuss the proposal for new top level domains.

3 comments:

Hamid said...

The article describing Mr Holland as an online entrepreneur who owns the domain Qant.as is interesting and scary at the same time. To think that he bought the domain name for a mere $20 and its value has increased to $1.3 million by private auction is incredible. It will be an interesting case to watch and will probably sent a precedent for other cases like this that are likely to follow. It will be completely to his profit if he is correct that it has been a “gross oversight” by Qantas’s entire marketing department to not participate in the auction.

Louise said...

It will be a very interesting case if Qantas decides to take it to WIPO or auDA. Because Qantas and the respondent are both Australian entities/citizens one of assume that auDA would have jurisdiction. However since the domain name in dispute is .ac and clause 2.1 of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy refers to 2LD names .au, if I was Qantas, I would have the decision decided with WIPO.

What is interesting is that Qantas has had registered trademarks since 1975 (with a few 600806-600808 to be renewed 21 April 2010!). Qantas has even registered its trademarks in the USA. "QANT" has not been registered as a trademark in Australia or the USA.

My inclination is that if it does go to WIPO Qantas has a good case in establishing that the respondent registered qant.as in bad faith with the primary purpose of selling it well above the original purchase value. Unless the respondent can show he has a legitimate business in American Samoa for "qant" or if he registers the trademark "qant" in the USA, or even if he can prove "qant" is not confusingly similar to "qantas," it is likely that the panel would find that he registered the domain name, taking advantage of a loophole for a commercial advantage.

I would be interested to see if WIPO subsequently alters its UDRP policy to avoid this type of activity in the future.

Gerard said...

google wants groggle

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/biz-tech/groggle-boggled-by-google-mean-spirit-20100428-trq5.html