ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) International Reputations a Requirement?
    posted by michael on Wednesday March 06 2002, @02:27AM

    mjrippon writes "I read with interest this morning the decision of the panel led by Sir Ian Barker QC in the case of the domain name Supremo.com.

    The complaint was rejected because the Complainant did not produce sufficient evidence to support its claim that the mark SUPREMO was one in which it had rights. In this case the Complainant, a substantial Belgian coffee dealer, has traded for years under the mark and was unquestionably widely known within its particular circles by that mark. It seems to me that this would be plenty to base what in the UK we know as a passing off action, and in the USA is referred to as common law rights.

    I thought it strange then that the complaint should be rejected because Supremo had not established that it had rights in the mark."



    The reasoning?
    "the evidence from the Complainant is hardly strong enough to establish a common law mark in the United States (where the Respondent is domiciled) and in other common law jurisdictions where such [an unregistered] mark is recognized."

    Since when was it necessary to establish a reputation in the Respondent's domicile for an unregistered mark. Ah, you might say, what about superfares.com, vz.com, KCTS.com, all cases where this reasoning was used to reject the claim. That's true, but those cases were all applying the test for bad faith, not the Complainant's rights in the mark.

    Now it might be that the actual evidence (to which we are not privy) to support the Complainant's contentions was inadequate or insufficient to support its contentions, but to me this decision reads as though some sort of global reputation is required, as opposed to an international reputation (if you accept that there is a difference). And in making that point, the panel is not apparently able to rely on any UDRP precendent (not that I think one should rely on UDRP precedents).

    Maybe I'm overreacting here, but are we not opening up some sort of justification for cybersquatters based in obscure jurisdictions who can say in future that the complaint fails on ground 1 because the mark is not known in their place of residence, thereby avoiding the need for a balanced consideration of the various elements that make up the third test re bad faith. Seems to me like a dangerous precedent to set...

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    International Reputations a Requirement? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 5 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: International Reputations a Requirement?
    by mjrippon on Thursday March 07 2002, @01:10AM (#5157)
    User #2960 Info

    No I haven't - this is exactly what it says.

    What worries me is the possibility for squatters to sidesstep the more difficult bad faith test by contesting that a complainant does not enjoy sufficiently global reputation. That's clearly what the decision implies.

    It's no good burying your head in the sand and saying this isn't a precedent. You're right - it isn't for court proceedings, but that won't stop people referring to this decision as approval for their dubious defences.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com