Failing to do so may result in a dismissal of their claim for lack of standing.Ĭonfusing similarity. In other words, a brand owner claiming unregistered rights needs to demonstrate that the mark has “secondary meaning” in the minds of consumers. Simply claiming that a trademark has been used for some time without any supporting evidence does not establish trademark rights. This may include evidence of consumer, industry, or media recognition sales volumes advertising or consumer surveys. To demonstrate such unregistered “common law” trademark rights a brand owner must provide substantial supporting evidence. In some cases, a brand owner may seek to argue it has “common law” trademark rights because it has used its business name (often for a minimum number of years) in a way that consumers have come to exclusively associate with the brand owners’ products. Put simply, without trademark rights it is not possible to file a UDRP complaint. This is most often done by providing copies of trademark registration certificates. A brand owner filing a UDRP complaint must, as a first step, adequately demonstrate that they own rights in a trademark or service mark. Notable highlights of the WIPO Overview 3.0 include the companion issues of trademark rights and the test for “confusing similarity”, the timing of domain name registrations, consolidation of claims against multiple respondents, and free speech defenses. Version 3.0 of the WIPO Overview, released in May 2017, outlines consensus positions on nearly 100 topics, providing nearly 1,000 case citations on issues ranging from whether a brand owner has standing to file a claim to procedural questions.Ĭited in nearly every UDRP-related pleading and decision, the WIPO Overview 3.0 offers invaluable guidance for parties to domain name disputes, and is a go-to reference tool for WIPO panelists. Since then – and in line with the broader evolution of online behavior – UDRP jurisprudence has continued to evolve, with consensus positions emerging on a wide range of issues that are common to many UDRP cases. Version 1.0 of t he WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions was released in 2005, and Version 2.0 in 2011. In the 18 years since the UDRP’s implementation, the WIPO Center has reported periodically on these consensus positions by panelists. In addition to handling UDRP-related disputes, the WIPO Center monitors decisions issued by the appointed external experts who weigh up the cases (referred to as “panelists”) to identify areas of consensus in UDRP jurisprudence. Since 1999 when the UDRP was first implemented, the WIPO Center has processed almost 40,000 UDRP-based cases, involving parties from nearly 180 countries and some 500 WIPO panelists of 65 nationalities. In 2016, the number of cases rose by 10 percent on the previous year, with trademark owners filing over 3,000 UDRP cases with WIPO. In recent years, the UDRP caseload of the WIPO Center has continued to increase, with filing rates breaking new records. WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center is both the author of the UDRP, and the global leader in domain name dispute resolution services under the UDRP. Themselves against a claim of cybersquatting (image: JESS3). Guidance to anyone considering filing a claim or needing to defend (Version 3.0) released in May 2017 offers invaluable information and WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |