Author name: fairwindsp

By Steve Levy Just two weeks ago I wrote about a decision in which a cybersecurity firm lost the <equifax-credit.com> domain name that it was using to conduct simulated phishing exercises for its corporate clients to test their susceptibility to online attacks. To show how nuanced the issue of arguably well-intentioned use is, and how subtle differences […]

By Steve Levy A recent UDRP decision offers a warning about the risks created when a company registers a domain name that incorporates a famous trademark for arguably well-intentioned purposes. The case concerns the domain name <equifax-credit.com>, which the Respondent, a cybersecurity company, claimed it registered for possible use in simulated phishing exercises offered to its corporate

By Steve Levy One question that often surfaces in UDRP disputes is whether the amount a respondent paid for a domain name has any bearing on the bad faith analysis under Paragraph 4(a)(iii). After all, if someone spends thousands of dollars at auction, doesn’t that suggest a legitimate investment rather than cybersquatting? The recent bilibili.ai decision from

By Steve Levy One question that often surfaces in UDRP disputes is whether the amount a respondent paid for a domain name has any bearing on the bad faith analysis under Paragraph 4(a)(iii). After all, if someone spends thousands of dollars at auction, doesn’t that suggest a legitimate investment rather than cybersquatting? The recent bilibili.ai decision from

By Steve Levy Nominative fair use has long been a point of tension in domain name disputes, especially when independent businesses use a brand name to signal that they sell parts or services compatible with the brand owner’s products. A recent decision involving the domain <beechtec.com> offers a clear illustration of how panels approach this issue when

By Steve Levy Under the UDRP a complainant typically only gets one shot at recovering a domain name. While it’s true that refiling a complaint against the same Respondent is only possible under exceptional circumstances, this rule doesn’t apply when the domain name has been sold to an unrelated new owner. A recent WIPO decision

By Steve Levy A brand launch, a business merger, or even the announcement of a long-awaited movie sequel can create a burst of public attention and cybersquatters know it. The moment a company signals that something big is coming, opportunistic registrants start snapping up domain names that match or mimic the news. For brand owners,

By Steve Levy When filing a UDRP complaint it’s critical to name the correct party as the Complainant. Most often this is the current owner listed in a trademark registration certificate (or an assignment recorded at the trademark office). However, there’s an exception to this where the Complainant is an exclusive licensee of the trademark owner. The

By Steve Levy Two recent UDRP decisions involving similar facts and arguments offer a study in contrasts and highlight the need for an appeals level in the UDRP as proposed at https://udrp.group and the more recent WIPO/ICA review of the UDRP. Both cases were brought by Ubiquity Global Services, owner of the AIGENT trademark, and in both, the

By Steve Levy When it comes to domain disputes, some cases are complicated but many are dead simple. Typosquatting usually falls into that second category. If you register a domain name that’s just a minor misspelling of a famous trademark, you’re already starting off with a strike against you. A recent decision is a perfect example.

By Steve Levy I’ve sent many thousands of demand letters to domain name cybersquatters over the years and have filed many hundreds of UDRP complaints when the demand letter didn’t bring results. Many times, though, the letter would elicit a response that included an offer to sell the domain name. As you would expect, these

By Steve Levy Does bad faith under the UDRP requires a Respondent to specifically target the Complainant’s trademark, or can a more generalized targeting of multiple companies using the same mark  suffice to prove bad faith? This issue has long been debated. A recent decision involving the domain name temco.com provides a useful example of how the specific facts