Author name: fairwindsp

By Steve Levy When most people think about the UDRP, they think trademarks, cybersquatting, and legal argumentation. Of course, these are all important. But some UDRP battles hinge not on legal nuance alone, but on technical facts buried in Domain Name System (DNS) records, email headers, and infrastructure configurations. A recent decision illustrates this point with almost […]

By Steve Levy Those of us in the domain name community are all too familiar with cybersquatting, phishing, and other online fraud. But it’s important to remember that there are still many individuals and organizations that aren’t steeped in this awareness and remain vulnerable. This becomes especially apparent when a major news organization like the

By Steve Levy Law firms spend much of their time helping clients protect brands, enforce rights, and respond to online impersonation. It is easy to forget that law firms can also be brand owners with their own reputations to safeguard. A recent decision under the UDRP illustrates this point with unusual clarity. An intellectual property law firm

By Steve Levy I recently issued a UDRP decision that offers a clear illustration of two recurring principles in domain name jurisprudence. The complaint against the domain name <greatstreettimmiller.com> was denied on two independent grounds. First, the Complainant failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish common law trademark rights in the term GREATSTREET as used in its

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