IN DEFENSE OF DOMAIN NAMES
The Bigger they are, the harder they try.
AN ABSENCE OF BAD FAITH, A DOMAIN NAME CAN BE REGISTERED BY ANYONE
WHEN A DOMAIN NAME CONSISTS OF A GENERIC TERM, A SERIES OF DESCRIPTIVE WORDS, A GEOGRAPHICALLY SIGNIFICANT PLACE, AND OFTEN EVEN AN UNREGISTERED TRADEMARK
ALL BETS ARE OFF!
TRADEMARK BULLIES AND COMPLAINANTS WHO ACT RECKLESSLY OR WITHOUT A GOOD FAITH BASIS CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE ENGAGED IN
"REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING"
INVICTA.COM
Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. v. Gregory Santana a/k/a Invicta.com
NAF Case No. 727672
Complainant narrowly avoids a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
TB Proprietary Corp. c/o Toll Brothers, Inc. v. Village at La Quinta Realtors
NAF Case No. 416462
Panel Makes a finding of Reverse Domain Hijacking!
eSales & Marketing, Inc. v. Stephen Traino d/b/a Candy Direct
Prisma Presse v. CyberVision Network
NAF Case No. DBIZ2002-00173
Arche Nova Marvin Entholt Filmproduktion v. Beanmills, Inc.
NAF Case No. STOP 112508
W. R. Grace & Co. v.
CyberVision Network
WIPO Case No. DBIZ2002-00200
Hunter Engineering Company v. Ross LeBel
NAF Case No. STOP 112546
Landeshauptstadt Muenchen v Beanmills, Inc.
WIPO Case No. DBIZ2002-00147
(Successfully defended claims by the municipality of Muenchen, the capital city of Bavaria, Germany)
NPES v Ross LeBel
NAF Case No. STOP 110761
The Complaint is dismissed. Pursuant to STOP Rule 15(e)(ii), the Panel decides that no subsequent challenges under the STOP against the domain name <print.biz> shall be permitted.
In addition to UDRP Defense,
we have also successfully (brought)
and defended numerous significant Court actions under the (ACPA) Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act and other Federal and State Laws.
