Trademark Law

Parking Pages Can Create Risk Of A Finding Of Bad Faith Under the UDRP

By Enrico Schaefer

Auto-generated websites equal bad faith under the UDRP « The Legal Satyricon

This lack of direct control is often a central theme in a cybersquatter?s response to a UDRP complaint. At least one UDRP panel bought this argument. See Admiral Insurance Services v. Dicker, WIPO Case No. D2005-0241 (?the Panel accepts that the terms under which Google makes its Adsense advertisements available do not permit the Respondent to control them . . .?). However, that panel included David Sorkin, which makes its findings suspect. (He rules for complainants less than 1/3 of the time, and has earned more than $100,000 in UDRP panelist fees. Do the math).

The prevailing trend is that the ?willful blindness? argument is not valid, as illustrated in the recent decision: State of Florida, Florida Department of Management Services v. Bent Pettersen, WIPO Case No. D2008-0039 ... In coming to this conclusion, the Panels referred to another recent case, Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna, WIPO Case No. D2007-1912.

Technorati Tags: domaining, cybersquatting, bad faith

Full post as published by AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Blog on April 05, 2008 (boomark / email).