INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
Christopher Lane vs. Jlnsoo Yoon
Christopher Lane, who is the complainant, had registered the disputed domain name, thinkconveyancing.com, for use by his company, Blue Intellectual Property Limited. However, in 2018, this registration expired, and in the same year, the respondent, Jlnsoo Yoon registered the domain and was using it to refer third party sites to conveyance and legal services. Christopher enquired on the issue from Yoon and Yoon asked him to pay $19,500 for the transfer of ownership.
Christopher then took the complaint to WIPO stating that he did not receive notification for expiry of the domain, Yoon registered and used the domain name in bad faith and that he had no legitimate interests (Center, 2019). When the respondent was asked to communicate on the same, he did not file any responses. This default further prompts the panel to draw deserved inferences. The panel determined that the complainant had authorized or licensed the respondent to register and use the domain and therefore Yoon had no right over the domain name. Moreover, Yoon’s inability to provide evidence shows that he had no legitimate interests. This ruling sets standards for GL&BC in that the company has to ensure it has filed all vital documents that can be used as evidence in any situation. With all other relevant facts considered, the panel ruled that the domain name be transferred to Christopher.
Guru Denim, Inc. vs. Abu-Harb
In this case, Guru Denim filed a complaint with WIPO, an organization that serves as a licensed arbitrator for UDRP, accusing Abu-Hard of infringing the laws surrounding the use of the domain, True Religion. Abu-Hard was the initial registrant of truereligion.com and he used it to propagate Islamic faith. After several years, the firm Guru Denim took up the mark, True Religion, as a jean brand name. Over time, the jeans sold far and wide and as a result, Abu-hard began recording huge hits on his site from people seeking to find the jeans. Abu-Hard resort to taking advantage of the situation by incorporating references of the True Religion jeans and paid Amazon.com links on the site and later putting it up for sale for $380,000. This did not sit well with the Guru Denim and hence the complaint.
The majority arbitrating panel denied Guru Denim’s complaints citing that the third element, the domain name was registered and used in bad faith, could not be proved. This conclusion was derived because the majority interpreted the element conjunctively, requiring that bad faith registration and bad faith use were separate entities. As a result, the panel acquitted Abu-Hard stating that since the site was registered before Guru Denim, bad faith registration could not be manifested. Nevertheless, a disputing panelist opposed the conjunctive view of the element proposing that it should be discarded from the UDRP.
The proposal to discard the conjunctive view of the good faith registration defense was however not considered since this conjunctive supposition helps in averting specific dissents. To begin with, the conjunctive view allows the UDRP to handle easy cases and leave out complex ones for the court. This is very beneficial for the GL&BC firm because it is assured that in the case of a high-stake domain controversy, the court will be brought in to promote justice. Additionally, the conjunctive view reduces the occurrence of reverse domain name hijacking. Power imbalances are a huge contribution to reverse domain name hijacking since complainants are significantly favored than respondents. Therefore, the use of this conjunctive view will help companies including GL&BC to get justice whenever they are on the responding side of a case.
GL&BC
GL&BC may encounter a compromise of the company’s trademark if other businesses or individuals attempt to use symbols, words, or logos that are unique to the goods provided by GL&BC. There are specific IP protection needs that the firm can assimilate to avert this and they include early registration of copyrights and trademarks, publishing patents widely, and utilizing non-disclosure agreements (Forbes Technology Council, 2018). Non-disclosure agreements such as sales contracts and employment agreements can be integrated into the business to cover intellectual property. In the USA today, patents are on a first to file basis and on top of this, the company should ensure the patents are always referenced.
References
Forbes Technology Council. (2018). 10 Effective Ways to Protect Your Intellectual Property.
Center, A. (2019). WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2019-1388. Retrieved 21 July 2020, from https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2019/d2019-1388.html