Cybersquatting & The Law

Nike Stomps on Cybersquatter

wandazamboni — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:54:03 +0000

Nike, Inc. recently succeeded in a cybersquatting action to recover the domain name www.nikeshop.com. The panel found that Nike had strong trademark rights in the NIKE mark based on its federal trademark registrations. The panel went on to find that the respondent had produced no evidence that it had any legitimate rights to the mark NIKE or NIKESHOP. Finally, the panel found bad faith when the respondent used the the domain name to display a website with links to goods and services that compete with Nike’s. Thus, the panel transferred the domain name to Nike.

For more cybersquatting news and information, see Cybersquatting.com

Clean Energy & Cybersquatting

wandazamboni — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:20:16 +0000

A cybersquatting panel recently denied a cybersquatting claim to recover the domain name www.cleanenergyquotes.com brought by SBNet, Inc. The panel found that SBNet had not made a basic showing of common law rights in the CLEANENERGYQUOTES.COM where it failed to show sufficient secondary meaning related to this descriptive mark. In the absence of demonstrating rights in the trademark, SBNet’s cybersquatting claim failed on its face. Additionally, the panel found that the domain name was not used in bad faith when it was used for an an internet based solar energy comparison shopping service. Thus, the panel found that no cybersquatting had occurred.

For more news and information about cybersquatting, see Cybersquatting.com

Coke Goes After Cybersquatter

wandazamboni — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:48:21 +0000

The Coca Cola Company recently succeeded in a cybersquatting action to recover the domain name www.cocacolaamatil.com. The cybersquatting panel found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the COCA COLA trademark, despite the addition of the term AMATIL. Additionally, the cybersquatting panel found that the respondent had used the domain name in bad faith where it had used it to resolve to a website designed to profit from of diverting Internet users to Complainant’s competitors in return for referral fees. Thus, the panel transferred the domain name.

3M Goes After Cyersquatter

wandazamboni — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:10:14 +0000

The 3M Company recently succeeded in a cybersquatting action to recover the domain name www.3mpromotional.com. The cybersquatting panel found that the 3M Company had strong trademark rights in the 3M mark. Moreover, the panel found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the 3M mark because 3M comprised the dominant portion of the domain name. Finally, the panel found that the domain name had been used in bad faith because the registrant had tried to sell the domain name for $9,995, which far exceeded the registration costs.

For more cybersquatting news and information, see Cybersquatting.com.

American Girl Goes After Cybersquatter: Grrr

wandazamboni — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:52:07 +0000

American Girl Goes After Cybersquatter

A UDRP panel recently ordered the transfer of the domain name www.americangirlbrand.com to American Girl, LLC. The panel found that the acclaimed doll maker had long-standing and established rights int he AMERICAN GIRL trademark. The panel additionally found that the domain name registrant had no legitimate rights in the mark, and that the domain name was confusingly similar to the AMERICAN GIRL trademark. Finally, the panel found that the registrant had used the domain name in bad faith by engaging in the unauthorized sale of American Girl’s products by diverting Internet users to a competitive website

For more cybersequatting news and information see Cybersquatting.com

Kohler Loses Cybersquatting Claim

wandazamboni — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:22:18 +0000

The Kohler Co. recently lost a UDRP proceeding to recover the domain name www.kohlersucks.com. The UDRP panel found that the registrant had not used the domain in bad faith or commercially. Rather, the registrant used the domain name within its free speech rights as an expression of displeasure with Kohler and as a vehicle for enabling others to do so as well. The panel also found that use of the suffix “sucks” did not create a likelihood of confusion, but rather created the impression of a complaint website unaffiliated with Kohler. Accordingly, the panel found that cybersquatting had not occurred. For more cybersquatting news and information, see Cybersquatting.com.

Google Sues Cybersquatter

wandazamboni — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:53:41 +0000

Google recently succeeded in a cybersquatting action to recover the domain name www.googlegameroom.com. The panel found that the respondent had violated the relevant cybersquatting laws because the domain name was confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark where the mark covered a range of services. The panel also found bad faith by the respondent when he had used the domain name to offer users adult-oriented games and videos.

For More Information and News on Cybersquatting, see Cybersquatting.com.

Roche Products v. Corea

wandazamboni — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:07:04 +0000

A cybersquatting law panel recently ordered the transfer of the domain name www.buyvalium.us to Roch Products, Inc. Roche claimed that the domain name was cybersquatted because it infringed on its registered VALIUM trademark. The cybersquatting law panel agreed. The panel also agreed that the registrant had used the domain name in bad faith when it had used it to operate a website in direct competition with Roche Products, namely to sell Valium.

For more cybersquatting news and information, check out Cybersquatting.com.

Peaches’ Pits

wandazamboni — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:32:48 +0000

A UDRP panel recently denied a cybersquatting claim for the domain www.peaches.com. The complainant argued that it had a registered trademark for use in connection with uniforms, and that a cybersquatter had unlawfully registered the domain name. The panel found that no cybersquatting had occurred, where the alleged cybersquatter had registered the domain name years before the complainant had first used its PEACHES mark. Accordingly, the panel denied the cybersquatting claim.

For More News and Information on Cybersquatting Check Out Cybersquatting.com.

Publix Asset Management Co. v. Purdy

wandazamboni — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:55:17 +0000

A cybersquatting panel recently ordered the transfer of the domain names , , , and and and to the Publix Asset Management Company. The panel found that the domain names were confusingly similar to to the complainant’s registered GREEENWISE trademark, which it uses in connection with grocery stores. The panel also found bad faith use of the domain name when the respondent had used the domains to link to websites that contained links for competitive third-party websites.

For more information on cybersquatting, see Cybersquatting.com: a wonderful resource for cybersquatting news and analysis.