The Domain Name Industry News


Zes tips om een Domein dispuut te winnen

Filed under: Legal — admin at 11:40 am on Monday, August 27, 2007

Mark Partridge, die zelf geparticipeerd heeft in meer dan 100 domein disputes, heeft een erg interessant artikel geschreven voor iedereen die het eigenaarschap van een domein wil betwisten:

Domeinnaam conflicten die direct effect hebben op de business komen steeds vaker voor. Gelukkig hebben Slachtoffers van domein misbruik een effectief middel om cybersquatting tegen te gaan: Het Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), aangenomen in 1999 door het International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Zes aanbevelingen voor UDRP inzendingen:

 1. The Complaint (or Answer) should be a brief. This is your only chance to argue your position. Treat it like a memorandum in support of a motion for preliminary injunction or summary judgment by presenting your case as an advocate. Mere notice pleading allowed in our federal system is not effective for the circumstances.

2. The Pleading should be brief. Although the provider’s limitations on length are largely ignored and exceeded, as a Panelist I urge you to remember that effective legal writing is brief and to the point.

3. The Pleadings should follow the Policy. Follow the elements of the Policy in stating your position. Remember that the Panel must address each of these issues. Make it easy for the Panel to decide in your favor by organizing your argument around each element of the claim or defense.

4. Support your position with proof. You need more than bald allegations to prove rights and bad faith, and you will find an increasing number of cases in which complainants are called upon to make additional submissions or lose their claim due to lack of proof. Strong submissions present evidence by way of exhibits and short affidavits. But don’t merely shovel in piles of documents. Remember point 2.

5. Make good use of supporting authority. Give cases to support your argument and show why the cases are relevant. Avoid merely citing cases. There have been over 10,000 reported UDRP decisions. Don’t assume the Panel knows the result and reasoning of each case you cite. Help the Panel by providing at least a parenthetical on the cases you cite.

6. Recognize the limits of the Policy. The Policy is designed to address cases of cybersquatting involving protectable trademarks. It is not intended for contract disputes, garden variety infringement cases, defamation claims, or personal names that are not entitled to commercial protection. Adverse decisions are often the result of claims that obviously stretch beyond the scope of the Policy. Matters outside the scope of the Policy are better directed to appropriate civil courts.

Het originele artikel van Ezine vind je hier

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.