1. Death by Paper-cut Managing Risk in the Domain Industry
enova, Ltd.
International Legal Consulting Services
Death by Paper-cut
Managing Risk in the Domain Industry
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Renova, Ltd. - Law.es
Paris, June 2008

2. What is risk
How likely is the
Occurrence
Result R
enova

3. Sales Legal (tm) Sources of risk Breach of contract
Buy a stolen domain (express.com $150,000)
Legal (tm)
Forfeiture R
enova

4. Minimize Risk and Still Have a Life
Which is better?
High risk of event
Low risk of loss
(UDRP loss of 7.95 domain)
High risk of event
High risk of loss
Low risk of event
Low risk of loss
Low risk of event
High risk of loss
(Express.com) R
enova, Ltd.

5. Changing Unpredictably Legal Risk
Attractive industries have predictable risk levels
Sales Risk
Controllable
Changing Unpredictably
Legal Risk R
enova, Ltd.

6. Consistency Represented by Authorities
Final report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, April 30, 1999 –
The UDRP is not intended to provide the holders of intellectual property rights more protection in Cyberspace than they are afforded in the physical world. R
enova

7. Legal Risks Began With Clear Definition
UDRP
Complainant must PROVE:
1. Domain identical or confusingly similar to trademark
2. Registrant has no rights or Legitimate Interest
3. Bad faith registration and bad faith use. R
enova, Ltd.

8. It means something in the real world
Trademark
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
It means something in the real world R
enova, Ltd.

9. Trademark R
enova, Ltd.

10. Trademark R
enova, Ltd.

11. Complainants Say the Darndest Things
“Meterman is not in any sense a dictionary word”
“’CHEAP HOTEL’ is a famous mark”
“187 was invented by Telecom Italia”
“Our client holds an international trademark in…….” R
enova, Ltd.

12. Trademark - Fast Forward……….
Complainant must show:
“I have a trademark (somewhere)”
Text vs. text
Virtually anything is sufficient (use is use)
Rights can exist anywhere in the world
No need to actually trace ownership or even legal existence
“Unregistered trademark rights do not exist in some nebulous way across the breadth of the countries in which a complainant proves it has a reputation. These rights derive from national laws and do not exist divorced from such laws.” (aspis.com D /18/2008) R
enova, Ltd.

13. REALITY R “Pay day loan is a trademark.”
LH is a trademark of Lufthansa (based on IATA ticket references).
“It is not a panel’s place under the Policy to investigate whether a particular registered mark that is relied upon by a complainant may or may not have been registered with the consent of an interested third party. The fact that a complainant is the registered owned of the relevant trade mark is sufficient. “ (aspis.com).
Drugstore is a valid trademark (complainant disclaimed the word “drugstore” apart from the figurative design). (drugstore1.com). R
enova, Ltd.

14. So what standards do we apply?
Legitimate Interest
Complainant allege:
Registrant has not Bonafide interest
“There is in the majority’s view no compelling justification for the importation into the Policy of local law on the question of rights or legitimate interests. This is an autonomous concept that should be interpreted consistently under the Policy, regardless of the geographical location of the parties.” (Aspis.com).
BUT: Didn’t we “import” local law into the Policy in finding
a trademark?
So what standards do we apply? R
enova, Ltd.

15. Legitimate Interest
Identical TM and Domain – no legitimate interest.
“by adopting that domain name the registrant is making a false representation to the world as to who he is. Perhaps there will be cases where as a matter of fact a respondent will be able to show that the domain name is not perceived by the public in this way. Nevertheless, in the absence of such evidence, a panelist can reasonably assume that such a false representation is being made.“ (Aspis.com). R
enova, Ltd.

16. Legitimate Interest R What happened to rights?
Prima-facie = presentation of facts which if uncontested prove the
ultimate fact.
Complainants simply allege the Policy in the Negative.
“Complainant did not authorize…..”
“Respondent is not commonly known by…..”
BUT: …A prima facie allegations vanish when confronted with facts that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, contradict the prima facie evidence originally presented. ITC Ltd. V. Punchgini, Inc., 482 F. 3d 135, C.A.2 (N.Y. 2007).
A prima facie standard does not alter the original burden of proof. (Id). R
enova, Ltd.

17. Bad Faith R Complainant allege: Registration in Bad Faith.
Passive use of a domain is non-use and thus registration in bad faith.
“there is no express requirement that this bad faith be directed to or connected with a complainant.” (Aspis.com; complainant did not exist at registration).
“the Respondent’s legal representative is based in Spain.” (muyjunior.com)
“Showing willful blindness by using automated registration programs with no mechanism in place to weed out trademarks can be indicative of bad faith.” R
enova, Ltd.

18. Bad Faith R Complainant allege: Use in Bad Faith.
Single appearance of conflicting reference is sufficient.
That registrant cannot control results is sufficient.
Registrant can control results through removing trademark references and using met tags. (not possible
Robot.txt is evidence of bad faith.
nytimes.com – perfect example of robot.txt use
Required by Google contracts – no automated results R
enova, Ltd.

19. International UDRP Court of Justice ?
“There is in the majority’s view no compelling justification for the importation into the Policy of local law on the question of rights or legitimate interests. This is an autonomous concept that should be interpreted consistently under the Policy, regardless of the geographical location of the parties.” (Aspis.com).
BUT: So what law is to be applied? R
enova, Ltd.

20. RESULT: Greater risk R Respondents have the burden of proof
Legitimate Interest - Frozen standard
Bad Faith - Ever expanding examples
Special rules for domainers (Anciens)
Duty to avoid conflict R
enova, Ltd.

21. Selected Decisions
Ancien Restaurant Chartier v. Tucows.com - Professional domaining (PPC, Resale) may be legitimate IF:
You are really in that business (resale or PPC);
The domain is really a “dictionary word” (generic/descriptive phrase);
no evidence indicating actual knowledge of the TM; and,
Respondent has made good faith efforts to avoid registering domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks held by others.
CTV.com (dissent)
“The burden to avoid conflict with established rights, even if less than universally established, should rest upon the registrant.“ (Hon. R. Kerns) R
enova, Ltd.

22. R Lack of Oversight: Panels and ADR providers do not follow the rules
ICANN does not manage the process
Judicial Oversight does NOT exist:
US ACPA is a completely different standard.
Some jurisdictions prohibit any action to contest UDRP result.
Panelist View – if you don’t like it you can always file a court action.
Unfairly places burden on the Respondent
Burden should be on the Complainant. R
enova, Ltd.

23. Building on Momentum gained from the early years of the industry, TM holders are continuing to cut the rug out from the industry in the UDRP and other areas.
Limited input from the domainer community.
Continued erosion of the rules.
Inserting words not present Inserting words that are not
Prima Facie evidence = prima facie allegation.
Absence of a defense is now evidence of guilt.
Continued expansion of bad faith elements & Precedent building.
Blending of Legitimate Interest and Bad Faith.
Active legislation attempts and active lobbying. R
enova, Ltd.

24. R enova GET INVOLVED FIGHT FOR THE INDUSTRY. Educate Panelists
LITIGATE:
Your loss = Community Loss
Another domainer’s loss = your future loss
STOP DEFAULTING ON STUPID DOMAIN NAMES !!!!!! R
enova