Search for: "No Named Respondents"
Results 141 - 160
of 30,507
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2007, 1:58 am
After some time the domain name was transferred on behalf of the Respondent. [read post]
10 May 2018, 7:53 am
Between 2000 and 2012 the respondent employed an attorney, first as an associate and later “of counsel”... [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 2:34 am
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent and the registrant of the second domain name are using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 11:07 am
Where the attacker is using a variation of the victim’s domain name to host an “attack site”, section 7(b) of the Trademarks Act may support an action for “domain name passing off”. [read post]
15 Jul 2016, 12:20 pm
Where the attacker is using a variation of the victim’s domain name to host an “attack site”, section 7(b) of the Trademarks Act may support an action for “domain name passing off”. [read post]
10 Oct 2019, 11:30 pm
This book provides guidance for both complainants and respondents in such matters, focusing on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for generic top up levels, the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service for the .uk country code top up level domain and the EURid ADR for the .eu country code top up level domain.The book is presented in three parts: 1) introduction and background, 2) avoiding disputes and 3) disputes and 10 chapters.In Part 1, chapter 1 offers a brief… [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 2:38 am
According to the Complainants the “Respondent has simply reversed the two components of the Complainants’ name and omitted an ‘r’…. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 2:20 am
Obiter dicta, too, is offered on the issue of use: “[g]iven that the Respondent … is now using the contested domain name to point to a web site that provides factual information on the situation (namely that the Respondent is no longer a distributor for the Complainant), it would not appear that the present use of the contested domain name could be considered to be in bad faith in the sense of the Policy. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 3:47 am
DO NOT RESPOND. [read post]
23 Aug 2016, 9:07 am
The case also named two insurance companies. [read post]
23 Aug 2016, 9:07 am
The case also named two insurance companies. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 10:11 pm
” she responded. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 10:01 am
This November, therefore, CSS plans a transition to a new name: University of Alberta Protective Services. [read post]
19 May 2008, 7:58 am
The Complainant is a New York based pharmaceutical company whose trademark rights in the LEXAPRO mark pre-date the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name www.lexapro-side-effects.net. [read post]
12 Mar 2011, 2:30 am
In VIRBAC, the Respondent allegedly purchased the domain name from another named respondent who registered it after the Complainant inadvertently failed to renew its own registration. [read post]
18 Dec 2010, 2:16 am
Forum November 29, 2010) the Complainant “contend[ed] that none of Respondent’s domain names have been used for any legitimate interests and contends that all of Respondent’s web sites exhibit only token use for the purpose of UDRP proceedings. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 3:08 am
†“Mandatory†does not mean that the respondent itself must appear or lose control of the domain name. [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 3:08 am
The fact that Respondent’s predecessor may have “improperly” demanded $50,000 for the domain name in 2001 is not proof against a later acquiring domain name holder. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 8:19 am
Respondent's use of the domain name was simply the use of a famous trade mark to divert traffic to itself for the purposes of raising click-through revenue. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 7:13 pm
The Nation: Naomi Wolf: Wrong Again on Rape, by Katha Pollitt: Should the press reveal the names of complainants in rape cases? [read post]
