Domain Name Dispute Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Domain Name Dispute - Assignment ExampleBefore dealing with the three elements undeniable for substantiating the complainants case, it is indispensable to deal with the trademark issue raised by the respondent. What distinguishes the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UNDRP) from the au. The policy is that under the au. Policy, it is not necessary for the complainant to slang a registered trademark. All that the complainant is required to prove under the au. The policy is that he or she have acquired a common constabulary trademark with sufficient evidence of use or reputation in the trademark to justify reliance on a common jurisprudence trademark.1 The plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of its common law trademark through evidence indicating that Quickileaks has been operating as a well-recognized and accessed online media outlet prior to the respondents fitting of its domain name. It is therefore concluded that the complainant does have a common law trademark in Q uickileaks.Before dealing with the three elements necessary for substantiating the complainants case, it is necessary to deal with the trademark issue raised by the respondent. What distinguishes the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UNDRP) from the au. The policy is that under the au. Policy, it is not necessary for the complainant to have a registered trademark. All that the complainant is required to prove under the au. The policy is that he or she have acquired a common law trademark through sufficient evidence of use or reputation in the trademark to justify reliance on a common law trademark.1 The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its common law trademark through evidence indicating that Quickileaks has been operating as a well-recognized and accessed online media outlet prior to the respondents registration of its domain name. It is therefore concluded that the complainant does have a common law trademark in Quickileaks.Identical or Confusingly resembling When a domain name is identical to the tradename in question, this element of cybersquatting is easier to prove. The difficulty arises with respect to proving confusingly similar. While some cases the use of a qualifying boy can do nothing to distinguish the domain name from the trade name. For example, in LOreal/LOreal Australia Pty v Namewise Pty Ltd /Nicholas Bolton, a domain name LOreal Store could not distinguish the domain name from the trade name since adding the word Store to LOreal does not account for the fact that LOreal products be sold in stores.