Chapter 3: First UDRP element: proving the disputed domain name is identical or confusing with complainants trademark
Restricted access

In order to succeed in a UDRP action, a complainant bears the burden of proof to each of the following: (a) the respondent’s disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights; (b) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (c) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. These elements are cumulative: each must be proved. Domain name panels typically deal with relatively simple issues. Complex commercial or contractual disputes are better left to courts to decide. Although in general a respondent cannot dispute the validity of the complainant’s trademark rights, such rights must be proved and not merely alleged. A trademark registration containing disclaimers will affect the ability of the complainant to prove that the trademark is identical or confusingly similar to disputed domain name.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with your Elgar account