Chapter 4: Second UDRP element: respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in disputed domain name
Restricted access

If the identity of the domain name owner is hidden by a privacy or proxy service, the dispute can proceed against the privacy service. The complainant must make out at least a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If this is done, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent. Failure of a respondent to respond can be taken that this requirement has been met. Proof that the disputed domain name has been used to misleadingly divert potential customers of the complainant, or proof that the respondent has not made or does not intend to make a bona fide offering of goods or services generally supports the finding of a prima facie case. Proof that the parties independently developed their respective businesses in different jurisdictions generally means that the complainant has failed to discharge its burden of proof.

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