A "must read" UDRP!

[neddy]

Andrew Allemann of Domain Name Wire has published a great story on a UDRP decision that was not determined on the usual "3 elements": i.e.

(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Instead it was decided solely on the "doctrine of laches".

WTF is the "doctrine of laches" (I think I hear most people mumbling)? In simple terms:

Laches applies when a claimant inexcusably delays in asserting its claim and thereby unduly prejudices the party against whom the claim ultimately is asserted.

This is a great short case to read for every domain owner. And just by the way, one of the panellists was Australian (Hon. Neil Anthony Brown QC).

Link to Andrew's brief blog article

Direct link to case

 

[DomainNames]

very interesting, wonder if " reverse domain hijacking" also could be part of the judgement but due to the 3 rules not needing to be met it was never needed to be raised or ruled on

 

[chris]

Thanks for sharing Ned, very interesting.

I admit I did think wtf is laches

 

[neddy]

very interesting, wonder if " reverse domain hijacking" also could be part of the judgement but due to the 3 rules not needing to be met it was never needed to be raised or ruled on

Good point that you raise DN. I don't know the answer.

But it seems as if it would have been a more than reasonable finding to make if they could - it took the complainant 14 years to make a complaint - and in the meantime the respondent had built a successful business.

Despite having the opportunity to do so, Complainant has offered no explanation for the 14-year delay in bringing this Complaint. In light of the unexplained delay in bringing this proceeding, and the demonstrable harm to Respondent should the domain name be transferred, the Panel concludes that under the doctrine of laches, relief should be denied.

I admit I did think wtf is laches

Me too when I first read it!

Whilst it seems more and more respondents and their attorneys / solicitors are now pleading the "doctrine of laches", the fact remains you should still respond to the "three legs". Not to do so would be taking a big risk.

 

[DomainNames]

No wonder some lawyers give all lawyers a bad name. I suppose there is scum wasting peoples time and money in every occupation

14 years to raise the complaint.. The lawyers could never seriously believe it justifiable to bring the complaint. In a "real" court setting in Australia they could have been in real trouble from the court for bringing the case when it was so blatently obvious it had no merit from the start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

 

[findtim]

laches: the fairest thing i have heard in years

tim

 

[Data Glasses]

Was it fourteen to raise the complaint or fourteen years for it to be heard, ......sorry it's friday and i am having a beer and can't be bothered reading it all .....still interested to know , cheers