he domain name.
The UDRP system allows a complainant to cancel or suspend a domain name on three grounds, namely;
1. it is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark held by the complainant
2. the owner of the domain name has no rights or legitimate interests in it
3. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
In the case of Harrods v. Lawrie harrods.com and harrods.co.uk, as well as cadburys.com and ladbrokes.com were in the hands of Mr. Lawrie. Mr. Lawrie was ordered to hand over the websites to the organisations which were entitled to register these domian names. Also see a Dutch case which went to WIPO arbitration - Perfetti SpA/Van Melle NV v. Hussain. In this case, two sweet companies merged and issued a press statement to that effect. Mr. Hussain, a notorious domain name grabber, registered the website addresses www.perfetti-vanmelle.com and www. perfettivanmelle.com. Mr. Hussain’s company offered to sell the merged company these addresses for $6,500. The companies went to WIPO. They filed a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy. It was held that the addresses were registered under bad faith and should be returned to the company.
The case of Penguin Books Ltd v Michael Cieplak is an example of a Nominet arbitration dispute. In this case the respondent registered penquin.co.uk, on the basis that web users may inadverte英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】ntly type this address rather than penquin.co.uk. The terms of Nominet’s dispute resolution system were more favourable to Penguin books since it was easier to show bad faith than under the UDRP system of ICANN. The most recent DRS policy is available on Nominet’s website. In the case of Penguin Books Ltd v The Katz Family Penguin was less successful. In this case the Katz family persuaded the WIPO tribunal that Mr Katz was colloquially referred to as ‘Penguin’ and that he was intending to create a website devoted to these birds and thus that he should be entitled to keep the website. The WIPO panel held that the Katz family were entitled to keep the web address.
Another important case is that of British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd. One in a Million dealt in domain names. It was held that the company could be guilty of passing off, if the following factors were present and taken into account;
The similarity of the names
Defendant’s [defender’s] intention
The type of trade involved
Any other surrounding circumstances pointing to a breach
The conduct was systematic
Threats to sell them
Block registration by the owner of the goodwill
The purpose of one in a million’s multiple registrations was to extract money by threat.
Enforcement of IP law in the EU
Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights has been enacted to enhance the level of IP law enforcement withi
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
论文编号：
org200806160910481316 
