The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions is the premier global jurisprudential Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) resource, covers numerous frequently raised key substantive and procedural topics by distilling the collective wisdom of tens of thousands of WIPO domain name cases decided over the span of well over a decade. Hardly a domain name case is filed by trademark counsel or decided by panelists nowadays without consultation of or citation to the WIPO Overview. As the Overview’s last “2.0” edition dates back to 2011, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has been investing considerable effort in a “from-the-ground-up” update of this jurisprudential resource.
WIPO staff and two preeminent WIPO UDRP panelists have given a timely preview of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Not only will the revised WIPO Overview inform users of updates to UDRP jurisprudence over the five years since its last revision, but it should also establish benchmarks for ICANN’s policy.
Matthew’s decisions that were included in the overview:
RapidShare AG and Christian Schmid v. majeed randi, WIPO Case No. D2010-1089
The State of Tennessee, USA v. (DOMAIN NAME 4 SALE) DOMAIN-NAME-4-SALE eMAIL email@example.com, WIPO Case No. D2008-0640
Çelik Motor Ticaret A.S. v. ONUNO L.L.C, WIPO Case No. D2015-0369
Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0227
Johnson & Johnson v. Ebubekir Ozdogan, WIPO Case No. D2015-1031
Paris Hilton v. Deepak Kumar, WIPO Case No. D2010-1364
St Andrews Links Ltd v. Refresh Design, WIPO Case No. D2009-0601
Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Zhiyuan Zou, Zouzhi Zhou , Fujian Anfu, WIPO Case No. D2012-0888
Wendy Sue Ansel, Owner- Rocks and Runes v. Jerome Lacharite, WIPO Case No. D2015-2362
Owens Corning v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1143
FOSS A/S, FOSS NIRSystems INC v. fossnirsystems.com c/o Whois IDentity Shield /Admin, Domain, WIPO Case No. D2008-1256
LEGO Juris A/S v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domains Secured, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2011-1857
Weber-Stephen Products LLC v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Daniela Gebauer, Kitchenhelpers GmbH, WIPO Case No. D2017-0118
Dr. lng. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Gaurav Khanna, Carnity, WIPO Case No. D2014-1618
BML Group Limited v. Rikard Beach, Proxy My Whois AB, WIPO Case No. D2015-1897
McMullan Bros., Limited, Maxol Limited, Maxol Direct Limited Maxol Lubricants Limited, Maxol Oil Limited Maxol Direct (NI) Limited v. Web Names Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2004-0078
Bacchus Gate Corporation d/b/a International Wine Accessories v. CKV and Port Media, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2008-0321
Mrs. Eva Padberg v. Eurobox Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1886
Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot, WIPO Case No. D2009-0320
RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. PrivacyAnywhere Software, LLC, Mikhail Berdnikov (Protected Domain Services Customer ID: DSR-2262893, Protected Domain Services Customer ID: DSR-2092987) and RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. Winsoul, Inc., Aleksey Atushev; (Protected Domain Services Customer ID: DSR-2239262), WIPO Case No. D2010-0894
Green Bay Packers v. Moniker etc, WIPO Case No. D2016-1455
HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG, HUGO BOSS AG v. I Market and Design LLC, WIPO Case No. D2014-2064
Superman is Clark Kent. Batman is Bruce Wayne. And Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, is…Dr Craig Wright (or so he claims).
As AI technology develops, we are now firmly in the age of non-humans authoring literary content which might be worthy of protection under intellectual property laws.
One of the hottest trade mark issues around at the moment is the question of how effectively can trade mark rights protect brand owners’ interests in non-fungible tokens (otherwise known as “NFTs”).