Domain Name Dispute Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Domain Name Dispute - Assignment Example Before dealing with the three elements necessary for substantiating the complainant’s case, it is necessary to deal with the trademark issue raised by the respondent.   What distinguishes the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UNDRP) from the au. The policy is that under the au. Policy, it is not necessary for the complainant to have a registered trademark.   All that the complainant is required to prove under the au. The policy is that he or she have acquired a common law trademark through ‘sufficient evidence of use or reputation in the trademark to justify reliance on a common law trademark’.1 The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its common law trademark through evidence indicating that Quickileaks has been operating as a well-recognized and accessed online media outlet prior to the respondent’s registration of its domain name.   It is therefore concluded that the complainant does have a common law trademark in Quickileaks.Before dea ling with the three elements necessary for substantiating the complainant’s case, it is necessary to deal with the trademark issue raised by the respondent.   What distinguishes the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UNDRP) from the au. The policy is that under the au. Policy, it is not necessary for the complainant to have a registered trademark.   All that the complainant is required to prove under the au. The policy is that he or she have acquired a common law trademark through ‘sufficient evidence of use or reputation in the trademark to justify reliance on a common law trademark’.1 The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its common law trademark through evidence indicating that Quickileaks has been operating as a well-recognized and accessed online media outlet prior to the respondent’s registration of its domain name.   It is therefore concluded that the complainant does have a common law trademark in Quickileaks.Identical or Confus ingly Similar When a domain name is identical to the tradename in question, this element of cybersquatting is easier to prove. The difficulty arises with respect to proving confusingly similar. While some cases the use of a qualifying word can do nothing to distinguish the domain name from the trade name. For example, in L’Oreal/L’Oreal Australia Pty v Namewise Pty Ltd /Nicholas Bolton, a domain name L’Oreal Store could not distinguish the domain name from the trade name since adding the word Store to L’Oreal does not account for the fact that L’Oreal products are sold in stores.