Hortense Le Dosseur

Content from this author

• No rights or legitimate interests - but also no bad faith
• ‘toast.io’ decision: let's have a toast for the ‘.io’ Policy
• Registration date of a domain name is key to UDRP panels
• Evidence of targeting is not merely a plus
• UDRP: caution required for less fanciful trademarks
• Domain name use includes email services
• Cloudy outcome despite identical trademark
• Different panellists, different views: why selecting a three-member panel may be advisable in borderline cases
• Dispute over ‘rhumsaintbarth.com’: the UDRP may not be the appropriate forum
• Trademark rights are essential for a successful UDRP
• Domain name owners beware: UDRP cannot fix failure to renew
• Proof of targeting necessary under ‘.se’ Policy

• ‘lotto.com’ decision: do not gamble on the UDRP
• UDRP: possible bad faith is not enough
• UDRP: the importance of full disclosure
• Compassion for well-substantiated evidence in UDRP proceedings
• UDRP proceedings: evidence of targeting is crucial
• UDRP complainants take note: trademark reputation must be evidenced
• Highest court ends judicial dispute involving Saône-et-Loire department
• Drumroll as ‘tambour.com’ complaint is denied
• ‘pardonmyfrench.com’ decision: UDRP does not pardon lack of evidence
• UDRP complainants: be careful not to trigger a finding of reverse domain name hijacking
• UDRP complainants beware: personal names must be trademarks to benefit from UDRP
• UDRP complainants beware: panel may conduct further research