Forums
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Market
Domains/Websites Wanted
.com Domain Market
gTLD Domain Market
ccTLD Domain Market
Web3 Domain Market
Third-Level Domain Market
Adult Domain Market
What's New
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Account Upgrade
Premium Members Directory
Log in
Register
What's New
calendar
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.
Forums
Domain Discussion
Domain Name News
Registering a trademark doesn’t let you refile a udrp
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andrew Allemann" data-source="post: 2257266"><p><strong>UDRP panel declines to hear refiled UDRP.</strong></p><p></p><p>A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied Steven Samblis’ second attempt to take down gripes sites.</p><p></p><p>Samblis is a television personality and businessman who runs a media company.</p><p></p><p>Apparently his actions have rubbed at least one person the wrong way. That person set up <a href="http://samblis.com/" target="_blank">sites</a> using the domains samblis.com, stevensamblis.com, stevensamblis.net, and stevesamblis.com.</p><p></p><p>Samblis <a href="http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1591261.htm" target="_blank">filed a UDRP</a> against the domain names in 2014, claiming common law rights in his name. The case was filed at National Arbitration Forum by attorney Steven L. Rinehart.</p><p></p><p>The panel ruled that he did not prove common law rights, so the case fell apart.</p><p></p><p>Samblis subsequently registered a trademark for his name, citing first use in 2005. So he filed another case with the help of Rinehart, this time with World Intellectual Property Organization.</p><p></p><p>The panel rightfully <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-0579" target="_blank">declined</a> to hear the case. This paragraph sums up why:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The subsequent registration of STEVEN SAMBLIS as a trademark – even with the USPTO registration showing a date of first use in commerce going back to February 8, 2005, is “new information” in a strict sense, but it is not “new information” in the sense that the asserted trademark rights were unavailable to Complainant at the time he filed his complaint in the Prior Case. Presumably, when filing his trademark application with the USPTO, Complainant had to provide some type of evidence of use of STEVEN SAMBLIS as a trademark going back to February 2005. Why, one asks, was that same evidence – to show that STEVEN SAMBLIS was being used as a trademark – not provided to the panel in the Prior Case? In the Panel’s view, and based on this record, the fact of trademark registration since the decision in the Prior Case does not constitute significant fresh evidence of trademark rights that was simply unavailable back at the time of the Prior Case. Parties to streamlined proceedings like those under the Policy should strive to get it right the first time.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>The refiled dispute had a couple additional silly claims, such as that the addition of whois privacy and the respondent’s continued blogging about Samblis were new evidence against the domain name owner.</p><p></p><hr /><p></p><p><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/category/podcasts/" target="_blank"><img src="http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/dnw-podcast-rss.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></p><p>© DomainNameWire.com 2016. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) domainnamewire.com.</p><p></p><p><strong>Latest domain news at DNW.com:</strong> <a href="http://domainnamewire.com" target="_blank">Domain Name Wire</a>.</p><p></p><p>The post <a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/01/registering-trademark-doesnt-let-refile-udrp/" target="_blank">Registering a trademark doesn’t let you refile a UDRP</a> appeared first on <a href="http://domainnamewire.com" target="_blank">Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Views</a>.</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><strong>Related posts:</strong></span></p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2015/12/09/the-late-igal-lichtman-aka-mrs-jello-loses-a-horrible-udrp-decision/" target="_blank">The late Igal Lichtman, aka Mrs Jello, loses a horrible UDRP decision </a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2013/06/05/irony-alert-trademark-company-loses-cybersquatting-claim-on-trademarkdirect-com-au/" target="_blank">Irony alert: Trademark company loses cybersquatting claim on TrademarkDirect.com.au </a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2012/05/18/from-the-lawyer-udrp-mistakes-file/" target="_blank">From the lawyer UDRP mistakes file… </a></li> </ol><p></p><p><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/01/registering-trademark-doesnt-let-refile-udrp/" target="_blank">Continue reading...</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andrew Allemann, post: 2257266"] [B]UDRP panel declines to hear refiled UDRP.[/B] A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied Steven Samblis’ second attempt to take down gripes sites. Samblis is a television personality and businessman who runs a media company. Apparently his actions have rubbed at least one person the wrong way. That person set up [URL='http://samblis.com/']sites[/URL] using the domains samblis.com, stevensamblis.com, stevensamblis.net, and stevesamblis.com. Samblis [URL='http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1591261.htm']filed a UDRP[/URL] against the domain names in 2014, claiming common law rights in his name. The case was filed at National Arbitration Forum by attorney Steven L. Rinehart. The panel ruled that he did not prove common law rights, so the case fell apart. Samblis subsequently registered a trademark for his name, citing first use in 2005. So he filed another case with the help of Rinehart, this time with World Intellectual Property Organization. The panel rightfully [URL='http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-0579']declined[/URL] to hear the case. This paragraph sums up why: [INDENT] The subsequent registration of STEVEN SAMBLIS as a trademark – even with the USPTO registration showing a date of first use in commerce going back to February 8, 2005, is “new information” in a strict sense, but it is not “new information” in the sense that the asserted trademark rights were unavailable to Complainant at the time he filed his complaint in the Prior Case. Presumably, when filing his trademark application with the USPTO, Complainant had to provide some type of evidence of use of STEVEN SAMBLIS as a trademark going back to February 2005. Why, one asks, was that same evidence – to show that STEVEN SAMBLIS was being used as a trademark – not provided to the panel in the Prior Case? In the Panel’s view, and based on this record, the fact of trademark registration since the decision in the Prior Case does not constitute significant fresh evidence of trademark rights that was simply unavailable back at the time of the Prior Case. Parties to streamlined proceedings like those under the Policy should strive to get it right the first time. [/INDENT] The refiled dispute had a couple additional silly claims, such as that the addition of whois privacy and the respondent’s continued blogging about Samblis were new evidence against the domain name owner. [hr][/hr] [URL='http://domainnamewire.com/category/podcasts/'][IMG]http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/dnw-podcast-rss.jpg[/IMG][/URL] © DomainNameWire.com 2016. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) domainnamewire.com. [B]Latest domain news at DNW.com:[/B] [URL='http://domainnamewire.com']Domain Name Wire[/URL]. The post [URL='http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/01/registering-trademark-doesnt-let-refile-udrp/']Registering a trademark doesn’t let you refile a UDRP[/URL] appeared first on [URL='http://domainnamewire.com']Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Views[/URL]. [SIZE=4][B]Related posts:[/B][/SIZE] [LIST=1] [*][URL='http://domainnamewire.com/2015/12/09/the-late-igal-lichtman-aka-mrs-jello-loses-a-horrible-udrp-decision/']The late Igal Lichtman, aka Mrs Jello, loses a horrible UDRP decision [/URL] [*][URL='http://domainnamewire.com/2013/06/05/irony-alert-trademark-company-loses-cybersquatting-claim-on-trademarkdirect-com-au/']Irony alert: Trademark company loses cybersquatting claim on TrademarkDirect.com.au [/URL] [*][URL='http://domainnamewire.com/2012/05/18/from-the-lawyer-udrp-mistakes-file/']From the lawyer UDRP mistakes file… [/URL] [/LIST] [url="http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/01/registering-trademark-doesnt-let-refile-udrp/"]Continue reading...[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Domain Discussion
Domain Name News
Registering a trademark doesn’t let you refile a udrp
Top
Bottom