hopfeed_template="";
hopfeed_align='LEFT';
hopfeed_type='IFRAME';
hopfeed_affiliate_tid='cybersquatting';
hopfeed_affiliate='weblawyer';
hopfeed_fill_slots='true';
hopfeed_height=250;
hopfeed_width=250;
hopfeed_cellpadding=5;
hopfeed_rows=3;
hopfeed_cols=1;
hopfeed_font='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Sans Serif';
hopfeed_font_size='9pt';
hopfeed_font_color='#000000';
hopfeed_border_color='#FFFFFF';
hopfeed_link_font_color='#3300FF';
hopfeed_link_font_hover_color='#3300FF';
hopfeed_background_color='#FFFFFF';
hopfeed_keywords='cybersquatting, typosquatting';
hopfeed_path='http://weblawyer.hopfeed.com';
hopfeed_link_target='_blank';

Cybersquatting and Religion

The Word of Faith International Christian Center recently lost a cybersquatting action to recover the domain name www.wordoffaith.org. The cybersquatting panel found that the complainant had not established any valid and/or senior rights in the trademark WORD OF FAITH. The complainant had not submitted any extrinsic evidence and the respondent had a valid trademark registration. Because the complainant had not established trademark rights, the panel did not examine the remaining cybersquatting factors, but denied the cybersquatting claim outright.

For more cybersquatting news and information, see Cybersquatting.com

Lacoste Snaps At Cybersquatter

Lacoste S.A. recently succeeded in a cybersquatting claim to recover the domain name www.lacosteshop.com. The cybersquatting panel found that Lacoste had numerous trademark registrations to support its rights in the LACOSTE trademark. Moreover, the panel found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the LACOSTE mark. Finally, the cybersquatting panel found that the domain had been registered in bad faith where it intentionally sought to attract Internet users to the website by creating a strong possibility of confusion with the LACOSTE mark and offering links to third-party websites.

For more cybersquatting news and information, see Cybersquatting.com

Tiger Woods Pounces on Cybersquatter

Acclaimed golfer Tiger Woods recently succeeded in a cybersquatting action to recover the domain name www.tigerwoodslifestyle.com. The panel found that Tiger Woods had a registered trademark for the TIGER WOODS mark, filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, and that the registrant had no rights to the TIGER WOODS mark. Moreover, the panel found that the registrant had used the domain name in bad faith, where the registrant offered to sell the domain name to TIGER WOODS immediately after registering it. Accordingly, the panel found that the domain name had been cybersquatted and ordered it transferred.

For more cybersquatting news, see Cybersquatting.com

Scalar Can’t Climb Cybersquatting Mountain

A UDRP recently denied a cybersquatting claim to recover the domain name www.scalar.com. Scalar Decisions Inc. had brought the cybersquatting action against the Scalar Consulting Group, LLC. The panel denied the claim because: a) the respondent established that it was commonly referred to by the name “scalar” and had used the trademark SCALAR: and b) the petitioner did not establish a bad faith registration of the domain name when it had been registered before the petitioner had come into existence. Accordingly, the UDRP panel denied the cybersquatting claim.

For more cybersquatting news and information see Cybersquatting.com

American Girl Goes After Cybersquatter

A UDRP panel recently ordered the transfer of the domain name www.americangirlbrand.com to American Girl, LLC. The panel found that the acclaimed doll maker had long-standing and established rights int he AMERICAN GIRL trademark. The panel further found that the domain name registrant had no legitimate rights in the mark, and that the domain name was confusingly similar to the AMERICAN GIRL trademark. Finally, the panel found that the registrant had used the domain name in bad faith by engaging in the unauthorized sale of American Girl’s products by diverting Internet users to a competitive website

For more cybersequatting news and information see Cybersquatting.com

Kohler Looses Cybersquatting Claim

The Kohler Co. recently lost a UDRP proceeding to recover the domain name www.kohlersucks.com. The cybersquatting panel found that the registrant had not used the domain in bad faith or commercially. Rather, the registrant used the domain name within its free speech rights as an expression of displeasure with Kohler and as a vehicle for enabling others to do so as well. The panel also found that use of the suffix “sucks” did not create a likelihood of confusion, but rather created the impression of a complaint website unaffiliated with Kohler. Accordingly, the panel found that cybersquatting had not occurred.

For more cybersquatting news and information, see Cybersquatting.com.

Google v. Meyer

Google recently succeeded in a cybersquatting action to recover the domain name www.googlegameroom.com. The panel found that the respondent had violated the relevant cybersquatting laws because the domain name was confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark where the mark covered a range of services. The panel also found bad faith by the respondent when he had used the domain name to offer users adult-oriented games and videos.

For More Information and News on Cybersquatting, see Cybersquatting.com.

Roche Products v. Corea

A cybersquatting law panel recently ordered the transfer of the domain name www.buyvalium.us to Roch Products, Inc. Roche claimed that the domain name was cybersquatted because it infringed on its registered VALIUM trademark. The cybersquatting law panel agreed. The panel also agreed that the registrant had used the domain name in bad faith when it had used it to operate a website in direct competition with  Roche Products, namely to sell Valium.

For more cybersquatting news and information, check out Cybersquatting.com.

Peaches Denied

A UDRP panel recently denied a cybersquatting claim for the domain www.peaches.com. The complainant argued that it had a registered trademark for use in connection with uniforms, and that a cybersquatter had unlawfully registered the domain name. The panel found that no cybersquatting had occurred, where the alleged cybersquatter had registered the domain name years before the complainant had first used its PEACHES mark. Accordingly, the panel denied the cybersquatting claim.

For More News and Information on Cybersquatting Check Out Cybersquatting.com.