28 January 2004
WIPO Continues Efforts to Stamp Out Cybersquatting
Efforts by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to combat the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names, or cybersquatting, made significant headway in 2003 although the problem persists most notably for high-value brands around the world.
Since the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) went into effect in December 1999, through 2003, WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center has handled some 6,000 disputes, covering 10,000 domain names.
"Reducing the practice of cybersquatting is an important element in enabling the Internet to develop as a secure and reliable environment which inspires confidence on the part of the ever-growing number of Internet users. The fact that over 80 percent of the WIPO expert decisions went in favor of the trademark holder, be it a large multinational corporation or a small or medium-sized business, underlines the bad faith inherent in this practice," said Mr. Francis Gurry, Deputy Director General of WIPO, who oversees the work of the Center.
In addition to famous brands (recent WIPO cases include the domain names pepsi-smash.com, calvinklein-watches.com, rolexgroup.com), celebrities continue to be targeted by cybersquatters. Often their winning cases were based on common law rights in their names rather than on a registered trademark. In 2003, the Center received cases relating to movies, authors and books (jrrtolkien.com, thecatinthehat.com), pop stars (nsyncfilm.com, utadahikaru.com), television shows (oscartv.com, operaciontriunfo.tv), and movie stars (piercebrosnan.com, victoriarowell.com). Sports personalities (terrellowens.com) and sporting events (torino2006.net, madrid2012.org) were also the target of cybersquatters.
The UDRP, which was proposed by WIPO and accepted as an international standard for resolving domain name disputes, is designed specifically to discourage and resolve the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names. Under the UDRP, which became effective in December 1999, a complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that the respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
For further information about all the activities of the Center, please visit the Center’s web site at http://arbiter.wipo.int
|
News Stories 
