Register

To become a member of ITProPortal Register here.

Already a member? Login here

Please register below. All we need is a valid email address and a password.

Please use a real email address as we need to email you to confirm your account.
Must be at least 6 characters long.

Benefits of joining ITProPortal:

  • Unlimited Access to Special Reports and White Papers
  • Exclusive offers and discounts
  • Free entry to all competitions
  • Access to beta sections of ITProPortal.com

Login to your account



Forgot your password?


Red Bull wins redbullsucks.com from energy drink rival

Red Bull wins redbullsucks.com from energy drink rival
  • Digg del.icio.us reddit Facebook
"This Panel’s view is that it is not helpful to characterize 'sucks' as a generic term in the same way earlier cases have held 'buy-', 'cheap-', '-online' and numerous similar terms to be non-distinctive," said the ruling. "The virtually universal finding of confusing similarity in those cases is based on the primacy accorded to a complainant’s (usually well known) trademark over added matter of no source distinguishing value."

Instead of treating the 'sucks' part of the name as generic and therefore declaring the domain
name 'confusingly similar' to Red Bull's trade mark, the panel followed the guidance of a
previous case in which that rule was defined more broadly.

"The Panel understands the phrase 'identical or confusingly similar' to be greater than the sum of its parts," said the panellist in that previous case, which involved shop chain Wal-Mart and Richard MacLeod. "The Policy was adopted to prevent the extortionate behavior commonly known as 'cybersquatting', in which parties registered domain names in which major trademark owners had a particular interest in order to extort money from those trademark owners. This describes Respondent’s behavior," it said.

"Thus, the Panel concludes that a domain name is 'identical or confusingly similar' to a trademark for purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name. In other words, the issue under the first factor is not whether the domain name causes confusion as to source (a factor more appropriately considered in connection with the legitimacy of interest and bad faith factors), but instead whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, have confusing similarity," said that ruling.
Team Outlaw

Posted by Team Outlaw on 22 April 2008

This article was contributed by OUT-LAW.COM, part of international law firm Pinsent Masons. See http://www.out-law.com for further details.

Tags: Digital Media, Legal issues, copyright