In episode number 8 of my YouTube masterclass on domain name disputes, I discuss the "bad faith" requirement under the third part of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy's (UDRP) three-part test.
Watch the video below or on the GigaLaw YouTube channel.
As I explain, bad faith is usually the most important part of any UDRP complaint.
In the video, I explore each of the four definitions of bad faith set forth in the UDRP itself:
First, if a domain name registrant has registered or acquired the disputed domain name “primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring” it to the trademark owner “for valuable consideration in excess of [its] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.”
The UDRP’s second definition of bad faith relates to whether a domain name registrant has “engaged in a pattern of such conduct,” that is, registering domain names to prevent trademark owners from acquiring them.
The UDRP’s third definition of bad faith is whether a domain name registrant has “registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.”
Finally, the UDRP’s fourth definition of bad faith looks at whether a domain name registrant has attempted to create a “likelihood of confusion” by intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain.
However, because these four definitions of bad faith are non-exhaustive, I also explain how a trademark owner can prevail on this part of the UDRP’s test via other methods, such as the “passive holding” doctrine, which sometimes applies when a disputed domain name is not actively being used at all.
To watch previous episodes, visit “Domain Name Disputes: A Masterclass by Doug Isenberg.”
