In its complaint arguing for the panel to recognize the uniqueness of the ‘ARCELOR’ mark, ArcelorMittal stated, “It has no meaning in English or in any other language. A Google search of the word “arcelor” displays several results, all related to the complainant (ArcelorMittal).”

The WIPO decision was handed down on July 23, 2010 by a sole panelist, James A Barker. The panelist found that Defendant Taj Group of Companies (a Mumbai-based firm) was in violation of the federal Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protect Act (ACPA) and infringing on AcelorMittal’s trademark for its conduct in registering and use of the following domain names:

1. www.arcelorcement.com
2. www.arcelorchemicals.com
3. www.arcelorchemicals.net 
4. www.arcelorlaboratories.com
5. www.arcelorlabs.com
Presiding over and deciding the WIPO arbitration dipute, Barker found that the above mentioned names all infringed upon AcelorMittal’s ‘ARCELOR’ (Reg. No 2935304) and ‘ARCELORMITTAL’ (Reg. No 3643643) federally registered trademarks. Furthermore, Panelist Barker found that the domains were registered in bad faith and that each of the five disputed domains were either in part identical or confusingly similar to ‘ARCELOR’ trademarks.

Consequently, the WIPO issued the finding on this proceeding that the five disputed domains should be turned over to AcelorMittal.

The WIPO case is – Arcelormittal v. PrivacyProtect.org, Taj Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Taj Group of Companies, Case No. D2010-0899

For more related information on this lawsuit and on cybersquatting in general;

ArcelorMittal wins cybersquatting case

ArcelorMittal wins cybersquatting case against Mumbai firm

ArcelorMittal wins cybersquatting case against Mumbai firm

Wiki – Arcelor Mittal

Verizon’s most recent efforts to fight cybersquatting of its ‘VERIZON’ mark have been in the form of Uniform Domain-name Resolution Policy (UDRP) arbitration disputes filed through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Presently, Verizon has at least two live UDRP complaints still pending and has won a victory for ‘VERIZON’ cybersquatted domain names including;

• verizoin.com
• verizonswireless.com
• verizonwieless.com
• verizoon.com
• verizopn.net
• versizon.net
• vewrizon.net
• virazon.com
• verion.com

Speculators suggest that Verizon’s recent change of tactics could be a result of the location of the cybersquatted domains being foreign, thus making it harder to get a judgment against the trademark infringing domains via US court system.

For more information on Verizon’s fight against cybersquatters to protect its intellectual property rights check out any of these;

Domains Dispute Alert: A federal court in Northern California has awarded $33.15 million in a default judgment to Verizon Communications in what the company is calling the largest cybersquatting judgment ever

Verizon v Navigation Catalyst Cybersquatting Lawsuit Settled: NCS Continues to Cybersquat Trademark Protected Domains

Verizon Changes Tactics: Files UDRP Complaints Instead of Lawsuits

RapidShare has expanded rapidly since its founding, now it ranks among the top 50 most-used Websites on the Internet. This newfound popularity has also brought RapidShare misfortune as it has caught the attention of persons looking to profit from RapidShare’s good name and high-levels of steady Web-traffic. In light of this, RapidShare has filed and plans to continue to file (as necessary) these WIPO arbitration proceedings against the myriad of Internet users infringing on its rights.

In a statement released by the former CEO and COO of RapidShare, Bobby Chang iterated that RapidShare’s was going to aggressively pursue individuals or entities perpetuating intellectual property rights infringement against RapidShare content and against the RapidShare mark;

“We are extending our efforts to proceed against linking-sites, against so-called RapidShare search engines and against individuals who abuse our trademark to distribute copyright protected content.”

Below is a short list containing some of the domain names which RapidShare recently won through its WIPO arbitration proceedings;

• music-rapidshare.com
• rapidshareprime.net
• rapidshare-catalog.com
• full-rapidshare.com
• easyrapidsharedownloads.com
• rapidsharese.com
• rapidshare-provider.com
• rapidshare-free-download.com
• rapidshare-premium.com
• whatsrapidshare.com
• rapidshare-deposit.com
• rapidshare-accounts.net
• atrapidshare.com
• rapidsharepremiumaccounts.com
• rapidsharedownload.org

Shortly after releasing the statement against linking-sites, RapidShare search engines and individuals abusing trademark rights, Bobby Chang left his position as CEO of RapidShare. RapidShare announced that Chang was no longer deemed the right leader to successfully serve the interests of users and partners in RapidShare’s future. Acting in his stead until a replacement is found is Christian Schmid, the founder of RapidShare.

In a statement released after Chang’s departure, Schmid stated;

“We will continue RapidShare’s success story, faster and more consistently. We believe we can better achieve this goal with different leadership – for the benefit of our customers, partners and users.”

If you are threatened with a NAF or WIPO proceeding brought under the Uniform Domain Resolution Policy (UDRP) or would like to enforce your brand rights to protect a domain name or otherwise enforce your intellectual property rights, contact an Internet Lawyer for a free consultation.

For more information and related articles about RapidShare;

Rapidshare Takes Over Domain Names Of Trademark Abusers

RapidShare Ditches CEO Bobby Chang

The parties attempted to reach a settlement agreement but this did not materialize and proceedings against Respondent, Daniyal Waseem of Quetta, Pakistan, commenced on April 21.

Waseem failed to provide any Response (due on May 11), so the WIPO Center’s sole arbitrator in this case notified Waseem of his default on May 18 and continued with the arbitration proceeding.

The lone WIPO panelist found that Rediff.com India Ltd. provided sufficient proof of its rights to the REDIFF trade-mark, that the trademark has been registered in several jurisdictions, and that Complainant provided evidence of ‘substantial and reasonably long use’ of the trademark.

The panel further found that the Rediff.com.pk was confusingly similar to Rediff.com India Ltd.’s trademark, noting;

“In this Complaint, the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the REDIFF trade mark. The additional letters “pk” do not appear to distract a reasonable person’s overall perception or impression of the distinctive feature of the disputed domain name, being REDIFF.”

After finding that Rediff.com.pk was confusingly similar, the panel went on to note that the domain name was registered in bad faith;

“This Panel is convinced that the REDIFF trade mark was calculatively selected by the Respondent to form the disputed domain name in order to disrupt the Complainant’s ongoing business, to extract some form of direct or indirect commercial gain or to otherwise ride on the established goodwill of the Complainant.”

Finding that Waseem had no rights to the REDIFF mark the WIPO Panel concluded the proceeding by transferring Rediff.com.pk to the Indian REDIFF trademark owner Rediff.com India Ltd.

The full case can be found here on the WIPO’s Website; Rediff.com India Ltd. v. Daniyal Waseem, Case No. D2010-0346

For more information on this WIPO arbitration proceeding;

www.governancenow.com - Rediff wins cybersquatting case against Pakistani individual

Novo Nordisk had registered the FlexTouch trademark with the commercial goal of advertising the FlexTouch product as an aid in pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diabetes.

On March 19, 2010 the lone panelist Brigitte Joppich writing for the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center  in the WIPO case of Novo Nordisk A/S v. Andrew Melcher, Case No. D2010-0095, rendered an Administrative Panel Decision. That full decision can be found here.

The Panel found that while complainant Novo Nordisk;

“Neither provided any evidence that it promoted its FLEXTOUCH product in any way nor listed any other circumstances supporting the assumption that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the term “flextouch” at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.”

In contrast, the Panel looked favorably upon Andrew Melcher and noted that;

“The Respondent, in turn, provided evidence of substantial third parties’ use of the terms “flex touch” and “flexible touch” in connection with various products. As far as this Panel is aware, he has not been found to infringe the Policy in an earlier proceeding.”

If you are faced with a cybersquatting case under the UDRP or the ACPA, you should contact an internet attorney specializing in cybersquatting.  You may be entitled to recover your domain name through a cybersquatting case under the UDRP or the ACPA.

For more information and related articles;

Cybersquatting-saramortazavi.blogspot.com- Healthcare company loses arbitration for domain name,

Domainnamewire.com- Novo Nordisk Loses Domain Name Dispute

Neon Network then filed a declaratory judgment action in Arizona asking the court to determine that it had not violated the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.  The judge issued a default judgment against Aspis and awarded Neon $1,547.  The judgment can be viewed here, courtesy of Domain Name Wire.