Comments on: WIPO: Another Horrible Inconsistent Decision: “Constructive Notice Does Not = Bad Faith” http://www.thedomains.com/2010/03/09/wipo-another-horrible-inconsistent-decision-constructive-notice-does-not-bad-faith/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:38:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: MHB http://www.thedomains.com/2010/03/09/wipo-another-horrible-inconsistent-decision-constructive-notice-does-not-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-27449 MHB Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:45:14 +0000 http://www.thedomains.com/?p=7763#comment-27449 Paul Can't you argue that someone who has a domain for say 5+ years has a common law right based on use on that domain? Paul

Can’t you argue that someone who has a domain for say 5+ years has a common law right based on use on that domain?

]]> By: Paul http://www.thedomains.com/2010/03/09/wipo-another-horrible-inconsistent-decision-constructive-notice-does-not-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-27448 Paul Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:37:44 +0000 http://www.thedomains.com/?p=7763#comment-27448 The respondent does have a trademark - a common law trademark - which began its existence immediately upon use. This is of course different from determining how strong a mark it is and whether any secondary meaning can be established if required. I do agree with the rest of your comments, however. The UDRP is a strange world for domainers. The respondent does have a trademark – a common law trademark – which began its existence immediately upon use. This is of course different from determining how strong a mark it is and whether any secondary meaning can be established if required.

I do agree with the rest of your comments, however. The UDRP is a strange world for domainers.

]]>