NIPC Law

Partial View of the Internet Author The Opte Project  Source Wikipedia   Creative Commons Licence I have been a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization's domain name dispute resolution panel  since 2003 and I have seen a fair number of complaints  in domain name disputes in that time. I have also settled a few of my own as counsel to trade mark proprietors or business owners who object to the registration of a domain name that is the same as, or similar to, their trade mark or business name. The complaint is an important document as it is usually the only source of evidence and argument that a panellist can rely upon It is rarely prepared well. More often and not I receive screeds of irrelevant matter, bad points, repetition of the same point and disjointed argument all presented in a tone of exaggerated indignation backed up by lengthy annexes all of which have to be read and most of which are next to useless. This short...

In Apple v Samsung: the Appeal   I discussed the notice that Apple was ordered to display on its British website and the words that it actually displayed.  Many people I spoke to (especially those who own Apple phones and tablets) thought that notice was very clever and marvelled at the spin that Apple had put on bad news.   It appears from "Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement"   that the Court of Appeal took a different view and ordered Apple to take the notice down and replace it with one that does comply with their lordships' intentions. Apparently Apple's counsel asked the Court for 14 days to compose its new notice.  That seems to have gone down like a lead balloon,    Lord Justice Longmore replied:: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down."  Sir Robin Jacob, added: "I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit about why that is such a t...