<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>UDRPlaw.net &#187; Respondent Win</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.udrplaw.net/en/udrp/category/udrp/respondent_win/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.udrplaw.net</link>
	<description>The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Legal Information Site</description>
	<lastbuilddate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:00:00 +0000</lastbuilddate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updateperiod>hourly</sy:updateperiod>
	<sy:updatefrequency>1</sy:updatefrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>WB Loses DaisyDukes.com Complaint</title>
		<link>http://www.udrplaw.net/udrp/udrp/wb-loses-daisydukescom-complaint.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.udrplaw.net/udrp/udrp/wb-loses-daisydukescom-complaint.html#comments</comments>
		<pubdate>Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:29:52 +0000</pubdate>
		<dc:creator>Historical Post</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dispute Providers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Respondent Win]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP]]></category>

		<guid ispermalink="false">http://www.udrplaw.net/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Warner Brothers Entertainment, which owns the rights to The Dukes of Hazzard and related characters, including DAISY DUKE, failed in its UDRP case against the registrant of the domain name DaisyDukes.com.   The Panelist determined that although WB had common law rights in the DAISY DUKE mark and the registrant lacked rights and legitimate interests in the DaisyDukes.com [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="post-body">Warner Brothers Entertainment, which owns the rights to <em>The Dukes of Hazzard</em> and related characters, including DAISY DUKE, failed in its UDRP case against the registrant of the domain name DaisyDukes.com.  </p>
<p>The Panelist determined that although WB had common law rights in the DAISY DUKE mark and the registrant lacked rights and legitimate interests in the DaisyDukes.com domain name, WB failed to demonstrate that the registrant had registered and used the domain name in bad faith.</p>
<p>&#8220;Respondent submits that his use of the term “daisy dukes” is not in bad faith because the term has become accepted vernacular for women’s cut-off shorts and this term has been used in that connotation to attract people to this pornographic web site. The best evidence submitted by Respondent in support of that position is his submission in evidence of the lyrics of a 1992 song “Dazzey Duks” by rap artist Duice. The song repeatedly uses this term to refer to cut-off shorts and makes no reference to the Dukes of Hazzard television series. Complainant does not address this evidence in its Additional Submission and presents no counter-arguments regarding its significance. The Panel finds that this piece of unrefuted evidence slightly tips the balance in favor of Respondent.&#8221; </p>
<p>The Panelist overlooked the fact that the meaning of of the term &#8220;daisy dukes&#8221; is taken directly from the clothing (or lack thereof) worn by and popularized by the DAISY DUKE character in the television series.</p>
<p>This case is probably headed to federal court.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/608636.htm">Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. v. R Schwartz d/b/a Virtual Dates Inc., NAF Case FA608636 (Jan. 26, 2006).</a> </div>
<img src="http://www.udrplaw.net/wp-content/plugins/pixelstats/trackingpixel.php?post_id=23&amp;ts=1283937497" style="display:none;" alt="pixelstats trackingpixel"/><div id="ratebox_23" style="height: 18px;"><a style="cursor: pointer;" onclick="loadContent(this, 'like', '23');">Like</a> - <a style="cursor: pointer;" onclick="loadContent(this, 'dislike', '23');">Dislike</a></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentrss>http://www.udrplaw.net/udrp/udrp/wb-loses-daisydukescom-complaint.html/feed</wfw:commentrss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Smells of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking</title>
		<link>http://www.udrplaw.net/udrp/udrp/the-smells-of-reverse-domain-name-hijacking.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.udrplaw.net/udrp/udrp/the-smells-of-reverse-domain-name-hijacking.html#comments</comments>
		<pubdate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:48:39 +0000</pubdate>
		<dc:creator>Historical Post</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Respondent Win]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reverse Hijacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP]]></category>

		<guid ispermalink="false">http://www.udrplaw.net/?p=27</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It has been awhile since a UDRP panelist issued a decision in support of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against a trademark owner. The latest RDNH decision involves the domain name AROMA.COM. In a decision issued January 16, 2006, Panelist John J. Upchurch determined that Mirama Enterprises, Inc. dba Aroma Housewares Company &#8220;attempted to abuse the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It has been awhile since a UDRP panelist issued a decision in support of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against a trademark owner. The latest RDNH decision involves the domain name AROMA.COM. In a decision issued January 16, 2006, Panelist John J. Upchurch determined that Mirama Enterprises, Inc. dba Aroma Housewares Company &#8220;attempted to abuse the administrative process to wrest control of Respondent&#8217;s domain name and take over the domain name registration.&#8221; The decision is <a href="http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/588486.htm">Mirama Enterprises, Inc. dba Aroma Housewares Company v. NJDomains, Abuse Contact:abuse@mail.com c/o Gerald Gorman, NAF Case FA588486 (Jan. 16, 2006).</a></p>
<img src="http://www.udrplaw.net/wp-content/plugins/pixelstats/trackingpixel.php?post_id=27&amp;ts=1283937497" style="display:none;" alt="pixelstats trackingpixel"/><div id="ratebox_27" style="height: 18px;"><a style="cursor: pointer;" onclick="loadContent(this, 'like', '27');">Like</a> - <a style="cursor: pointer;" onclick="loadContent(this, 'dislike', '27');">Dislike</a></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentrss>http://www.udrplaw.net/udrp/udrp/the-smells-of-reverse-domain-name-hijacking.html/feed</wfw:commentrss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PubCheese.com Complaint Appropriately Denied by Panel</title>
		<link>http://www.udrplaw.net/udrp/udrp/pubcheesecom-complaint-appropriately-denied-by-panel.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.udrplaw.net/udrp/udrp/pubcheesecom-complaint-appropriately-denied-by-panel.html#comments</comments>
		<pubdate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:41:59 +0000</pubdate>
		<dc:creator>Historical Post</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dispute Providers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Respondent Win]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP]]></category>

		<guid ispermalink="false">http://www.udrplaw.net/?p=30</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A National Arbitration Forum panelist had denied a complaint brought against the domain name PubCheese.com. Read the decision here:http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/596032.htm. Like - Dislike]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A National Arbitration Forum panelist had denied a complaint brought against the domain name PubCheese.com. Read the decision here:<a href="http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/596032.htm">http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/596032.htm</a>.</p>
<img src="http://www.udrplaw.net/wp-content/plugins/pixelstats/trackingpixel.php?post_id=30&amp;ts=1283937497" style="display:none;" alt="pixelstats trackingpixel"/><div id="ratebox_30" style="height: 18px;"><a style="cursor: pointer;" onclick="loadContent(this, 'like', '30');">Like</a> - <a style="cursor: pointer;" onclick="loadContent(this, 'dislike', '30');">Dislike</a></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentrss>http://www.udrplaw.net/udrp/udrp/pubcheesecom-complaint-appropriately-denied-by-panel.html/feed</wfw:commentrss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
