The real story of Hromadske v Skrypin REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES we - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The real story of Hromadske v Skrypin

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

Who we are?

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

Wha What ha happene ned?

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

Wh What ha happened?

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

Wh What ha happened?

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

Wh What ha happened?

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

!

UDRP howto

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark

• r service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Skrypin case | facts

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

• 1. DATE of domain registration

On 14 September 2012 Respondent registered two domain names: “hromadske.tv” and “suspilne.tv”. On 10 June 2013 a non-government organization “Hromadske Telebachennya” was registered in Ukraine. Respondent was registered as the CEO of the organization as well as its founder along with other 7 journalists

Skrypin case | facts

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

• 2. Hromadske.tv or Public television? The founder issue.

”I will not be very original. Roman Skrypin called me and then things started off and rolling”

In November 2012 Respondent prepared the Project plan for idea

Skrypin case | facts

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

• 3. Distinctiveness of Hromadske.tv TM & use of subdomain

the term “hromadske tv” (“public tv”) in no way distinguishes the Complainant or is associated exclusively by the Complainant «hromadske.cherkasy.ua», «hromadske.lviv.ua», «hromadske-zak.tv», «hromadske-zp.tv», «hromadske.od.ua»

Skrypin case | Result

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. … … ❌

Bad faith is…

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

(i) registered primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the

• wner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that

complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented

• ut-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

Bad faith is…

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

(ii) domain name registered to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

Bad faith is…

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

(iv) creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location

• r of a product or service on your web site or location

Bad faith in Skrypin case

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

”the Domain Name was chosen and registered long before Mr. Skrypin became involved in the Complainant and before the founders

• f the Complainant decided to adopt the name “Hromadske.TV”.

If this is correct, it is hard to see how that registration could have been in bad faith”

Bad faith in Skrypin case

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

”the nature of the Domain Name is such that it is not inherently improbable that the Domain Name was chosen by the Respondent before that name was chosen for the Complainant.”

Sho tam pro ”opportunism”?

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

Th That is not not to

• say

say that at the Pane anel l fi finds nds the Re Responde spondent nt and/ and/or

• r Mr.

Sk Skrypin ac actions ions in in this is case ase af after the Dom

• main

ain Nam ame was as regist gistered d par partic icular larly ly at attrac activ ive. . th the F Facebook c comme mments ts o

• f M
• Mr. Sk

Skrypin re regard rding possible “s “sale pu purchase ase or

• r le

lease ase agr agreement nts” fo for the Domain Name, sug uggests that Mr

• Mr. Sk

Skrypin and/ and/or

• r the Responde

spondent nt hav ave ac acted d oppor

• pportunist

nistic ically ally to

• say

say the le least ast

The End !

REIMAGINING LEGAL SERVICES

E-mail: poke_us@axon.partners beregovyi@axon.partners Facebook: axon.partners den.beregovyi