- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 0
This is an issue on which I've spent a bit of time over the last few months, and I thought it might be of interest here.
Laches is a legal defense that effectively questions an opposing party's good faith in bringing a case in an untimely manner. For example, Complainant A notices that Domainer B is parking a name it thinks it infringes, but decides to forego filing a complaint. Years later, after Domainer B has invested additional resources in the name, A files a UDRP. B would then argue that the delay should preclude A from winning the case.
While laches is not formally recognized under UDRP, it has had an interesting year in various UDRP opinions.
First came the Razorbacks.com decision, where a majoriy of the panel was willing to recognize the limited potential applicability of a laches defense:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-1139.html
Upon seeing this decision, I wrote a blog post on the issue, effectively suggesting that the laches defense is now "in play" in UDRP matters:
http://www.cyberlaw.pro/cyberlawg/domain-names/a-potential-new-defense-under-udrp.html
I was lucky enough to enjoy a good response to that post. One panelist even specifically referenced it in a subsequent decision:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2010/d2010-0228.html
(You can see the specific reference to my post in the third-to-last paragraph).
I eventually posted a "wrap up" style article where I recommend that respondents in UDRP matters consider raising a laches defense ONLY when appropriate.
http://www.cyberlaw.pro/cyberlawg/domain-names/udrp-panelist-cites-menhart-analysis-on-laches.html
If more proper laches defenses are raised, it may lead to greater discussion of the issue. Overall, I think that benefits domain name holders.
Laches is a legal defense that effectively questions an opposing party's good faith in bringing a case in an untimely manner. For example, Complainant A notices that Domainer B is parking a name it thinks it infringes, but decides to forego filing a complaint. Years later, after Domainer B has invested additional resources in the name, A files a UDRP. B would then argue that the delay should preclude A from winning the case.
While laches is not formally recognized under UDRP, it has had an interesting year in various UDRP opinions.
First came the Razorbacks.com decision, where a majoriy of the panel was willing to recognize the limited potential applicability of a laches defense:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-1139.html
Upon seeing this decision, I wrote a blog post on the issue, effectively suggesting that the laches defense is now "in play" in UDRP matters:
http://www.cyberlaw.pro/cyberlawg/domain-names/a-potential-new-defense-under-udrp.html
I was lucky enough to enjoy a good response to that post. One panelist even specifically referenced it in a subsequent decision:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2010/d2010-0228.html
(You can see the specific reference to my post in the third-to-last paragraph).
I eventually posted a "wrap up" style article where I recommend that respondents in UDRP matters consider raising a laches defense ONLY when appropriate.
http://www.cyberlaw.pro/cyberlawg/domain-names/udrp-panelist-cites-menhart-analysis-on-laches.html
If more proper laches defenses are raised, it may lead to greater discussion of the issue. Overall, I think that benefits domain name holders.