Uniform Sales Law - The UN- Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Go to Database. Directory . Reproduced with their permission. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Publishing House. T. It was originally intended as a source of information. German jurists, but foreign colleagues and friends suggested that I have it. English in order to make it accessible to jurists of all nations. I decided to follow their advice because I. Convention can be promoted. Convention is applied by the courts. In agreeing. to have the book translated, I am aware that a scholarly contribution in a. I did not. strive for completeness, but, nevertheless, I have examined everything to which. I had access and have listed what I consulted in the bibliography. Often I have. found that the comments of my colleagues reassured me as to my own views, but. I made in the book. I am. greatly indebted to those authors for the insights which enabled me to correct. The experiences of the German courts with the predecessor of. Convention, the 1. Hague ULIS and ULF, are included in the footnotes. I. owe special thanks to Ms. Gerhard Dannemann, Ms. Bond for translating, for checking the footnotes, and for. Fischer organized the administrative side of the. Mrs. Denzlinger patiently typed and retyped. I can only hope that the. Peter Doralt of the Wirtschaftsuniversit. L. American Journal of Comparative Law (U. S. A.)Ariz. L. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law (U. S. A) BBBetriebs- Berater (Periodical, F. R. G.)BGBB. Convention for the International Sale of Goods (1. Conn. B. JConnecticut Bar Journal (U. S. A.)ed. editoreds. Eu. GV. L. European Transport Law (Bel)F. R. G. Federal Republic of Germany. G. D. R. German Democratic Republicid.(idem) the samei. Int. L. International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Int'l Fin. Rev. International Financial Law Review (U. K.)Int'l Law. The International Lawyer (U. S. A.)Int'l Tax & Bus. Law. International Tax & Business Lawyer (U. S. A.)IPRax. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (Periodical. F. R. G.)J. L. The Journal of Business Law (U. S. A.)J. C. P. Juris- Classeur Periodique (Semaine Juridique)J. L. Journal of World Trade Law (U. S. A.) N. Note. NJWNeue Juristische Wochenschrift (Periodical, F. General Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986. Article 3 - Purposes And Powers. Article 5 - Office And Agent. Article 6 - Shares; Dividends; Contributions. ASG Law Offices is a consumer law firm dedicated to consumer protection and vigorously defending the rights of our clients. Enhance your IMDb Page. Law (1986–1994) 7 /10. Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Australia just lost its attempt to grab the 15 year old domain name AGL.com. ESQwire.com represented. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986'. Leicester Law School is committed to offering the best in undergraduate LLB and postgraduate LLM courses. The Legislation Register is managed by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in accordance with the Legislation Act 2003. Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986: Financial Framework. To browse other sources of Australian law.R. G.)Ohio St. J. Ohio State Law Journal (U. S. A.)OPECOrganization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. O. R. U. N. Official Records (of the United Nations Conference on Contracts. International Sale of Goods, Vienna 1. March - 1. 1 April 1. Ghana L. Review of Ghana Law (Ghana)Rev. J. Uniform Commerdal Code Law Journal (U. S. A.)U. K. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ULFUniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale. Goods (1. 96. 4)ULISUniform Law on the International Sale of Goods (1. U. N. United Nations. UNCITRALUnited Nations Commission on International Trade Law. UNCITRAL Y. B. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Yearbook. U. S/U. S. AUnited States of America. U. S. S. R. Union of the Socialist Soviet Republicvol. WMWM Wertpapier Mitteilungen (Periodical, F. R. G.)Zf. BRZeitschrift f. The Domain Name Law Firm of Ari Goldberger. By Michael Berkens. Yang, which I believe should bar the panelist from ever handling another UDRP. Each of the panelist remaining after Mr. Yang bailed on making a decision even lay out their own arguments on why the domain holder had a legitimate interest int he domain and lack of bad faith. The domain holder was represented by ESQwire. PCHere are the relevant facts and findings: On August 2. Complainant filed an application for a European Community trademark for YU, in connection with goods and services relevant to its proposed business; it obtained registration of the trademark on January 2. The disputed domain name was registered by Respondent on November 1. Respondent has retained the disputed domain name since then. Respondent uses the disputed domain name for the operation of a website that displays . The links are automatically generated by a third party provider. Respondent. The Rules only provide for possible appointment of a substitute panelist where circumstances disclosed after appointment give rise to justifiable doubt as to the impartiality or independence of an appointed panelist. It is furthermore generally understood that absolute incapacity or unavailability on the part of an appointed panelist may provide a basis for substitution. Subject to such exceptional scenarios, an appointed panel generally sees the matter through to a decided conclusion. On this basis, while noting Presiding Panelist Yang. It is to that application that the Panel now turns. An additional ground of objection to the second nominee was that the second nominee . However, Complainant persisted with its objection. It then renewed its objection to the Panel. The challenge having been made, the Panel has naturally examined the Policy and the Rules to ascertain what, if any, powers it has to entertain it. Taking the view that neither the Panel as a whole nor any combination of Panelists has jurisdiction to decide Complainant. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO Case No. D2. 00. 1- 0. 50. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend v. In the Britannia case, the distinguished sole panelist decided that there was jurisdiction in the panel to decide the challenge. He said. Rule 8 does, however, contemplate that a party may seek to communicate with a panel through the provider or with the provider itself. More importantly, it is critical that a mechanism be provided to ensure compliance with Rule 7, and also with the prescription of Rule 1. Accordingly, this Panel finds it appropriate for a party with concerns about a panelist. In the event the provider declines to disqualify the panelist, it is equally appropriate for the party to move for the panelist. In that case the panel was a three- member panel and the presiding panelist was called on to decide the challenge. In an interim order, he decided that . The presiding Panelist therefore has no jurisdiction to deal with this request . Accordingly, the Presiding Panelist declines to rule on the Request for Recusal or to consider it for any purpose. Each party submits its list of three candidates (in order of preference) to be a panelist and the Center appoints one of them if it can, respecting the party. As for the selection of the presiding panelist, each party is entitled to state its preferences from a list of five candidates assembled by the Center, and the Center will take each party. Accordingly, neither party . Discussion and Findings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar. Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy). Complainant argues that it is identical to the trademark it relies on, namely its European Community mark registration for YU. It also submits that for the purpose of this comparison, the suffix . The Panel agrees with these submissions. It is true that the trademark in question was applied for on August 2. January 2. 5, 2. 01. November 1. 8, 2. However, it is now generally accepted that the consequences of such a series of events is not relevant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, where the issue is whether Complainant has a trademark, not whether it had one at the time of registration of the disputed domain name; the latter consideration is left to the analysis of paragraph 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has met the requirements of the first of the three elements that it must establish. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests. Complainant must show that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). Panelist Christie considers that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Panelist Brown is of the contrary view. The reasons of the Panelists for their respective views are set out below. Panelist Christie. Respondent asserted that it did not register (or did not purchase and renew) yu. Complainant. Therefore, any party with the last name . Moreover, the Disputed Domain is offered for lease or sale (likely to a person that has the last name Yu). Specifically: 2. 2 Does a respondent automatically have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name comprised of a dictionary word(s)? The Consensus view is. As an example of such permissible use, where domain names consisting of dictionary or common words or phrases support posted PPC links genuinely related to the generic meaning of the domain name at issue, this may be permissible and indeed consistent with recognized sources of rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP. He does not consider Respondent. That use is for a PPC site where the links have no connection to the word . In cases concerning a generic or common name, a principle and practice has been developed to the effect that this situation gives rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name provided that it is not used to target a trademark or its owner or to engage in other inappropriate conduct that is deleterious to the Complainant. The cases where that principle has been applied are many and Respondent has cited some of them in its submission. The principle is also based on good common sense, as it enables the Internet and the domain name system to operate with reasonable freedom and at the same time protects trademark owners from unjustified attacks on their intellectual property. In the present case, Respondent says that using a personal name as a domain name is tantamount to using a generic or common word and should be judged according to the same principles. There are clear decisions to the effect that this is a sound argument; indeed, it is accepted as an established principle and practice in domain name arbitration. Applying the principle to the present case, then, it may be said that Respondent, first, in its evidence established, that . The latter point is pivotal to the present issue, as panelists rightly look to see if the registrant knew of the trademark owner or its trademark or had any other knowledge tending to suggest that it was targeting the trademark owner. That is vital, as the whole purpose of the UDRP is to inquire if the trademark owner is being attacked by the registrant of the domain name. In the present case, however, it would have been impossible for Respondent or anyone else to have targeted a trademark for YU as none existed at the time or for years after the disputed domain name was registered and, indeed, nor had the eventual trademark owner, Complainant, even commenced the business that it is now keen to start. It is therefore inconceivable that Respondent targeted Complainant or its trademark and equally inconceivable that it was acting in any way other than in good faith. The absence of any evidence to the contrary makes it more likely than not that Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the reasons it has given in its evidence, namely that it was attracted to the name because it is a common Chinese surname. At least, that explanation is plausible. However, Respondent has used the website to carry links to generic sites promoting a wide variety of general goods and services. Thus, for example, there are links to insurance, cruises, lawyers, motor vehicles, finance and all of the other blandishments of modern life. They are in fact as general as goods and services could possibly be. Against this, however, it is said that the links are not related to the meaning of the name Yu and are therefore out of order. But that view is contrary to the decided cases. In Altom, the advertisements were for jobs couriers and related areas (and the Complainant was a software company with nothing to do with jobs or couriers); in Lana, the advertisements were for shopping , holidays, machinery, hot rods and other general lines of goods and services. In Rusconi, the site was used for a web mail interface. In Etam, the domain name was linked to an adult website. In all of these cases the domain name was legitimate. In all of them the links were generic, as was the domain name. In none of them was there any material directly linking the domain name to the names . There is no difference between these cases and the present case and, consistent with previous decisions and general principle, the generic use of the disputed domain name gives rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith. Complainant must show that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). Panelists Brown and Christie find that Complainant has failed to establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Thus, Complainant has not met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, and the Complaint fails. The reasons of the Panelists for their respective conclusions are set out below. Panelist Christie.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |