Start · Domainrecht · Markenrecht · IP-Recht · Rechtsanwälte · Direktkontakt · Standorte · Impressum · Datenschutz

 disputeresolution24

horak.
RECHTSANWÄLTE

Anwaltskanzlei · Schiedsverfahrensrecht · UDRP-Musterunterlagen · Schiedsgerichtsentscheidungen · Domain-Markenschutz · Anfrage · Links

Domainrecht Domain Name Dispute Resolution UDRP Domain-Marken UDRP Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy der ICANN ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution Anwalt Vertreter UDRP Schiedsrichter Kanzlei Hannover Domainherausgabe Domainlöschung Domainstreit Domain vs Marke Domain herausklagen Domain Schiedsgericht Domainverletzung Domainnamensverletzung Auth-Code-Herausgabe Schiedsverfahren Schiedsgericht Fachanwalt Markenverletzung durch Domain Namensverletzung Namensanmasung Namensleugnung Firmenname Domain kaufen verkaufen verwalten

... Disputeresolution ... UDRP-Musterunterlagen ... UDRP-Klageerwiderungsmuster
Berlin · Bielefeld · Bremen · Düsseldorf · Frankfurt · Hamburg · Hannover · München · Stuttgart · Wien

horak.
Rechtsanwälte Hannover
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Georgstr. 48
30159 Hannover (Hauptsitz)
Deutschland

Fon 0511.35 73 56-0
Fax 0511.35 73 56-29
info@disputeresolution24.de
hannover@disputeresolution24.de

 

Disputeresolution 
UDRP-Musterunterlagen 
UDRP-Klagemuster 
UDRP-Klagedeckblatt 
UDRP-Klageerwiderungsmuster 

 

horak.
Rechtsanwälte Berlin
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Wittestraße 30 K
13509 Berlin
Deutschland

Fon 030.403 66 69-00
Fax 030.403 66 69-09
berlin@disputeresolution24.de

 

horak.
Rechtsanwälte Bielefeld
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Otto-Brenner-Straße 209
33604 Bielefeld
Deutschland

Fon 0521.43 06 06-60
Fax 0521.43 06 06-69
bielefeld@disputeresolution24.de

 

horak.
Rechtsanwälte Bremen
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Parkallee 117
28209 Bremen
Deutschland

Fon 0421.331 11-90
Fax 0421.331 11-99
bremen@disputeresolution24.de

 

horak.
Rechtsanwälte Düsseldorf
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Grafenberger Allee 293
40237 Düsseldorf
Deutschland

Fon 0211.97 26 95-00
Fax 0211.97 26 95-09
duesseldorf@disputeresolution24.de

 

horak.
Rechtsanwälte Frankfurt/ Main
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Mainzer Landstraße 50
60325 Frankfurt
Deutschland

Fon 069.380 79 74-20
Fax 069.380 79 74-29
frankfurt@disputeresolution24.de

 

horak.
Rechtsanwälte Hamburg
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Colonnaden 5
20354 Hamburg
Deutschland

Fon 040.882 15 83-10
Fax 040.882 15 83-19
hamburg@disputeresolution24.de

 

horak.
Rechtsanwälte Hannover
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Georgstr. 48
30159 Hannover (Hauptsitz)
Deutschland

Fon 0511.35 73 56-0
Fax 0511.35 73 56-29
hannover@disputeresolution24.de

 

horak. 
Rechtsanwälte München
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Landshuter Allee 8-10
80637 München
Deutschland

Fon 089.250 07 90-50
Fax 089.250 07 90-59
muenchen@disputeresolution24.de

 

horak.
Rechtsanwälte Stuttgart
Fachanwälte
Patentanwälte

Stockholmer Platz 1
70173 Stuttgart
Deutschland

Fon 0711.99 58 55-90
Fax 0711.99 58 55-99
stuttgart@disputeresolution24.de

 

horak. 
Patentanwälte Wien
 

Trauttmansdorffgasse 8
1130 Wien
Österreich

Fon +43.1.876 15 17
Fax +49.511.35 73 56-29
wien@disputeresolution24.de


 

UDRP-Klage-Erwiderungsmuster (als WORD-Datei)

Before the:

 

    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION

    ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER

     

     

     

     

[NAME AND ADDRESS OF COMPLAINANT AS STATED IN COMPLAINT]

 

(Complainant)

Case No:  [Indicate assigned case number]

 

 

 

 

-v-

 

 

Disputed Domain Name[s]:

[NAME AND ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT]

 

(Respondent)

 

 

 

[<the contested domain name(s)>]

________________________________

 

 

 

RESPONSE

(Rules, para. 5(b))

 

I.  Introduction

 

    [1.] On [indicate date on which the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding was received], the Respondent received a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) by [e-mail/fax/post/courier] informing the Respondent that an administrative proceeding had been commenced by the Complainant in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on October 24, 1999, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999, and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules).  The Center set [insert date] as the last day for the submission of a Response by the Respondent.

 

 

II.  Respondent’s Contact Details

    (Rules, para. 5(b)(ii) and (iii))

 

[2.] The Respondent’s contact details are:

 

    Name: [Specify full name]

    Address: [Specify mailing address]

    Telephone: [Specify telephone number]

    Fax:  [Specify fax number]

    E-mail: [Specify e-mail address]

 

    [If there is more than one Respondent, provide the above information for each.]

 

    [3.] The Respondent’s authorized representative in this administrative proceeding is:

 

    [If relevant, identify authorized representative and provide all contact details, including postal address, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address; if there is more than one authorized representative, provide contact details for each.]

 

    [4.] The Respondent’s preferred method of communications directed to the Respondent in this administrative proceeding is:

 

  Electronic-only material

  Method: e-mail

  Address: [Specify one e-mail address]

  Contact: [Identify name of one contact person]

 

  Material including hardcopy

  Method: [Specify one:  fax, post/courier]

  Address: [Specify one address, if applicable]

  Fax:  [Specify one fax number]

  Contact: [Identify name of one contact person]

 

 

III. Response to Statements and Allegations Made in Complaint

(Policy, paras. 4(a), (b), (c); Rules, para. 5)

 

    [In completing this Section III., do not exceed the 5000 word limit: Supplemental Rules, para. 10(b).  Relevant documentation in support of the Response, should be submitted as Annexes, with a schedule indexing such documents.  Case precedents or commentaries that are referred to for support should be referred to with complete citations and, if not voluminous, submitted as Annexes.]

     

    [5.] The Respondent hereby responds to the statements and allegations in the Complaint and respectfully requests the Administrative Panel to deny the remedies requested by the Complainant.

 

    [The Rules, para. 5(b)(i) instruct the Respondent in its Response to “Respond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain name holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name…”.  For a complainant to succeed, it must establish that each of the three conditions under the Policy, paras. 4(a)(i), (ii), (iii) are satisfied. With reference to that para. 4(a), in this section the Respondent may wish to discuss some or all of the following, to the extent relevant and supported by evidence:]

 

    A. Whether the domain name[s] [is/are] identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

    (Policy, para. 4(a)(i))

     

 [In this connection, consideration may, for example, be given to the following:]

 

    · [Any challenges to the trade or service mark rights asserted by the Complainant.]

 

    · [A refutation of the arguments made by the Complainant concerning the manner in which the domain name(s) (is/are) allegedly identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant claims it has rights.]

 

    B. Whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name[s];

    (Policy, para. 4(a)(ii))

     

 [In this connection, consideration may, for example, be given to the following:]

 

    · [A refutation of the arguments made by the Complainant as to why the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that (is/are) the subject of the Complaint.  Evidence should be submitted in support of any claims made by the Respondent concerning its alleged rights or legitimate interests in the domain name(s).]

 

    · [The Policy, para. 4(c) sets out examples of circumstances demonstrating the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name(s) for the purposes of the Policy, para. 4(a)(ii). With reference to that para. 4(c), to the extent argued by the Complainant, the Respondent should discuss and show that:

 

      - before the Respondent received any notice of the dispute, there is evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name(s) or a name corresponding to the domain name(s) in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

       

      - the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been or is commonly known by the domain name(s) in issue, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights;

       

      - the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name(s), without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark(s) or service mark(s) at issue.]

 

    C. Whether the domain name[s] [has/have] been registered and [is/are] being used in bad faith.

    (Policy, para. 4(a)(iii))

     

 [In this connection, consideration may, for example, be given to the following:]

 

    · [A refutation of the arguments made by the Complainant as to why the domain name(s) should be considered as registered and used in bad faith.]

 

    · [The Policy, para. 4(b) identifies several examples of circumstances that an Administrative Panel could consider as constituting bad faith. With reference to that para. 4(b), to the extent argued by the Complainant, the Respondent should discuss and show that:

 

      - the domain name(s) (was/were) not registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration(s) to the Complainant, as the alleged owner of the trademark or service mark, or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name(s);

       

      - the domain name(s) (was/were) not registered in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name and, in connection therewith, the Respondent has not engaged in a pattern of such conduct;

       

      - the Complainant and the Respondent are not competitors and/or the domain name(s) (was/were) not registered by the Respondent primarily to disrupt the Complainant’s business;

       

      - the domain name(s) (was/were) not registered by the Respondent in an intentional attempt to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location.]

 

    [D. If appropriate and the allegation can be substantiated with evidence, the Rules provide that a Respondent may ask the Panel to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. (Rules, para. 15(e))]

 

 

IV.  Administrative Panel

(Rules, paras. 5(b)(iv) and (b)(v) and para. 6; Supplemental Rules, para. 7)

 

    [6.] The Respondent elects to have the dispute decided by a [state “single-member Administrative Panel” if the Complainant has asked for a single-member Administrative Panel and the Respondent agrees with that election.  If the Respondent does not agree and wants a three-member Administrative Panel instead, state “three-member Administrative Panel”.  Note that in the latter case the Respondent must pay half of the Center’s fee for a three-member Administrative Panel, as set out in Supplemental Rules, Annex D.  If the Complainant has indicated it wants a three-member Administrative Panel, then the Respondent does not have the option of choosing a single-member Administrative Panel].

     

    [  ] [If the Respondent designates a three-member Administrative Panel, or if the Complainant has designated a three-member Panel, the Respondent must provide the names of three persons, one of whom the Center will endeavor to appoint to the Administrative Panel in accordance with Para. 6 of the Rules and Para. 7 of the Supplemental Rules.  The names of these three nominees may be taken from the Center’s published list of panelists at http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/panel/panelists.html, or that of any other ICANN-accredited dispute resolution service provider.]

 

 

V.  Other Legal Proceedings

(Rules, para. 5(b)(vi))

 

    [  ] [If any, identify other legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to the domain name(s) that (is/are) the subject of the Complaint and summarize the issues that are the subject of (that/those) proceeding(s).]

 

 

VI.  Communications

(Rules, paras. 2(b), 5(b)(vii); Supplemental Rules, para. 3)

     

    [7.] A copy of this Response has been sent or transmitted to the Complainant on [date] by [indicate methods of communication and contact details used, with reference to Rules, para. 2(b)].

     

    [8.] This Response is submitted to the Center in electronic form (except to the extent not available for annexes), and in four (4) sets together with the original.

 

 

VII.  Payment

(Rules, para. 5(c); Supplemental Rules, Annex D)

 

    [  ] [If relevant, state:  “In view of the Complainant’s designation of a single-member Panel and the Respondent’s designation of a three-member Panel, the Respondent hereby submits payment in the amount of USD (amount) by (method)”.]

 

 

VIII.  Certification

(Rules, para. 5(b)(viii), Supplemental Rules, para. 12)

 

    [9.] The Respondent agrees that, except in respect of deliberate wrongdoing, an Administrative Panel, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Center shall not be liable for any act or omission in connection with the administrative proceeding.

 

    [10.] The Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of the Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

___________________

[Name/Signature]

 

Date: ______________

 

 Domaingrabbing-Typosquatting-Anwalt-Fachanwalt-Rechtsanwalt drucken  Disputeresolution24-Domainnamensschutz-Hildesheim-Celle-Goettingen-Braunschweig-Anwalt speichern domain-schuetzen-domain-übetragen udrp adr euadr alternative streitbeilegung domainschiedsverfahren anwalt domainverfahren kanzlei domainrecht uniform dispute resolution kanzlei dispute resolution  fachanwaltzurück  dispute-resolution-anwalt-vertreter-wipo-verfahren-udrp-adr-eu-Domain-name-dispute-resolution-domains-domainnamen-provider-admin-c-zonenverwalter-tech-c-domaininhaber-anwalt fachanwalt fachkanzlei hannover domains domainnamen domain schiedsgerichte schiedsverfahren domain domainer domainregistrierungOnline-Anfrage

© Domainrecht Rechtsanwalt Horak, Dipl.-Ing.· Georgstr. 48 · 30159 Hannover · Tel 0511/ 35 73 56 - 0 · Fax 0511/ 35 73 56 - 29 ·  info@disputeresolution24.de