<?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>Lewis and Hand, LLP &#124; New York Law Firm &#187; Intellectual Property</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lewishand.com/category/intellectual-property/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lewishand.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 May 2011 20:31:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>L &amp; H Defends ScoutInvestments.com</title>
		<link>http://www.lewishand.com/l-h-defends-scoutinvestments-com</link>
		<comments>http://www.lewishand.com/l-h-defends-scoutinvestments-com#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:27:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain name policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scoutinvestments.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lewishand.com/?p=615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the matter of UMB Financial Corporation v. Cynthia Galant, Case No. D2010-1855 (WIPO, Jan. 31, 2011), the three-member Panel unanimously ruled in favor of the Respondent in denying UMB&#8217;s claim of cybersquatting.  Although the Panel found that there was confusing similarity between UMB&#8217;s registered SCOUT trademark, and the &#60;ScoutInvestments.com&#62; domain name, the Panel cited case [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the matter of UMB Financial Corporation v. Cynthia Galant, Case No. D2010-1855 (WIPO, Jan. 31, 2011), the three-member Panel unanimously ruled in favor of the Respondent in denying UMB&#8217;s claim of cybersquatting.  Although the Panel found that there was confusing similarity between UMB&#8217;s registered SCOUT trademark, and the &lt;ScoutInvestments.com&gt; domain name, the Panel cited case law noting the differences between hedge fund and mutual fund trading, and held that, &#8220;we are unable to agree that Complainant has met its burden of showing bad faith registration and use based on the mere registration of a similar domain name for use in the financial services field.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lewishand.com/l-h-defends-scoutinvestments-com/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ICANN Virtually Eliminates Domain Tasting</title>
		<link>http://www.lewishand.com/icann-policies-virtually-eliminate-domain-tasting</link>
		<comments>http://www.lewishand.com/icann-policies-virtually-eliminate-domain-tasting#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain deletions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain name policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain tasting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[icann policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rod beckstrom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lewishand.com/?p=155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ICANN (The Internet Corporation For Assigned Name and Numbers) released its first official report on domain deletions since implementing a new series of grace period policies last July. In an effort to discourage domain tasting, the regulatory body eliminated the five day grace period on deletions, forcing registrants to pay ICANN fees on all registration [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-157" style="margin: 9px;" title="domain-deletion-law" src="http://67.225.134.52/~lewishan/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/domain-deletion-law.jpg" alt="domain-deletion-law" width="244" height="156" />ICANN (The Internet Corporation For Assigned Name and Numbers) released its first official <a href="http://icann.org/en/tlds/agp-status-report-12aug09-en.htm" target="_blank">report on domain deletions</a> since implementing a new series of <a href="http://icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm" target="_blank">grace period policies</a> last July. In an effort to discourage domain tasting, the regulatory body eliminated the five day grace period on deletions, forcing registrants to pay ICANN fees on all registration domains.</p>
<p>The new policy has effective reduced monthly domain deletions from over 15 million to a small fraction of the volume today. Speculators were profiting from the practice by parking registered domains and deleting all those that didn&#8217;t generate sufficient pay per click revenue.</p>
<p>New ICANN President Rod Beckstrom praised the announcement as part of the organization&#8217;s new &#8220;multi stakeholder model&#8221; which incorporates feedback from firms, consumers and academics in coordinating policy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lewishand.com/icann-policies-virtually-eliminate-domain-tasting/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

