SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

BAD FAITH IN DOMAIN NAMES

Alan Adlarında Kötü Niyet Kavramı

Ayça ZORLUOĞLU
Pages
67–84
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Domain names are already have a fundamental economic value and it has been considered that, this importance will keep on improving increasingly

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:A ccording to the rapid development of the Internet, domain names gain a significant and remarkable role.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The issues related to domain names are solved in orbit of WIPO, ICANN, UDRP and systems impressed by them.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Domain names are already have a fundamental economic value and it has been considered that, this importance will keep on improving increasingly
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Alan Adları · WIPO · UDRP

Abstract

A ccording to the rapid development of the Internet, domain names gain a significant and remarkable role. The issues related to domain names are solved in orbit of WIPO, ICANN, UDRP and systems impressed by them. None of these systems include the exact definion of ‘Bad Faith’, only some examples of bad faith are given. This study aims to clarify the term of bad faith under the UDRP system. Additionally, the conditions under the URDP system to decide on bad faith are examined critically. Domain names are already have a fundamental economic value and it has been considered that, this importance will keep on improving increasingly

Özet

İnternetin hızlı gelişimi ile alan adları kendilerine tartışmasız büyük ve önemli bir yer edinmişleridir. Bu alanda doğan uyuşmazlıklar WIPO, ICANN, UDRP veya bunlardan etkilenen sistemler ekseninde çözüm bulmaktadır. Bu düzenlemelerin hiç birinde kötü niyet kavramının tam bir tanımı yapılmamış olup yalnızca kötü niyet sayılabilecek haller örneklenmiştir. Bu çalışma Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) sisteminde yer alan kötü niyet kavramına açıklık getirme çabasındadır. Ayrıca kötü niyetin varlığına hükmetmek için UDRP tarafından getirilen koşullar eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Günümüzde hali hazırda büyük bir ekonomik değere sahip olan alan adlarının gelecekte de önemini arttırarak devam ettireceği düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ZORLUOĞLU, A. (2022). BAD FAITH IN DOMAIN NAMES. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 67–84. https://ajindex.com/articles/528870

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Anonim Yazar, “Analysis of Key UDRP Issues”, 2000, The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, (erişim tarihi 20 Temmuz 2011)
  2. BENDER, Amy, Division 3: Bad Faith, 2002 tarihi 5 Temmuz 2011) (erişim BETTINGER, Torsten, “The Domain Name System and the Procedures and Policies fort he Registration of Domain Names” and “Alternative Dispute Resolution”, Torsten Bettinger, Domain Name Law and Practice,Oxford University Press, New York, 2005. Bylaws For Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and general/bylaws.htm> (erişim tarihi 20 Haziran 2011)
  3. CHAMRIA, Ravi, Domain Name in Bad Faith or Intent?, Faith-or-Intent?&id=87836> (erişim tarihi 16 Haziran 2011)
  4. CHICOINE, Caroline G., “Domain Name Governance”, Lisa E. Cristal and Neal S. Greenfield (eds), Trademark Law and the Internet, 2. Basım, INTA Publication, New York, 2001.
  5. CHIK, Warren B., “Lord of Your Domain, but Master of None: The Need to Harmonize and Recalibrate The Domain Name Regime of Ownership and Control”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2008, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1. CLARKE, Osborne, A Practical Guide to E-commerce and Internet Law, 1. Basım, ICSA Publishing 2002. Final Report- New Top Level Domains of National Importance, Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications, 2011.
  6. GREENFIELD, Neal S, “Trademark Dilution”, Lisa E. Cristal and Neal. S. Greenfield, Trademark Law and The Internet, INTA Publication, 2 Basım, New York, 2001.
  7. GREENFIELD, Neal S./ DEUTSCH, Sarah, “The U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act”, Lisa E. Cristal and Neal S. Greenfield, Trademark Law and the Internet, INTA Publication, 2. Basım, New York, 2001. Have a Problem? Dispute Resolution Options (erişim tarihi 23 Haziran 2011)
  8. HEDLEY, Steve, The Law of Electronic Commerce and The Internet in The UK and Ireland, 1. Basım, Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2006.
  9. KING, Stacey H,” Trademarks, Domain Names, and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy”, Lisa E. Cristal and Neal S. Greenfield, Trademark Law and The Internet, INTA Publications, 2. Basım, New York, 2001.
  10. LEVINE, Gerald M, Disrupting the Business of a Competitor, 29 Ocak 2011, (erişim tarihi 21 Temmuz 2011)
  11. LINDSAY, David, International Domain Name Law ICANN and the UDRP, Hart Publishing, 2007.
  12. LIPTON, Jacqueline, “Bad Faith in Cyberspace: Grounding Domain Name Theory in Trademark, Property and Restitution”, From the Selected Works of Jacqueline D Lipton, 2009, com/jacqueline_lipton/8> (erişim tarihi 16 Haziran 2011)
  13. MOORE, Mairead, “Cybersquatting: