<?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 &#38; Lin LLC : Internet Law Counsel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ilawco.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ilawco.com</link>
	<description>Serving Clients in Internet Law, Domain Name Law, Trademarks, Copyright, Licensing and Litigation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 20:44:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Lewis &amp; Lin Obtains Dismissal of Unfair Trade Practices Claim Against Email Marketing Firm</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-unfair-trade-email.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-unfair-trade-email.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 19:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CPM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Email Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDUTPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mini-FTC Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=869</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a broad decision, a state court in Florida has dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted against Lewis &#38; Lin’s client, a leading digital marketing technology company. The case involved the licensure of a proprietary computerized database comprised of names, postal addresses, telephone numbers and associated email addresses of individuals who had agreed to receive [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-unfair-trade-email.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lewis &amp; Lin Defends Tucks.com in Domain Name Dispute</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-llc-defends-tucks-com-in-domain-name-dispute.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-llc-defends-tucks-com-in-domain-name-dispute.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 21:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cybersquattting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domain Names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a unanimous decision of the World Intellectual Property Organization, a three member Panel denied the complaint of Johnson and Johnson in a domain name dispute filed against Webquest, Inc., the owner of the descriptive word domain name, Tucks.com.  The decision came as a vindication of the rights of professional domain name investors, who register [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-llc-defends-tucks-com-in-domain-name-dispute.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lewis &amp; Lin Defends Pair of Domain Names</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-defends-pair-of-domain-names.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-defends-pair-of-domain-names.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Flooranddecor.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mineralcare.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=859</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Danshar (1963) Ltd. v. Joey Gilbert/ Daisy Li, Case No. D2011-2304 (WIPO March 11, 2012), and Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc. v. Anna Marie Fanelli, No: FA1430576 (NAF April 4, 2012), Lewis &#38; Lin LLC helped successfully defend complaints brought against a former distributor of skin care products and a retail design studio, respectively.  Both cases [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-defends-pair-of-domain-names.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can the Real Delia Ephron Please Stand Up?</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/delia-ephron-name-jacking.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/delia-ephron-name-jacking.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:39:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=854</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s an interesting article by author/screenwriter&#8217;s Delia Ephron about her recent experience having her name cybersquatted. Fortunately, Ms. Ephron was able to file and win a UDRP action against the cybersquatter, who did not respond to the complaint.  In its decision, the UDRP panel noted that Ms. Ephron&#8217;s name was &#8220;both well known and relatively rare.&#8221; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/delia-ephron-name-jacking.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lewis &amp; Lin Obtains UDRP Victory Against One of Nation&#8217;s Largest Hospital Networks</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-drp-victory-against-hospital.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-drp-victory-against-hospital.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domain Names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lewis & Lin News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a sweeping decision by an NAF arbitration panel, Lewis &#38; Lin obtained a victory for its client in a UDRP dispute for the domain name &#60;BrowardHealth.com&#62;.  Complainant, the North Broward Hospital District, claimed that the domain was confusingly similar to its &#8220;BROWARD HEALTH&#8221; mark in which it holds common law and statutory rights.  The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-drp-victory-against-hospital.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lewis &amp; Lin Victory In Personal Name Cybersquatting Case</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-victory-in-personal-name-cybersquatting-case.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-victory-in-personal-name-cybersquatting-case.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:51:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cybersquattting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domain Names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lewis & Lin News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=841</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In one of the first cases dealing with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act’s provision on personal name cybersquatting, Lewis &#38; Lin has obtained a preliminary injunction in the Southern District of New York.  The ACPA’s cyberpiracy protection for individuals provides: Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/lewis-lin-victory-in-personal-name-cybersquatting-case.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When is a registration not a registration under the ACPA?</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/gopets-acpa-registration.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/gopets-acpa-registration.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:14:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bad Faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=823</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, the Ninth Circuit created an apparent circuit split in its ruling in GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, No. 08-56110 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2011) on the issue of bad faith domain name registration under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The ACPA provides that: (A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/gopets-acpa-registration.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domain Name Alert:  Watch Out for Shady Sales Tactics</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/domain-name-alert-watch-out-for-shady-sales-tactics.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/domain-name-alert-watch-out-for-shady-sales-tactics.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain name scam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domain Names]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=816</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From time to time, we get solicited by individuals looking to sell domain names to lawyers.  It happened today, but what caught my eye with the domain name in question was the boast that, &#8220;searching the term &#8216;[CITY] [STATE] Attorney&#8217; on Google, yields approximately 1.2 million results with numerous paid ads.&#8221;  Well, yes.  If one [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/domain-name-alert-watch-out-for-shady-sales-tactics.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lewis &amp; Lin Defeats UDRP Claim; Panel Cites Complainant&#8217;s &#8220;Utter Lack of Proof&#8221; in the Face of L&amp;L&#8217;s Overwhelming Evidence</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/emeshel-udrp-decision-wipo.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/emeshel-udrp-decision-wipo.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:42:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domain Names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lewis & Lin News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Emeshel, LLC v. DomRegistrar.com, WIPO Case No. D2011-1596. Lewis &#38; Lin received word that an administrative panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization ruled in favor of our client in a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy proceeding.  The case involved a dispute over the domain name &#60;emeshel.com&#62;.  Click here to read the full decision.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/emeshel-udrp-decision-wipo.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reverse Domain Hijacking Case Proceeds Despite UDRP Loss</title>
		<link>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/reverse-domain-hijacking-case-proceeds-despite-udrp-loss.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/reverse-domain-hijacking-case-proceeds-despite-udrp-loss.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2011 21:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilawco.com/?p=786</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal district court in Arizona (where domain name registrar GoDaddy.com, Inc. is located) has allowed a reverse domain name hijacking claim to proceed, despite a UDRP proceeding ordering transfer of the domain name and defendant&#8217;s argument that plaintiff failed to plead that defendant harassed plaintiff. Plaintiff Mark Lurie was an indoor skydiving enthusiast with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ilawco.com/blog/reverse-domain-hijacking-case-proceeds-despite-udrp-loss.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

