2009-08-17 / English Premier League clubs win important ‘cyber squatting’ case
by Ian Blackshaw
The Arbitration and Mediation Centre of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency of the UN based in Geneva, Switzerland, has recently delivered an important ruling in a ‘cyber squatting’ sports-related case brought by five leading English Premier League Football Clubs, including Manchester United, all of whom successfully claimed that their trademarks had been misused through the registration and commercial use of domain names incorporating them by an unassociated and unauthorized third party offering for sale so-called ‘official’ tickets to their matches.
To succeed in a ‘cyber squatting’ case, a Complainant is required to prove each of the following three conditions specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) of 1999, namely that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainants have rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The present case citation is:
Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited, Tottenham Hostpur Public Limited, West Ham United Football Club PLC, Manchester United Limited, The Liverpool Football Club And Athletic Grounds Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd
And the reference is: WIPO Case No. D2009-0331
The background to this case is as follows:
The Complainants are Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited, Tottenham Hotspur Public Limited, West Ham United Football Club PLC, Manchester United Limited, and Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited.
The Respondent is Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd., of United States of America.
The Complainants are all professional football clubs playing in the English Premier League. The Complainants have become widely known throughout the world through advertising and media coverage.
The Complainants are the owners of a number of trade marks registered in the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States of America including, but not limited to:
WEST HAM UNITED;
MANCHESTER UNITED; and
LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB.
The Complainants own domain names which incorporate the Complainants’ registered trade marks. These include:
<manchesterunited .com>; and
The Respondent is Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Official Tickets Ltd. of the United States of America.
The Disputed Domain Names were registered by Official Tickets Ltd. on October 24, 2007. The Disputed Domain Names resolve to websites selling tickets to the Complainants’ football matches and other events.
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainants, nor is it - in any way - endorsed by the Complainants as an authorised distributor of tickets to the Complainants’ football matches.
The Disputed Domain Names are:
The Complainants’ Contentions
The Complainants contended that they have registered trade marks in their respective names; and that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the trade marks or service marks in which the Complainants have rights.
The Complainants supported their contention by reference to the fact, for example, that the Domain Names <official-westham-tickets.com> and <official-tottenham-tickets.com> are similar to the respective Complainant’s registered trade marks WEST HAM and TOTTENHAM.
The Complainants also argued that the addition of the generic terms “official” and “tickets” is not enough in law to distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from their registered trade marks. In other words, these terms are descriptive and not distinctive.
The Complainants also contended that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. The Complainants submitted that the Respondent is an unauthorized distributor and retailer of Premier League Tickets and that the Disputed Domain Names currently resolve to football ticket websites.
The Complainants further contended that the utilization of the fame and notoriety of the Complainants’ respective trade marks and branding to promote and sell football team tickets and other sporting events and concerts is not a bona fide offering of goods and services within the scope of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
The Complainants also submitted that the Respondent is selling unauthorized tickets, and, furthermore, that tickets purchased through the websites in question cannot be verified as being legitimate. The Complainants also claimed that the generation of revenue from the utilization of the Complainants’ brand and mark in this manner does not constitute a legitimate non-commercial use of the Disputed Domain Names in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
For these reasons, the Complainant claimed that the Respondent did not fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Complainants also contended that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and being used in bad faith. In support of this contention, the Complainants made reference to the fact that the Respondent was aware of the Complainants’ legitimate websites when registering the Disputed Domain Names.
The Complainants further argued that the Respondent purposefully registered the Disputed Domain Names to disrupt the Complainants’ businesses and subsequently to promote their own business by selling tickets to matches involving the Complainant clubs without authorization to do so. This, the Complainant claimed, constitutes behavior in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.
The Complainants further submitted that the Respondent’s use of the Complainants’ registered trade marks, both in the Disputed Domain Names and throughout the websites to which the Disputed Domain Names resolve, combined with the use of the Complainants’ team colors, fonts, images, logos and the consistent reference to the term “official”, demonstrated the intentional attempt on the part of the Respondent to attract Internet users to their website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ trade marks.
The Complainants also claimed that the Respondent did not satisfy the “bona fide reseller” test articulated by the panel in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.
The Complainants further argued that the Respondent was purposefully using a WhoIs privacy service to avoid detection and continue generating revenue without being identified. The Complainants submitted that the Respondent in the present proceedings is the same as the Respondent in the case of The Arsenal Football Club Public Limited Company v. Official Tickets Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2008-0842, and that the Respondent has utilized false and inaccurate registration information contrary to paragraph 2(a) of the Policy.
The Complainants further submitted that the Respondent purposefully registered the Disputed Domain Names to prevent the Complainants from reflecting their trade marks and has engaged in a pattern of such conduct in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. The Complainants supported this contention by reference to the fact the Respondent has registered a series of domain names that wholly incorporate registered trade marks of which they are not the owner or licensee, and that the Respondent’s use of these sites to sell tickets to sporting events and concerts cannot be verified as authentic or legitimate.
The Complainants requested the Panel, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, for the reasons summarized above and more particularly set out in the Complaint, that the Disputed Domain Names <official-westham-ticktes.com>, <official-tottenham-tickets.com>, <official-fulham-tickets.com>, <official-manchester-tickets.com> and <official-liverpool-tickets.com> be transferred to the Complainants.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions or take any other part in the proceedings.
The Findings of the Panel
The following are the grounds on which the Panel in the present case reached its Decision and found for the Complainants:
“If the Complainants are to succeed, they must prove each of the three elements referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) of 1999, namely that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainants have rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) requires the Panel to:
“decide a Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any Rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
If a Respondent does not submit a response, paragraph 5(e) of the Rules requires the Panel to “decide the dispute based on the Complaint”. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from a Respondent’s failure to comply with the Rules (by failing to file a response), as the Panel considers appropriate.
The Panel will proceed to establish whether the Complainants have discharged the burden of proof in respect of the three elements referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is necessary to divide the Disputed Domain Names into two categories for the purposes of addressing whether paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
The first category consists of the Disputed Domain Names <official-westham-tickets.com> and <official-tottenham-tickets.com>. The Complainants, West Ham United Football Club PLC and Tottenham Hotspur Public Limited, have respectively established that they have registered trade mark rights in WEST HAM and TOTTENHAM.
The Disputed Domain Names are not identical to the Complainants’ respective trade marks. The Panel is however satisfied that the Disputed Domain Names <official-westham-tickets.com> and <official-tottenham-tickets.com> are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ respective registered trade marks.
The basis for finding that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar is that they incorporate the Complainants’ respective trade marks WEST HAM and TOTTENHAM in their entirety. The distinctive elements of the Disputed Domain Names are the names “West Ham” and “Tottenham”. As the Panel held in The Arsenal Football Club Public Limited Liability Company v. Official Tickets Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2008-0842, the words “official”, and “tickets” are generic, and do not reduce the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. Further, in this case the use of the words “official” and “tickets” if anything increases the likelihood of confusion, as both words are suggestive of one of the Complainants’ main business activities, namely the selling of “official tickets” to their respective matches.
The second category of Disputed Domain Names consists of <official-fulham-tickets.com>, <official-manchester-tickets.com> and <official-liverpool-tickets.com>. They can be distinguished from the first category on the basis that the Complainants’ trade marks are geographic terms and by the fact the Disputed Domain Names do not include the whole of the Complainants’ respective registered trade marks.
The Complainants have respectively registered trade mark rights in FULHAM FC, LIVERPOOL FC and MANCHESTER UNITED. There is also considerable evidence of the respective Complainants’ unregistered trade mark rights in the FULHAM, LIVERPOOL and MANCHESTER UNITED trade names or trade marks which are so well known and by such a large section of local and international communities, that when used in a football and sporting context, they have developed a secondary meaning which distinguishes their respective owners from the ordinary geographical reference of “Fulham”, “Liverpool” or “Manchester”.
The Disputed Domain Names in this category are not identical to the Complainants’ trade marks. However on balance the Panel considers that the Disputed Domain Names in this category are confusingly similar to the respective parties’ registered or unregistered marks. This is so in particular because of the unusually high degree of renown attaching to each of the marks and the likelihood that use of the respective Disputed Domain Names would lead people to mistakenly believe that these Disputed Domain Names are authorized by or associated with the respective Complainants. In the Panel’s view this is so even in the case of the <official-manchester-tickets.com> Disputed Domain Name which even though it does not incorporate the whole MANCHESTER UNITED mark or name would still be likely to be perceived by people as referring to tickets provided by this particular football club, in circumstances that it is one of the most well known football clubs in the world.
For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Names in question are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ respective trade marks for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
(ii) Rights or Legitimate Interests
A Complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a number of circumstances which, without limitation, may be effective for a Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a Disputed Domain Name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Those circumstances are:
(i) Before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, use by the Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Where the Respondent as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Where the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
In this case the Complainants have clearly made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests:
Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy is apparently not satisfied here as, for example, the Complainants have not authorized the Respondent to use their trade marks or trade name rights whether in a Domain Name or otherwise.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is a legitimate or authorized reseller of tickets. In determining whether the Disputed Domain Names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, the criteria set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 are of use.
The Oki Data panel observed the following circumstances must be present for an offering of goods or services to be bona fide for the purposes of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy:
(i) the respondent must actually be offering the complainant’s goods or services at issue;
(ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trade marked products; otherwise, the respondent could be using the trade mark to bait other internet users and then switch them to other goods;
(iii) the web site must accurately disclose the respondent’s relationship with trade mark owner;
(iv) the respondent must not be allowed to corner the market in domain names that reflect that mark.
In the present case it is evident from reviewing the content of the Respondent’s websites that the second of the above conditions is not met as the websites are being used to sell tickets to matches organized by other clubs and tickets to various other concerts and events. The third condition is also not met as the Disputed Domain Names improperly suggest that the reflected websites are official websites authorized to sell tickets. The consistent use of the word “official” throughout the Respondent’s websites is further likely to mislead Internet users, causing them to mistakenly believe that they are purchasing official tickets.
There is evidence that the Respondent has, in circumstances similar to this case, registered a series of domain names that wholly incorporate the registered trade marks of well known European football clubs and major sporting events. These include: JUVENTUS, WIMBLEDON, S.S. LAZIO, REAL MADRID, CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, SEVILLA FOOTBALL CLUB, SIX NATIONS, UEFA CUP, A.S ROMA, and THE OLYMPICS. Each of these Disputed Domain Names incorporates the words “official” and “tickets”, and each appears to be designed to mislead Internet users into believing that the websites to which the Domain Names resolve are operated or authorized by the owners of the relevant trade mark rights. The websites to which these Domain Names resolve are similarly used to sell unofficial tickets to sporting events and concerts and would appear to form part of a scheme by the Respondent designed to promote the Respondents’ online ticket store. The Panel finds that such a pattern of registration of domain names for the purposes of misleading Internet users in this way is not consistent with the bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy is not satisfied as there is nothing to suggest that the Respondent might be commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. It is instructive in this regard that the Respondent only registered the Disputed Domain Names in October 2007, when the Complainants trade marks were already extremely well known.
Neither is there any evidence that the Respondent has been making a non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain.
The Respondent has not filed a Response to the Complaint, none of the grounds set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are made out based on the evidence put before the Panel and all the circumstances point to the Respondent using the Disputed Domain Names to channel Internet traffic to its website where it sells unauthorized tickets to the Complainants’ football matches.
In all the circumstances the Panel therefore finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names and as such the Complainants have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
(iii) Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy requires a complainant to prove both registration and use in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and used of a domain name in bad faith. Those circumstances are:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website 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 website or location or of a product or service on respondent’s website or location.
The Panel accepts the Complainants’ contention that the Respondent is unauthorized to sell tickets to their football matches and is the Complainants’ competitor in the context of ticket sales. As the Panel has already noted, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registration of domain names incorporating trade marks in which the Respondent has no rights, combined with the generic words “official” and “tickets”. The Panel accepts the Complainants’ submission that, as in this case, these other domain names have been registered and used by the Respondent as a part of a scheme designed to promote the Respondent’s online ticket store, by misleading Internet users seeking to purchase the official tickets of the relevant football club or sporting organizations. For these reasons, the Panel finds that this pattern of conduct is indicative of bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
For the purposes of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy the Complainants contend that the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Names in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement.
As noted, the Complainants have developed substantial reputations in their respective trade marks. The Panel cannot objectively reason why the Respondent would use the Complainants’ respective trade marks in the Disputed Domain Names in addition to the terms “official” and “tickets” for any other reason save as to create a likelihood of confusion amongst Internet users with the Complainants’ trade marks. The fact that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to web sites that contain similar colors, fonts, images and logos to those of the Complainants’ registered trade marks and contain the term “official” throughout while seeking to generate revenue through the sale of tickets to the Complainants football matches is likely to cause further confusion amongst Internet users with the Complainants’ trade marks. In all the circumstances it appears to the Panel that the Disputed Domain Names and the websites to which they resolve were intended to confuse people as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and that accordingly the Disputed Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Decision of the Panel
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Names be transferred to the Complainants’ respectively on the following basis:
1. <official-fulham-tickets.com> to Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited;
2. <official-liverpool-tickets.com> to The Liverpool Football Club And Athletic Grounds Limited;
3. <official-manchester-tickets.com>to Manchester United Limited;
4. <official-tottenham-tickets.com> to Tottenham Hostpur Public Limited;
5. <official-westham-tickets.com> to West Ham United Football Club PLC.
Dated: May 12, 2009”
This case is a classic one of ‘cyber squatting’ and the misuse of valuable trademarks as part of domain names registered and used for commercial gains by a third party with no legal entitlement or authorization to do so. The effect of such conduct is to cause confusion in the market place and mislead consumers seeking information on line of the services and products of the legitimate owners of the marks concerned.
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, as an accredited organization under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, offers a valuable service in resolving such disputes - not only in the sporting field but also in other business sectors -effectively, quickly and inexpensively since the introduction of this form of dispute resolution ten years ago.
For more information, log onto: www.wipo.int.
Ian Blackshaw is an International Sports Lawyer and an Honorary Fellow of the Asser International Sports Law Centre. He is also a member of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, based in Geneva, Switzerland, where he deals with, inter alia, domain name disputes. He is also the author of a new Book on ‘Sport, Mediation and Arbitration’, published by the TMC Asser Press and distributed by Cambridge University Press, and may be contacted by e-mail at ‘email@example.com’.
About: ASSER International Sports Law Centre
The T.M.C. Asser Instituut, together with its stakeholder universities, is currently aligning its research activities in four inter-university research programmes. These research programmes will form the core of the academic activities of the institute for the coming years. Each programme has its ow...
- Rihanna wins Topshop t-shirt case
- Roundtable Summary "Online sports betting – perspectives & challenges for Dutch sport" – March 6, 2013, The Hague
- AISLC Educational Series - Lunch & Learn Summary ‘Arbitration in Sports: the Armstrong case', December 13, 2012- The Hague
- ISLJ Case Note: The European Court of Justice hands down an important preliminary ruling on the European Union Database Directive
- Virtual workshop "Match-Fixing: Comparative perspectives on integrity and compliance" postponed, new tentative date April 2013
- Image Rights Legislation in Guernsey Finally Published
- Ian Blackshaw
- International Association of Sports Law (IASL) Congress 2012
- ISLJ Book Review
- Book Review: Ian S Blackshaw Sports Marketing Agreements: Legal, Fiscal and Practical Aspects (2012) TMC Asser Press
- Seminar: 'Lessons from London 2012: International Sports Law and Taxation Issues'
- AMBUSH MARKETING AND THE MEGA-EVENT MONOPOLY ANDRE M. LOUW 2012
- Introduction to International and European Sports Law Robert C R Siekmann 2012
- Match-Fixing in sport: A mapping of criminal law provisions in EU 27 (March 2012)
- 2012-06-14 / Record Sale of English Premier League Tv Rights for 2013 -2016
- 2012-05-31 / Informal meeting of EU sport directors in Copenhagen
- The European Court of Justice upholds the distinctiveness of the F1 Mark
- 2012-06-07 / Seminar Sport Recht en Belasting
- SPORTS LAW AND BUSINESS – 14th International Forum, 15th & 16th May 2012, Crowne Plaza St. James Hotel, London
- UIA - AIJA Seminar Program, Buenos Aires, 8-10 March 2012
- IWG Newsflash 12/2011
- International Conference "Comparison international and domestic Stadionbans in Europe", 03.02.2012, Leipzig/Germany
- Seminar 'International Sports Law and Taxation' Update
- PROF. ROBERT SIEKMANN LECTURING AT SHANDONG SPORT UNIVERSITY IN JINAN (CHINA)
- PROF. ROBERT SIEKMANN LECTURING AT SHANDONG SPORT UNIVERSITY IN JINAN (CHINA)
- 2011-11-17 / Newsletter Sportsandtaxation.com
- 2011-11-22 / Sport and Citizenship Newsletter n°14
- 2011-10-18 / TAIEX Workshop on Sport in Yerevan (Armenia)
- Prof. Robert Siekmann Lecturing in China
- International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ) - Call for Papers
- 17th Congress International Association of Sports Law (IASL) - Moscow, 27-30 September 2011
- 2011-9-19 / Sport and Citizenship Newsletter n°12
- 2011-09-19 / Mohamed Bin Hammam loses his FIFA Bribery Appeal
- 201109-07 / European Conference in Vienna to look at Social Inclusion in Sport
- 2011-09-06 / The Nature & Sports Euro'meet 2011 - A European dimension programme
- 2011-09-06 / Sports TV rights: How to protect and maximise them from a legal & tax point of view, 13 & 14 October 2011, Central London
- 2010-12-06 / The sale of Liverpool Football Club - Controversial or Commonplace?
- 2010-12-06 / Dr. Amaresh Kumar the Visiting Professor & Research Fellow of ASSER International Law Centre elected as Secretary General of the Asian Council of Arbitration for Sports
- 2010-12-08 / Constitution of Asian Council of Arbitraton for Sports and Sports Arbitration Tribunal of Asia
- 2010-12-08 / Letter to the Editor: Systematic discrimination in European youth football : "season of birth bias" or "relative age effect"
- 2010-12-13 / Formula One removes ban on ‘team orders’ rule?
- INTERNATIONAL "LEX SPORTIVA" CONFERENCE, UNIVERSITAS PELITA HARAPAN, DJAKARTA, INDONESIA, 22 SEPTEMBER 2010
- 2011-01-07 / SportzPower
- 2011-01-07 / FIFA to set up Anti-Corruption Body
- Guest Lecture on ‘International and European Sports Law’ at the Law Schools of China by Prof. Dr. Robert Siekmann (1 to 17 November 2010)
- 2011-02-02 / English Football under Government spotlight
- 2011-02-09 / Half-Time Score in EU TV Sports Rights Case
- 2011-02-17 / IWG welcomes you to its CSW parallel session!
- 2011-02-21 / Landmark ECJ rulings in FIFA & UEFA ‘crown jewels’ cases
- 2011-02-24 / Invitation Schedule of the R. K. Jain Sports Law Lecture and Seminar
- 2011-03-09 / Souvenir Published on the occasion of the R. K. Jain Sports Law Knowledge Lecture and Seminar
- 2011-05-04 / Sports Law & Business 2011
- 2011-03-28 / The Contador Doping Saga continues: CAS is now involved!
- 2011-04-19 / RFU Wins Court Order in Ticket Touting Case
- Inaugural Lecture by Professor dr.drs. Robert C.R. Siekmann on Friday June 10, 2011
- 2011-04-28 / 9e seminar Sport, Recht en Belasting
- 2011-05-12 / Max Moseley loses European Court of Human Rights Privacy Appeal
- 2011-05-16 / UK bid to host 2018 FIFA World Cup: Lord Triesman spills the beans!
- 2011-05-23 / Protecting sports images rights: the rise and fall of super-injunctions?
- 2011-06-10 / oratie Prof. Robert Siekmann: “Wat is sportrecht?” ter gelegenheid van de instelling van de nieuwe leerstoel “Internationaal en Europees sportrecht”
- 2011-06-06 / Champion Jockey Kieren Fallon is banned by court injunction from competing in the 2011 Derby Horse Race
- 12. Interuniversitäre Tagung Sportrecht am 24./25. Juni 2011 in Erlangen
- HAGUE JOINT PROPOSAL ON THE DEFINITION OF SPORTS LAW
- Role of human rights in sports
- 2011-07-27 / The UK Bribery Act 2010 Finally Comes Into Force
- 2011-08-23 / Manchester United to List on Singapore Stock Exchange
- 2011-08-23 / DHL in New Major Sponsorship Deal with Manchester United
- Manchester United Post Record Financial Results
- 2009-01-27 / World Anti Doping Agency Rule on the whereabouts of Athletes Rule challenged on Human Rights Grounds
- 2009-02-05 / Pot of Gold: Phelps’ Fall from Grace
- 2009-03-25 / The 6 + 5 Debate continues
- 2009-03-26 / Football Challenges WADA ‘Whereabouts’ Rule
- 2009-04-23 / UK athletes sports image rights dispute
- 2009-05-06 / the FIBA Arbitral Tribunal (FAT): Ian Blackshaw looks at a relatively new sports dispute resolution body which after two years’ operations is proving to be popular and successful
- 2009-06-03 / The world governing body of swimming gets tough on the use of high-tech swimsuits
- 2009-06-18 / General Agreement of Cooperation between the Asser International Sports Law Centre and the Indonesia Lex Sportiva Instituta
- 2009-06-04 / International Sports Regulation LLM
- 2009-09-16 / Uitnodiging voor de 9e jaarlijkse Asser sportrechtlezing over “het kansspelbeleid in de sport in Europeesrechtelijk perspectief: vrije dienstverlening versus algemeen belang”
- 2006-08-22 / Press Release: Couchman Harrington goes Nationwide in England Team Sponsorship
- 2006-10-02 / Press Release: Couchman Harrington swoops for leading sponsorship lawyer
- 2006-10-12 / Press release: Couchman Harrington and Empics Combine Forces on New RightsClear Offering
- 2006-10-12 / Press Release Toine Manders MEP (NL/ALDE), EC: FIFA behaviour is unacceptable
- 2006-09-12 / Sport Governance in Europe: White paper consultation by Commissioner Jan Figel with European Sport Federations
- 2005-12-01 / Meeting of experts with Member State representatives : free movement of amateur sportspersons
- 2006-11-17 / Dopage et violence
- 2007-01-25 / Persbericht: Oprichting Pro Agent, belangenvereniging spelersmakelaars
- 2007-05-27 / Legal Issues in Sport and Exercise Medicine
- 2007-01-24 / Football clubs: Commission closes procedure against France concerning ban on raising capital from the public
- 2007-02-13 / Just Sports Ireland
- 2007-02-14 / The European Commission launches a public consultation on the EU and Sport
- 2007-02-15 / Onderzoek Deloitte UK over de jaarlijkse omzet van voetbalclubs wereldwijd
- 2007-02-14 / Newsletter of Sport&EU
- 2007-01-18 / New Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Sports Law Degree
- 2007-01-17 / Book review ANZSLA
- 2006-09-28 / Heeft professioneel voetbal een toekomst in Europa?
- 2007-03-27 / Certificate in Sports Law
- 2007-02-21 / Florida Coastal School of Law: Center for Law and Sports
- 2007-02-26 / The Council of Europe and Sport: Basic documents
- 2007-02-12 / Conclusions Anti-Doping Convention (T-DO) Conference on the Revision of the World Anti-Doping Code
- 2007-03-23 / International Sports Law
- 2007-02-13 / Report on the future of professional football in Europe
- 2007-05-10 / The Legality of Boxing: A Punch Drunk Love?
- 2007-06-26 / The Vrijman Report on the Lance Armstrong Case and its Aftermath
- 2007-07-11 / White Paper on Sport
- 2006-09-06 / Working document - The future of professional football in Europe
- 2006-11-02 / Memorandum of Understanding between the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Fédération Internationale des Footballeurs Professionels
- 2007-09-17 / Marquette University Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Sports Law
- 2007-09-17 / Press Release: Couchman Harrington Advises FA Premier League Rights Buyers
- 2007-09-17 / THE ‘SPECIFICITY OF SPORT’ AND THE EU WHITE PAPER ON SPORT: SOME COMMENTS
- 2007-09-18 / Stop the doping inquisition!
- 2007-10-02 / Annual Review on European Footballers' Labour Market (FR)
- 2008-02-11 / THE SPORTING EXCEPTION IN EUROPEAN UNION LAW RICHARD PARRISH & SAMULI MIETTINEN 2008
- 2008-02-11 / Press Release: Couchman Harrington Advises International Buyers of FA Rights
- 2008-02-11 / Press Release: Couchman Harrington team picked by Ebbsfleet for groundbreaking MyFootballClub deal
- 2008-02-11 / OPINION: ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE RECORD TRANSFER FEES: FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME?
- 2007-03-05 / Beiträge zum Sportrecht
- 2007-05-10 / Beiträge zum Sportrecht
- 2007-10-15 / Droit du sport
- 2008-02-13 / OPINION: THE CAS APPEAL DECISION IN THE ANDREW WEBSTER CASE BY IAN BLACKSHAW
- 2008-05-22 / A Social Dialogue in European Profession Football: Who will participate and what will be on the agenda?
- 2008-07-01 / LLM advert
- 2008-07-21 / Dwain Chambers loses High Court challenge to overturn his lifetime Olympics ban
- 2008-09-01 / ISLJ opinion - The Olympics should be scaled down
- 2008-09-23 / Protecting IP Rights under English Common Law and European Continental Law: 'Passing Off' and 'Unfair Competition' compared
- 2008-09-26 / AEGON nets advantage from Couchman Harrington
- 2008-10-15 / Lance Armstrong returns to the Tour de France but misses a golden opportunity of clearing his name
- 2007-04-20 / Sports bodies are not a law unto themselves
- 2008-06-17 / ADAPTATION OF DOPING REGULATIONS TO NEW WADA STANDARD
- 2008-06-16 / Press Release: Couchman Harrington Support Stanford’s 20/20 Vision
- 2008-10-27 / Moving toward European Social Dialogue in the Sport Sector: Content and Contact
- 2009-02-19 / Good Governance in Sport in a European Legal Perspective
- 2008-12-12 / IOC rejects the EBU bid for 2014-16 Olympic Games Broad Rights
- 2007-03-27 / Entertainment and Sports Lawyer
- 2007-07-28 / Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sportrecht des Deutschen Anwaltvereins
- 2008-07-08 / WIPO and Sports Disputes
- 2008-10-15 / Marquette University Law School offers a Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Sports Law degree
- 2009-03-19 / Current Topics of Good Governance in Sport in a European Legal Perspective: ECA and MOTOE
- 2007-10-15 / OPINION FOREIGN PLAYER QUOTAS IN FOOTBALL TEAMS
- 2008-03-31 / OLYMPISCHE SPELEN, CHINA EN MENSENRECHTEN
- 2008-04-07 / NEWS ITEM: FIFA COMMITS TO WADA AND THE FIGHT AGAINST DOPING BY IAN BLACKSHAW
- 2008-04-08 / NEWS ITEM: ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE ANNOUNCE OVERSEAS EXPANSION BY IAN BLACKSHAW
- 2007-05-22 / European Sports Law – Collected Papers
- 2007-09-17 / Press Release: Couchman Harrington: Essentially, it’s best to have them on your side
- 2006-03-17 / Wilkens C.S. Translators & Interpreters: translators for the T.M.C. Asser Institute and the ASSER International Sports Law Centre
- 2007-09-13 / Wathelet Report: A View on the Future Relationship Between Professional Football and European Union Law
- 2007-09-13 / Le Rapport Wathelet: Une vision indépendante de la future relation entre le football professionnel et la loi de l'Union européenne
- 2007-07-11 / Statement of European team sports - EU White Paper on Sport: much work remains to be done
- 2007-09-24 / FLOYD LANDIS RECEIVES TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION FOR DOPING DURING 2006 TOUR DE FRANCE
- 2007-09-20 / Livro Branco e Agentes Desportivos em Seminário Internacional no C.O.P.
- 2007-09-20 / OPINION: FORMULA ONE IN NEW LEGAL BATTLES OFF THE TRACK
- 2006-10-11 / SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG P-3853/06 van Toine Manders (ALDE) aan de Commissie over Misbruik van monopolie door FIFA
- 2006-05-01 / Prepublication: The International Sports Law Journal: Sport and Nationality
- 2006-05-01 / Prepublication: The International Sports Law Journal: Public Viewing in Germany: Infront Guidelines and the German Copyright Act
- 2006-03-01 / Press Release: Couchman Harrington Batting For Nimbus
- 2006-03-01 / Newsletter Sportsandtaxation.com
- 2006-03-24 / Sinrich to deliver campus 2006 keynote
- 2006-07-25 / CHA Launches Mobile Entertainment Group
- 2006-03-03 / Persbericht Promotie Janwillem Soek
- 2007-09-24 / SPORTS BRIEFS: IAN BLACKSHAW HIGHLIGHTS SOME RECENT SPORTS LAW DEVELOPMENTS
- 2007-10-02 / Annual Review on European Footballers' Labour Market
- 2006-11-23/25 / 12th IASL Conference on Legal Aspects of Professional Sport
- 2007-10-25 / WORLD SPORTS LAW REPORT
- 2007-11-21 / "Vrees voor WK-duels in sneeuw" ; NRC (Sectie Sport)
- 2008-01-15 / OPINION: RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF FOOTBALL CLUBS - FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME?
- 2008-01-15 / The White Paper on Sport as an exercise in ‘Better Regulation’
- 2008 -01-14 / THE LEGALITY OF BOXING: A PUNCH DRUNK LOVE?
- 2008-01-14 / SPORTS LAW CONFERENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE FIFA WORLD CUP 2010
- 2008-02-11 / VICTORY FOR FOOTBALL AS A WHOLE: A TRUCE BETWEEN LEADING EUOPEAN CLUBS AND FIFA AND UEFA?
- 2008-02-13 / OPINION: DWAIN CHAMBERS AND HIS QUEST FOR REHABILITATION BY IAN BLACKSHAW
- 2008-06-25 / Adaptation of Doping Regulations to New WADA Standard
- 2008-08-14 / Opinion - Greek sprinter barred from Beijing Games: a miscarriage of justice?
- 2009-02-29 / Arbitrating Sports: Reflections on USADA/Landis, the Olympic Games, and the Future of Sports Dispute Resolution
- 2008-11-01 / Asser International Sports Law Centre
- 2008-05-15 / Sport and Entertainment Lawyer
- 2009-08-17 / Two new sports added to the Olympics
- 2009-08-17 / English Premier League clubs win important ‘cyber squatting’ case
- 2009-08-17 / CAS publishes the decisions rendered at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games
- 2009-08-17 / Money laundering and tax evasion in football
- 2009-10-06 / Letter from the Indonesia Lex Sportiva Instituta
- 2009-11-03 / The Island of Guernsey to introduce new IP Image Right
- 2009-11-04 / The Lisbon Treaty is finally ratified
- 2009-11-09 / Chelsea sporting sanctions frozen pending the final outcome of their Appeal to CAS
- 2009-12-02 / WADA to introduce blood profiling programme to catch drugs cheats: but what about their human rights? asks Ian Blackshaw
- 2009-12-07 / Professor Ian Blackshaw New Appointment
- 2010-01-04 / South Africa 2010 World Cup: FIFA wins landmark ‘ambush marketing’ case
- 2010-01-19 / Professor Ian Blackshaw appointed to ‘EQUESTES’
- 2010-01-26 / Kicking illegal betting out of football: Ian Blackshaw comments on the FIFA ‘early warning system’
- 2010-04-12 / Legal and tax treatment of sports image rights agreements
- 2009-12 / Study on the implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code in the EU
- 2010-01 / Study on the Equal Treatment of Non-Nationals in Individual Sports Competitions
- 2010-03-17 / UEFA financial fair play rules should be implemented without delay
- 2010-03-23 / Book review "Privacy and personality rights"
- 2010-04-22 / Arbitration and Sport - Under the auspices of the ICC Institute of World Business Law
- 2010-04-29 / The Bernard case (ECJ, C-325/08): judgement and impact on the sports world
- 2010-03-31 / Couchmans helps npower The Football League to major sponsorship deal
- 2010-3-26 / Couchmans Advises on Major Premier League TV Rights Acquisition
- 2010-04-01 / ‘OFCOM’ orders sky sports to make their coverage more widely available to broadcasters and viewers alike
- 2010-04-23 / Couchmans act in Multi-Million Dollar Asian Cricket Deal
- Togo ban to be lifted following CAS mediation
- Dr Robert Siekmann guest-lecturing at the Law Faculty of the University of Amsterdam
- 2010-07-12 / Asser Institute consults EPFL on EU Sports policy
- 2010-06-14 / Mutu ordered to pay Chelsea Football Club £14m damages for breach of contract following a doping offence
- 2010-07-12 / Football Finances: German Bundesliga outperforms English Premier League
- 2010-06-14 / 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES – Hammer Throw Vadim Devyatovskiy & Ivan Tsikhan Case: The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upholds the Appeals of the Belarusian Athletes
- 2010-08-01 / Robert C.R. Siekmann benoemd tot bijzonder hoogleraar sportrecht
- 2010-08-25 / ISLJ opinion - Is CAS confidentiality being eroded?
- 2010-08-26 / ISLJ news item - Sports Sponsorship is flourishing despite the recession
- 2010-08-01 / Robert Siekmann Newly Appointed Sports Law Chairholder in Rotterdam
- 2010-08-31 / ISLJ opinion - Match Fixing in Cricket: it is all a Matter of Proof
- 2010-09-17 / WADA code study presented to EU Sports Directors
- 2010-09-02 / Het gaat toch om voetbal?
- 2010-09-04 / 'Johan Cruijff was echt een voorloper'; Sportjurist Robert Siekmann spoort sporters aan om collectief op te komen voor hun rechten
- 2010-09-29 / The America’s Cup: New rules introduced to avoid controversies in future
- 2010-09-22 / Lex Sportiva Conference, Djakarta, Indonesia
- 2010-09-30 / The Lisbon Treaty and EU Sports Policy - study
- 2010-09-22 / Declaration On Lex Sportiva, Jakarta, Indonesia
- 2010-11-22 / DOPAGE : Qui réglemente? Qui sanctionne?
- 2010-10-25 / Wayne Rooney stays at Manchester United - but at a cost!
- 2010-11-18 / Robert Siekmann guest lecturing at Beijing Normal University
- 2010-11-22 / Tour de France: latest doping investigations
- 2010-11-22 / Kick corruption out of football!
- 2011-11-18 / Robert Siekmann guest lecturing at Xiangtan University (China)
- 2010-11-18 / Robert Siekmann guest lecturing at Shandong Economic University (China)
- 2010-11-18 / Robert Siekmann guest lecturing at Shandong University (China)
- 2010-11-18 / Robert Siekmann guest lecturing at Wuhan University (China)