Skip to main content


In 1996, Panavision International, L.P., demanded that Dennis Toeppen stop using the domain name because it was identical to the Panavision trademarked name. Toeppen replied that he had a right to the domain name, which he had registered with Network Solutions, Incorporated. If your attorney has advised you otherwise, he is trying to screw you. He wants to blaze new trails in the legal frontier at your expense. Why do you want to fund your attorney's purchase of a new boat (or whatever) when you can facilitate the acquisition of ‘’ (sic) cheaply and simply instead? This article will address these issues. I begin with an explanation of the creation of the UDRP, its impetus and the methodology used in its drafting and adoption. I consider whether adoption of FED. R. EV 408 would be consistent with this history. Next, I turn to Panelist Michael DeCicco's argument for the adoption of FED. R. EV 408. In the heart of this article, I attempt to evaluate the propriety of DeCicco's proposal given the character of the Internet. Finally, I conclude with the repercussions on the UDRP if FED. R. EV 408 is adopted and a model case for dealing with offers to settle.


File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
24 Oct 2022
138 kB



  • Subject
    • Commercial Law

    • Intellectual Property Law

    • Internet Law

  • Journal title
    • Boston College Intellectual Property and Technology Forum

  • Volume
    • 2002

  • Pagination
    • 1-17

  • Date submitted

    24 October 2022

  • Related URL