In a report issued last week, the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) said that its domain name resolutions climbed by 21 percent in 2006 from the previous year. Indeed, the NAF handled 1,658 Internet trademark disputes in 2006, the largest filing year in the history of the NAF Domain Name dispute program.

Trademark holders are often willing to seek the transfer of Domain Names that incorporate, infringe or "dilute" their marks. Meanwhile, owners of the disputed domain names are at times digging in their heels and trying to keep the domain names they have registered, claiming that they were not purchased in bad faith. There seems to be no let-up in this fertile dispute area.

One such case surrounded the use of "Mr. Charbucks" in the sale of a rival coffee brand to Starbucks. Starbucks attacked Wolfe's Borough Coffee, arguing that Wolfe's sale of coffee under the name of "Mister Charbucks" or "Mr. Charbucks" infringed and diluted the "Starbucks" brand.

The federal court judge concluded that Starbucks had not adequately met its burden of proof that trademark infringement and trademark dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) had occurred. Unsurprisingly, Starbucks appealed. Now, after reconsideration, Starbucks need only prove that Wolfe’s trademark is "likely to cause dilution" of their trademark. It remains to be seen whether the amended FTDA will lead to a win against Wolfe’s Borough Coffee. The question essentially becomes whether consumers truly would associate "Mr. Charbucks" with Starbucks, and if so, whether such association would dilute the Starbucks mark.