In this UDRP case study video, I discuss the dot-cam (.cam) top-level domain (TLD) and its role in cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). As I explain, an arbitration panelist in 2013 said that "the average Internet user would immediately recognize the distinction between .cam and .com," but cybersquatters appear to be targeting trademark owners using this new gTLD.
Although the .cam TLD was originally described as “a blank canvas for online camera information and services set within a secure environment,” it is now targeted to “all people and businesses that want better visibility in search engines and in consumer top-of the-mind branding.”
A number of recent UDRP decisions involving dot-cam domain names have all been decided in favor of the trademark owners that filed the complaints, including cases for:
<volkswagen.cam>
<geico.cam>
<emerson.cam>
But interestingly, the UDRP decisions don’t seem to address the relevance of the dot-cam TLD, instead usually noting that, as the WIPO Overview says, a TLD “is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.” In other words, while a cybersquatter may have chosen a dot-cam domain name because of its similarity to the dot-com TLD, dot-cam itself is really irrelevant — at least in the cases decided so far — to any of the substantive requirements of the UDRP.
So, I think the bottom line for trademark owners is this: Check for cybersquatters who may have registered your trademarks as domain names in the dot-cam top-level domain and consider filing UDRP complaints where appropriate to stop confusion and other problems, knowing that the UDRP is a very helpful legal approach for dot-cam just as it is for other top-level domains.
