Domain name disputes under the UDRP rose by 3.1 percent in 2024, an indication that cybersquatting remains a significant problem for trademark owners. Fortunately, though, the UDRP is still an incredibly effective tool, with more than 95 precent of decisions last quarter resulting in orders to transfer disputed domain names to the trademark owners who filed the complaints.

Those are just two of the significant findings in the latest issue (Q4 2024) of GigaLaw’s Domain Dispute Digest, the only publication that tracks and reports on data from all five of the ICANN-approved UDRP service providers.

At first glance, the GigaLaw data on UDRP decisions for 2024 v. 2023 might seem to contradict statistics recently reported by WIPO, which said that domain name dispute cases actually dropped (but only slightly) last year. However, the data is not inconsistent because of multiple reasons:

Whereas WIPO reports on cases filed under all domain name dispute policies that it administers (which includes a number of ccTLD-specific policies), the GigaLaw Digest reports only on the UDRP (and, in a separate section of the report, on the URS).
Whereas WIPO reports on “cases” (which presumably include complaints that are settled or terminated for other reasons and, therefore, don’t result in published decisions) the GigaLaw Digest focus only on decisions.
Whereas WIPO reports, naturally, only on cases filed at WIPO, the GigaLaw Digest also includes data from the other service providers: the Forum, the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), and the Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre (CIIDRC). While WIPO is the largest UDRP service provider (accounting for more than 60 percent of all decisions), the remaining providers collective account for a significant number of disputes.

In any event, whether you focus on domain name cases at WIPO or UDRP decisions overall, the message is the same: 2024 was yet another active year for domain name disputes. Plus, as the GigaLaw Digest shows, the year ended actively, with a more than 9 percent year-over-year increase in the fourth quarter in the number of UDRP decisions (although the number of domain names in those decisions dropped significantly, by nearly 25 percent, likely the result of smaller case sizes attributable to difficulties in getting accurate research on domain name registrations thanks to privacy and proxy services as well as the EU’s GDPR).

Terminations

Also, for the first time, the GigaLaw Digest reports on terminations under the UDRP – and the numbers are quite interesting. As the Digest shows, 12.6 percent of all domain names in UDRP cases (ranging from 6.25 percent to 25.53, depending on the provider) were terminated prior to a panel reaching a decision on the merits of the case.

It’s impossible to know why any particular case was terminated, but the UDRP Rules provide at least three reasons for termination:

Rule 17(a): if the parties provide written notice of a settlement.
Rule 17(b): if “it becomes unnecessary or impossible to continue the administrative proceeding for any reason.”
Rule 18(a): if “legal proceedings” are initiated.

In my experience, settlement is far and away the most common reason for termination, as more domain name registrants seem willing to transfer a disputed domain name after a UDRP complaint has been filed (although some trademark owners refuse to accept a settlement and instead prefer a published decision).

* * *

For all of the detailed data on the UDRP, as well as the URS, download a free copy of GigaLaw’s Domain Dispute Digest — and subscribe to receive email notices of future updates to this quarterly report.

Plus: Read about the new GigaLaw AI Podcast based on this issue of the Digest, and listen to the podcast below: