While having a backup plan is usually a good idea, it's often not an effective way to obtain someone else's domain name -- at least not when Plan B consists of a company filing a UDRP complaint with the hope of getting a domain name to which it is not entitled and could not acquire via a negotiated purchase.

The UDRP has never required that a complainant own any trademark registrations to succeed in a domain name dispute, given that common law trademark rights (if properly established) are sufficient. But, as a pair of recent UDRP decisions reminds us, even some registrations are insufficient, such as those on the "Supplemental Register" at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) is often described as a domain name dispute policy that applies to the new gTLDs. While that's true, the URS is actually broader than that.

While plenty of UDRP decisions have made clear that a trademark owner's delay in bringing an action against a cybersquatter (often referred to as "laches") is typically not a defense, actor David Duchovny's decision to file a UDRP complaint nearly 21 years after the domain name <davidduchovny.com> was registered may set a record for the longest wait in a domain name dispute.

I recently compiled a list of country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) that have adopted the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) -- but, that list does not represent all of the TLDs to which the UDRP applies.

Shortly after I recently wrote about WIPO's new role as a domain name dispute provider for the .eu ccTLD, the Forum published its first decision on another type of "eu" domain name: eu.com.

I've said many times that winning a domain name dispute under the URS is much more challenging than under the UDRP. But, that doesn't mean trademark owners should take the UDRP for granted. One complainant learned that lesson an especially hard way – first by losing a URS determination and then by losing a UDRP decision on the same domain name.

WIPO, the leading provider of domain name disputes under the UDRP, has been appointed as a service provider for .eu disputes, as of June 1, 2017. Previously, the only provider of dispute services for the .eu top-level domain was the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) -- also a UDRP provider -- which has handled about 1,200 .eu disputes since 2006.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is certainly the most frequently used tool to combat cybersquatting -- but, it is not always an option. Many countries have adopted their own domain name dispute policies -- or none at all -- in lieu of the UDRP.

Just as the number of domain names and domain name disputes have expanded significantly in recent years, so, too, has WIPO's "Overview," which has been updated to address the growing complexity of cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). WIPO has just published the third edition of its "WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions" -- commonly referred to as "WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0."