In the past, contacting a domain name registrant was a pretty simple task: Look up the domain name's "whois" record and send an email to the relevant contacts listed there. But now that the GDPR has redacted names and contact information from many whois records, this is often no longer a straightforward task.

After a record-high year for domain name disputes in 2017, statistics from both the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Forum indicate that the number of disputes may reach a new peak this year.

In a Q&A on how the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) impacts domain name disputes, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has reiterated its intent to provide details about domain name registrants to trademark owners after a complaint has been filed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Thanks in large part to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) -- which I have previously discussed multiple times -- getting information about the registrant of a domain name has never been more challenging. So, knowing where to turn for the best "whois" records has never been more important.

Despite legitimate concerns over how the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will impact domain name disputes, there is good (albeit perhaps obvious) news: Trademark owners will still be able to file complaints under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

One way for a trademark owner to prove the "bad faith" element under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is to provide evidence that the domain name registrant has engaged in a "pattern of such conduct" -- a test that may be all but impossible to satisfy after implementation of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may make it impossible in some cases to identify the registrant of a particular domain name, or the registrant's contact information. This will have a tremendous impact on domain name disputes, including under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Cybersquatters have added a new trick to their repertoire: adding "https" to a domain name itself to confuse Internet users into believing not only that a website is associated with someone else but also to convey the false impression that the website is secure.

According to records available from the Forum's website, the number of URS cases decided in 2017 dropped to only 148, down from 215 decisions in 2016. Not only is this a decrease of 31 percent, it is the least-active full year for URS decisions at the Forum since the policy went into effect in 2013.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has just released its annual report on cybersquatting, confirming my earlier post that a record number of domain name disputes were filed in 2017.