As I have written more than once before, top-level domain names (“TLDs”) are playing an increasingly important role in some disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”). In one of the latest cases, a UDRP panel found that the respondent’s domain name <judicial.watch> was identical to the complainant’s trademark JUDICIAL WATCH. In doing so, the panel cited both the established precedent on TLDs as well as the more recent trend.

Thousands of years after the first Passover celebration, a domain name dispute over <matzoball.com> raises some interesting new questions. These questions may be unique to the <matzoball.com> case, but the issues they raise are applicable to many other domain name disputes and should be considered by any trademark owner before filing a UDRP complaint.

WIPO has now confirmed what I noted in December: 2018 was a record year for domain name disputes. According to the final tally, trademark owners filed 3,447 complaints with WIPO under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). That’s an increase of more than 12 percent from the previous year, which had also set a record.

Filing a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is usually seen as a quicker and less-expensive alternative to litigation, but the filing fees charged by the UDRP service providers are often an important consideration. Understanding the fees charged by the four providers — the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Forum (formerly the National Arbitration Forum), the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), and the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) — is therefore vital to the process.

Accepting a settlement after filing a UDRP complaint may seem like a reasonable way to conclude a domain name dispute quickly and decisively, but doing so is not always the best option. Without a valid reason to settle, a trademark owner may be better offer rejecting a settlement and simply letting the UDRP case proceed to a decision.

Although cybersquatters continue to target large law firms, apparently attempting to trick clients and/or employees into making inappropriate payments, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) continues to provide appropriate legal relief.

Although much has been made of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)’s impact on whois records for domain name registrations, the truth is that these records have been frequently falsified by unscrupulous cybersquatters for years -- such as a UDRP complaint filed by Facebook against an entity identified only as "e5gfh gtfghbfh”.

In this webinar, domain name attorney Doug Isenberg of The GigaLaw Firm joins Brian King of MarkMonitor to discuss "Rights Protection Mechanisms in the Post-New gTLD World." Topics include: the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse, the Uniform Rapid Suspension System, and the impact of the European Union's (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The number of disputes decided under the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) remained almost unchanged in 2018, despite a relative surge in the number of domain names registered in the new gTLDs to which the policy applies.

Here's a list of the top ten GigaLaw Daily News posts from 2018. The most popular? “Many Emails Seeking Consent Under GDPR Called Unnecessary, Illegal.”