Domain name privacy and proxy services, which allow registrants to shield their identities and/or contact information from public view, have long been the subject of much debate. But, a recent criminal case provides what may be the best justification of privacy and proxy services yet: to protect registrants from armed attempts to hijack their domain names.

In one of the first UDRP decisions under the Forum’s new supplemental rules, a three-member panel issued what could be considered important advice about the submission of supplemental filings. The panel’s footnote in the case is important. and it should be read as this: If you intend to submit a supplemental filing in a UDRP case, do so as quickly as possible.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which has been the preferred way for trademark owners to resolve cybersquatting issues for 20 years, applies to registrants of .com and other specified domain names because it appears in the relevant registration and renewal agreements to which every registrant must agree when registering or renewing a domain name. Or does it?

Trademark owners looking to file a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (UDRP) now have another provider where they can submit their disputes: the Canadian International Internet Resolution Centre (CIIDRC).

As a domain name panelist, I always attend an annual meeting at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, but this year’s meeting was different — because it was devoted to the 20th anniversary of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

The Forum has revised its supplemental rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), finally eliminating its controversial mandatory fee for supplemental filings but also raising the base price for complaints slightly.

A recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) makes clear that the top-level domain name is important when it relates to the goods or services associated with the trademark. The most recent UDRP decision on this issue involves the domain name <oasis.clothing>, which was filed by Oasis Fashions Limited, a women’s fashion garments and clothing retailer in the United Kingdom.

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.