Now matter how you look at it, domain name disputes hit record numbers in 2021, and I’ve summarized all of the most important and interesting data in the fourth quarter report of GigaLaw’s Domain Dispute Digest.

When Facebook embraced the metaverse by rebranding its corporate name to Meta in October 2021, it did much more than acknowledge its own place in this emerging experience for social and business communities. It also opened the door to other companies and individuals interested in jumping on the bandwagon – including, of course, cybersquatters, who are nothing if not opportunistic.

In this episode of my ongoing series of video interviews with domain name dispute service providers, I talk with Kiran Sanghera, secretary general of the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) and special counsel for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC); and Tom Leung, an ADR case manager for HKIAC.

Law firms don’t usually represent themselves in legal proceedings, but an increasing number of firms are being targeted by cybesquatters and taking action under the UDRP, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, to enforce their rights as trademark owners.

Even before the year has come to an end, the number of domain name dispute cases has set another record in 2021. The increase can be attributed in part to the coronavirus pandemic, a number of large UDRP cases, and the importance of some new top-level domains.

In this UDRP case study video, I explain how the owner of a trademark registration for PTP lost a dispute over the domain name <ptp.com>. As I discuss, the issue in this case raises one of the most common misconceptions I hear about domain name disputes: that a company can file – and win – a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) against anyone who simply has a domain name that is identical to its trademark.

In this domain name dispute case study video, I explain how Warner Bros. lost a decision under the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) for the domain name <scoobnb-doo.xyz>, even though it was used in connection with a cryptocurrency website that included images of the Scooby-Doo cartoon character. The decision is an important reminder about the challenges in filing and winning URS decisions, even for sophisticated trademark owners.

While Hertz and Tesla were making headlines over their disagreement about an order of 100,000 electric cars, a little-noticed cybersquatting dispute involving both companies was playing out in a case under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), ordering transfer of the domain name <teslahertz.com> to Hertz.

Google recently won two UDRP decisions against cybersquatters involving what I refer to as “lookalike” domain names because of their visual similarity to Google’s trademarks: <g00glemaps.com> (which replaced the two letter o’s in “Google” with two number zeros instead) and <qooglemaps.com> (which replaced the first letter “g” in Google with the letter “q” instead).

The “Oki Data Test” describes one of the earliest and most important questions ever addressed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): Can an authorized sales or service agent of trademarked goods use the trademark at issue in its domain name?