In a decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a trademark owner lost its case because the dispute was really about an email address that contained its trademark -- not a domain name. Although the panel recognized that the respondent was using the domain name in connection with what it called a "fraudulent enterprise," it said that the domain name "neither looks nor sounds like" the trademark.

The number of domain name disputes hit a record-high for the ninth-consecutive year in 2022, based on an early look at data from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which is the largest provider for cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

In this decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the Italian energy company Enel asked WIPO to add a second domain name to its case after the complaint was already filed. To address the issue, the panel issued a procedural order and then agreed to add the domain name, writing that doing so would "be fair and practical, and not prejudicial to the Respondent." The action made the UDRP case even more effective for Enel by avoiding the need to incur the additional time and expense of filing yet another complaint.

A trademark owner lost what seemed to be an easy case under the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), simply because of an apparent oversight by its attorney: failing to include a PDF that properly showed how the disputed domain name was being used.

For the first time in 23 years of decisions under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a panel has redacted the actual domain name from a published decision. This means that when you read the decision, it's impossible to know what domain name was in dispute. The complainant requested redaction because of privacy and safety concerns related to what she called "obscene content on the website in question."

The newest issue of GigaLaw’s Domain Dispute Digest (for the third quarter of 2022) shows that trademark owners are continue to file a record number of complaints under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). I expect this trend to continue, which would result in a ninth-consecutive year of growth in cybersquatting and the largest number of domain name dispute complaints ever filed in a single year.

Melinda Gates is a billionaire and one of the world’s most powerful women, according to Forbes, but she lost a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for the domain name <melindagates.com>. In a new video, Doug Isenberg explains why she lost and what lessons other trademark owners – women, men, and companies of every size – can learn from this case.

Trademark owners and business owners of all sizes may be be confused when they receive notices that look like invoices for domain name renewals -- but, in fact, they're for nothing more than a domain name "listing" service and can typically be safely ignored.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) may be the best and most popular way for trademark owners to fight cybersquatters – but it’s not the only option. In fact, a domain name dispute filed by a large law firm on its own behalf provides a good lesson about the pros and cons of going to court instead of filing a UDRP complaint.

Cancellation has always been a very unpopular remedy under the UDRP, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and my analysis of last year’s cancelled domain names shows why I think trademark owners should never pursue this result.