AI and Domain Name Disputes

AI and Domain Name Disputes

Artificial intelligence is one of the most talked-about and controversial topics these days, so it’s no surprise that it’s having an impact on domain names and domain name disputes. This video focuses in particular on the dot-ai top-level domain, which is seeing an increase in both registrations and disputes under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Look Out for Lookalike Domain Names

Look Out for Lookalike Domain Names

Cybersquatters sometimes use domain names that look like trademarks -- for example, by using two letter v's in place of the letter w; the letters r and n instead of the letter m; or the number 0 instead of the letter o. In this video, attorney Doug Isenberg discusses three recent cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in which trademark owners filed -- and won -- complaints for these so-called homoglyphs, or lookalike domain names.

Spanning the Dot in Domain Name Disputes: The <nes.cafe> Case

Spanning the Dot in Domain Name Disputes: The &lt;nes.cafe&gt; Case

Nestle, the food and drink company, won a domain name dispute for nes.cafe, by relying on a seldom-used but important concept known as “spanning the dot.” Although the top-level domain is usually disregarded in cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the panel in this case said that "it may be appropriate to 'span the dot' and consider the TLD" because the disputed domain name nes.cafe -- "considered in its entirety" -- is confusingly similar to the NESCAFE trademark.

Email Address Disputes are *Not* Domain Name Disputes

Email Address Disputes are *Not* Domain Name Disputes

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.