A UDRP case involving a .CEO domain

The statistics of the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (CAM-WIPO) for the year 2019 revealed that the share of new gTLDs in domain name cases was around 10% (ompi.int, April 8, 2020). These cases mainly concerned the following gTLDs: .online (64), .xyz (49), .win (48), .club (34), .top (31), .app (31), .site  (31), .website (.24), .store (.22). Given the multiplicity of new gTLDs, this percentage seems relatively low.

The main explanation seems to be sought in the cost of registering/renewing a domain name. Indeed, with regard to the gTLDs mentioned, this cost hardly exceeds a few tens of dollars (prices charged by the main registrars, excluding promotions). On the other hand, the registration of a domain name including the .global gTLD requires an investment of more than 100 euros (excluding promotions), which explains why there were only three cases. As for the acquisition of a .car , it requires several thousand dollars, and, to our knowledge, there is, to date, no case of cybersquatting for this top-level domain.

In 2019, no decision was rendered under the aegis of CAM-COMPI concerning the .CEO gTLD. The registration/renewal of a .CEO domain costs around 150 dollars. However, some cybersquatters could consider such an amount as a small investment or, when the opportunity arises, they could take advantage of favorable financial situations (such as promotions). For instance, AbbVie, Inc. recently had to initiate a UDRP procedure to get the transfer of abbvie.ceo (NAF, FA2007001906861, AbbVie, Inc. v. Jack Gao , August 25, 2020). The cost of a .CEO is similar to that of a .global (over 100 euros, excluding promotion).

New gTLDs offer new cybersquatting (and not just typosquatting) opportunities for cybersquatters and other fraudsters. The number of cases of cybersquatting (domain name identical to the brand) appears to be increasing. Here are a few examples:

D2020-0054, The Coca-Cola Company v. Alberto S. Somohano a/k/a Alberto Soler, Alberto Soler-Somohano, WHO, Roberto Soler, March 15, 2020.coca-cola.energy, cocacola.energy, and coke.energy
D2019-0179, LEGO Juris A/S 诉 Cui Xue, Xue Cui, March 18, 2019lego.vip
D2019-0173, Sanofi v. Fei Liujun, March 17, 2019sanofi.club
D2019-0208, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Marius Graur, March 15, 2019boehringer-ingelheim.world
D2019-0125, bioMérieux v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / angel heduro, March 6, 2019biomerieux.icu
D2018-2774, Sanofi v. Marius Graur, January 25, 2019sanofi.global
D2018-2372, Coloplast A/S v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242178062 / Hillary Washington, January 22, 2019coloplast.consulting
D2018-2851, Equinor ASA v. Alexander Feydt, January 18, 2019equinor.international
D2018-2745, Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Gene Wilder, January 16, 2019verizon.love
D2018-2637, Swiss Life AG and Swiss Life Intellectual Property Management AG v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Robin Connelly, January 10, 2019swisslife.site
D2019-0203, Medtronic, Inc. v. Rafael Vargas, March 12, 2019medtronic.care
D2019-0169, Sanofi v. Francisco Sánchez Fernández, inserious, March 20, 2019sanofi.fun
D2019-0316, Velcro BVBA 诉 Xu Jiu Qing, Xiamen Jingwe Technology co., Ltd., 27 March 2019velcro.ink
D2018-2853, Skyscanner Limited v. WhoisGuard, Inc / Timothy Schoenheimer, April 2, 2019skyscanner.store
D2019-0164, De Beers Intangibles Limited v. Qiuqin Bao, March 14, 2019debeers.mobi
D2019-0026, Maxym Polyakov v. Bogdan Nechiporenko, Makc Belevskiy, April 3, 2019max-polyakov.host, max-polyakov.xyz
D2018-2391, AXA SA v. Volkan Kükükbudak, Freiberufler-Designer, December 17, 2018axa.koeln
D2018-1978, BNP Paribas Personal Finance v. MYDNS.STORE, December 11, 2018cetelem.credit
D2018-2361, Kohl’s Illinois, Inc v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Stephanie Daniels, December 12, 2018kohls.host
D2018-2162, GAMELOFT S.E. v. Sherry Ddepues, November 14, 2018gameloft.store
D2018-2256, Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Yongkun Wang, December 1, 2018michelin.在线, michelin.fun
D2018-2166, Bundl Technologies Private Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Shomprakash Sinha Roy, November 27, 2018swiggy.fit
D2018-2179, Tervita Corporation v. Dallas Paisley, AAAAA2010.COM, November 29, 2018tervita.company

This trend may convince trademark owners to consider a rigorous precautionary registration strategy.

About IP Twins

IP Twins is an ICANN-accredited domain name registrar with 15 years of experience in domain name strategy and management. We represent trademark holders in UDRP proceedings.

We deliver security certificates tailored to your needs in order to ensure the safety of visitors to your website.

IP Twins also offers anti-counterfeiting and anti-cybersquatting monitoring services. Detective, our monitoring software, identifies online counterfeits and cybersquatting. We collect evidence and remove references to counterfeits from hundreds of marketplaces, social networks and the web in general.

Should you need to complete these investigations, our team based in China can help.

Do not hesitate to contact us at info@iptwins.com.