Protecting Your Trademark In Light of ICANN's New Generic Top-Level Domain Names

Domain names have become an important part of our commercial lives.  They act as designators of products and services and serve as shortcuts to reduce consumer search costs.  That is why trademark owners must be vigilant in protecting their trademark rights on the Internet.  On June 24, ICANN gathered to discuss adding new generic top-level domain names, or gTLDs, to the spectrum of available domain name suffixes.  When ICANN adds gTLDs, you can be sure that cybersquatters and typosquatters are watching because it presents them with a new opportunity to register the trademark of another to profit off of the goodwill and Internet traffic associated with the mark.  Domain name disputes inevitably follow the addition of TLDs, so it is important to hire an attorney that is proactive in monitoring the use of your trademarks on the Internet.

Do a Trademark Availability Search Before Picking Your Company or Product Name.

I would estimate that 95% of companies which select a name for their product or as their company name fail to do a comprehensive trademark search prior to selecting a word or combination of words as a brand.  Too many companies see that a domain is available for registration and assume that their registration of that domain entitles them to use. 

Hiring an attorney to do a trademark availability search is relatively inexpensive compared to the investment which your company will make in its marketing and branding efforts.  Having to select a new company name or product name after receipt of a trademark infringement threat letter, will cost you money, time and customers.  When it comes to trademark issues, an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure. 

NAF Domain Dispute Decisions under the Cybersquatting Provisions of the UDRP for March 28, 2008

The following Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decisions were entered by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). There are 30 panel decisions, and of those decisions, 21 domains were transferred after findings of cybersquatting, 3 UDRP complaints were denied, 6 UDRP complaints were withdrawn.

WIPO Domain Dispute Decisions under the Cybersquatting Provisions of the UDRP for March 28, 2008

The following Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decisions were entered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). There are 38 panel decisions, and of those decisions, 34 domains were transferred after findings of cybersquatting, 4 UDRP complaints were denied.

WIPO Domain Dispute Decisions under the Cybersquatting Provisions of the UDRP for March 21, 2008.

The following Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decisions were entered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  There are 26 panel decisions, and of those decisions, 22 domains were transferred after finding of cyberquatting, 3 UDRP complaints were denied, 1 denied in part, and 1 resulted in a cancellation.

NAF Domain Dispute Decisions under the Cybersquatting Provisions of the UDRP for March 21, 2008

The following Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decisions were entered by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). There are 31 panel decisions, and of those decisions, 25 domains were transferred after finding of cybersquatting, 2 UDRP complaints were denied, 1 split decision, and 3 withdrawn.

WIPO Domain Dispute Decisions under the Cybersquatting Provisions of the UDRP for March 14, 2008.

The following Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decisions were entered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  There are 22 panel decisions, and of those decisions, 18 domains were transferred after a finding of cybersquatting and 4 UDRP complaints were denied.

NAF Domain Dispute Decisions under the Cybersquatting Provisions of the UDRP for March 14, 2008

The following Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decisions were entered by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF).  There are 21 panel decisions, and of those decisions, 15 domains were transferred after a finding of cybersquatting, 1 UDRP complaint was denied, and 5 withdrawn.

NAF Domain Dispute Decisions under the Cybersquatting Provisions of the UDRP for March 7, 2008

The following Uniform Dispute resolution Policy (UDRP) decisions were entered by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF).  There are 32 panel decisions, and of those decisions, 25 domains were transferred after finding of cybersquatting, 2 UDRP complaints were denied, and 5 withdrawn.

WIPO Domain Dispute Decisions under the Cybersquatting Provisions of the UDRP for March 7, 2008.

The following Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decisions were entered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  There are 30 panel decisions, and of those decisions, 24 domains were transferred after finding of cybersquatting, 4 UDRP complaints were denied, and 2 resulted in cancellations.