In the digital age, where fame can be achieved in an instant, brands—whether globally recognized or local—face a common threat: cybersquatting. Exploitation of domain names, traffic diversion, damage to reputation, or phishing, this scourge exposes businesses to heightened risks, often difficult to overcome for those with fewer resources. This article delves into the challenges posed by cybersquatting, the legal and strategic tools to combat it, and tailored solutions to safeguard brands’ digital identity in a globalized environment. An essential guide to anticipating threats and protecting intangible assets.

1. Brand reputation 

A brand’s reputation is an invaluable strategic asset. However, the speed with which a brand can now gain global recognition comes with a drawback: increased exposure to online disputes and abuse. Ironically, even lesser-known brands are not spared from these threats, as cybersquatting now targets both major market players and small to medium enterprises.

1.1 Special protection for well-known trademarks

Expanded protection. – In a globalized and digitalized market, brand recognition serves as an essential commercial asset. Recognized brands gain consumer trust, which naturally drives sales and strengthens loyalty. Legally, this reputation provides enhanced protection, a crucial benefit against counterfeiting and cybersquatting. Numerous laws and international agreements acknowledge and protect well-known brands, offering them a privileged status: Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883); Article 16(2) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); Article 5(3) of the European Directive 2015/2436; and the U.S. Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)). These provisions stipulate that a well-known brand should be protected even beyond the specific class of goods or services for which it is registered. These instruments enable well-known brands to enjoy expanded protection, simplifying their defense against unauthorized or unfair use in both national and international contexts. Being a well-known brand is thus a significant advantage.

1.2 Rapidly acquired notoriety

Instant recognition. – The digital age has radically transformed how quickly brands gain recognition. In the past, brand recognition was built gradually, the result of sustained efforts and investments over decades. Today, however, the landscape has changed dramatically: a brand can now reach global fame almost instantly, fueled by digital immediacy. The brands “TikTok” and “Oculus” provide striking examples.

“TikTok”. – The mobile app TikTok, launched in 2017, experienced a meteoric rise in 2020 during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when it captivated millions of users worldwide. This surge in popularity came with a significant increase in brand protection-related disputes. For instance, the number of UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) proceedings filed to defend the “TikTok” brand rose from zero in 2019 to 17 in 2020[1], indicating a spike in cybersquatting cases alongside the app’s popularity.

“Oculus”. – Similarly, the brand “Oculus” saw instant success following a successful crowdfunding campaign, which also attracted cybersquatters. The sudden popularity of this brand compelled its owner to file multiple UDRP proceedings to defend its rights[2].

1.3 Lack of recognition

Don’t be mistaken. Lesser-known brands are also in the crosshairs of cybersquatters. Such abuses can be especially destabilizing for small or medium enterprises. The impact can be significant, both financially and in terms of brand image. Cybersquatting thus poses an additional hurdle in these companies’ strategic paths, one that can be costly to overcome without active vigilance and appropriate protection measures.

I will examine the reasons behind this unexpected targeting and offer practical tools to help brand owners effectively defend against cybersquatting.

2. Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting is a multifaceted threat exposing both well-known and emerging brands to risks such as traffic diversion, revenue losses, and reputational damage. In this section, I will explore various cybersquatting tactics, from typosquatting to phishing, and the specific impacts on lesser-known brands. These businesses often become “easy targets,” vulnerable due to limited resources for safeguarding their digital identity.

2.1 Definition of cybersquatting

Cybersquatting involves deliberately registering a domain name identical or similar to a brand to profit from it. This can take various forms, including:

• Advertising pages (“pay-per-click”). – The cybersquatter creates a simplistic webpage filled with ads that generate revenue per click. This form of cybersquatting can be particularly lucrative when targeting well-known brands, capitalizing on user confusion to drive traffic.
• – By closely mimicking the brand’s official website, the cybersquatter deceives visitors to collect their confidential information (logins, passwords, bank details), which is then sold or used for fraud.
• Reselling the domain to the brand owner. – Anticipating the symbolic and commercial value of a domain name resembling a brand, the cybersquatter hopes the targeted company will purchase the domain at a significantly higher price than the original registration cost.
• Advertising for competing products or services. – Partnering with third parties, the hijacked domain redirects visitors to competing products or services, monetizing traffic at the brand’s expense.
• Defamatory content. – The cybersquatter associates harmful content with the domain name, deliberately tarnishing the brand’s image to compel a buyout in exchange for returning the domain.
• Illegal or inappropriate content. – Some cybersquatters host inappropriate or even illegal content (e.g., adult content, illicit activities) to increase pressure on the brand owner to buy back the domain at a premium.

In each of these cases, the cybersquatter exploits and monetizes traffic naturally associated with the brand, which explains why high-profile brands remain prime targets for this type of fraud. However, lesser-known brands are not immune to cybersquatting, either. Although renowned brands are preferred targets, small to medium businesses or emerging brands can also attract fraudsters.

2.2 Risks for brands lacking notoriety

“Easy Targets”. –  Cybersquatters are aware that large brands often have substantial financial resources, specialized legal services, and proactive monitoring to protect their online presence. In certain situations, legal disputes over these brands can incur costs, legal risks, or even losses for the cybersquatters, which can deter the less daring. As a result, many cybersquatters shift their focus to lesser-known or emerging brands, which they perceive as “easy targets.” These smaller or local businesses generally have more limited budgets for intellectual property protection, reducing the risk of detection and, ultimately, the likelihood of content removal.

Traffic diversion and revenue losses. –  Cybersquatters may exploit domain names similar to the brand’s to divert traffic to their own sites or to ad pages. This diversion deprives the brand of legitimate visitors, resulting in direct financial losses and decreased credibility among the public.

Reputational harm. –  Cybersquatting creates a risk of consumer confusion, leading users to believe they are interacting with the brand owner. This confusion may prompt consumers to make purchases or take actions on a fraudulent site, harming customers and, consequently, damaging the brand’s reputation.

Data collection and phishing. – Some cybersquatters use domain names to impersonate websites solely to collect personal information through order or registration forms, a practice known as phishing. It is worth noting that modern website development tools facilitate the imitation of legitimate, pre-existing sites. Phishing not only exposes consumers to fraud risks but can also hold the compromised company accountable if negligence is proven (failure to employ standard cyber-attack defenses, lack of staff or customer awareness). Consequently, some companies have a duty to employ phishing detection tools.

Financial costs and legal constraints. – Taking action against cybersquatters, such as UDRP proceedings (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy – discussed further below) or legal actions, can represent a significant cost for brand owners. UDRP recourse is often more accessible and faster than traditional legal actions, making it especially suitable for medium-sized brands seeking effective, cost-efficient solutions. However, these procedures still require resources, which may discourage some companies from pursuing them, leaving cybersquatters free to operate.

For lesser-known brands, cybersquatting presents an even more serious risk as it can be challenging to combat, jeopardizing their image, credibility, and, in severe cases, growth potential. Nonetheless, solutions exist to counter cybersquatting, even for owners of lesser-known brands, through legal, technical, and strategic tools adapted to their resources and needs.

3. Tools to combat cybersquatting

Lesser-known brands may feel vulnerable when facing the challenges of cybersquatting, as they often lack the intellectual property protection budget necessary to defend their presence in a globalized digital environment, where brand protection is increasingly complex and costly. In this context, adopting a strategic approach and prioritizing protection based on target markets is essential: this means safeguarding intangible assets—brands and domain names—in countries where the company plans significant commercial activity. Although zero risk does not exist, these precautions, combined with the judicious use of available legal and technical tools, significantly reduce vulnerabilities and help protect the brand’s integrity.

3.1 Preventive tools

In the vast digital space, where each corner holds as many opportunities as threats, protecting a brand has become a subtle art. A company must anticipate attacks and establish barriers against cybersquatting. This section outlines essential tools and strategies for fortifying the brand, not only through distinctive business signs but also through proactive registrations, vigilant monitoring systems, and internal awareness programs. By leveraging systems like the Trademark Clearinghouse and the GlobalBlock shield, companies can enhance the security of their digital territory, ensuring an authentic and respected online presence. This approach goes beyond simple defense: it’s about forging a solid identity.

3.1.1 Brand and domain name strategy

Choosing a distinctive brand. – A distinctive brand is a sign, word, logo, or symbol that differentiates a company’s products or services from those of its competitors. This distinctiveness is critical in intellectual property law, as it ensures a sign (brand, domain name, trade name, or business name) is recognizable and memorable for consumers and not descriptive or generic for the products or services it represents. A distinctive brand captures attention through its originality and uniqueness, making it easier to protect legally. For example, an invented word or a unique combination of symbols is more distinctive than a common term that directly describes the product’s characteristics. A distinctive brand is easier to protect against cybersquatting, whereas generic or descriptive brands are more exposed, as cybersquatters may claim rights over common terms.

“Twinning” brand and domain names. – The relationship between brands and domain names is akin to that of inseparable twins in the digital world. When a company registers a brand, securing corresponding domain names in target regions becomes a strategic imperative. For a brand registered in China, for instance, reserving <brand.cn> and domain extensions in Chinese characters (<brand.中国> and <brand.中國>) is crucial for ensuring continuity and coherence between the company’s physical and digital identities. This approach not only provides protection against cybersquatting but also anchors the brand authentically within the targeted market, establishing a trust link with local consumers.

Registering trademarks and domain names. – In a globalized and digital environment, registering one’s brand and domain names in commercially targeted countries is not only useful—it’s essential for ensuring effective and durable protection. When a brand enters a market, it gains media exposure and attracts consumer attention, as well as that of cybersquatters. The more a brand is visible in a country, the higher the risk of cybersquatting. In fact, malicious third parties may be tempted to exploit a brand’s growing popularity by registering identical or similar domain names to capitalize on online traffic or resell the domain at a premium. Each media appearance thus poses a cybersquatting risk, which should be preemptively addressed by registering trademarks and domain names in advance. Consider the following examples.

“<thefidgetcube.co>”. – In a case concerning the domain <thefidgetcube.co>, which resembled the brand “Fidget Cube,” registration occurred shortly after the product’s launch on a crowdfunding platform. This temporal proximity factored into the decision to transfer the domain[3]. It’s also worth noting that the applicant company had the foresight to file a trademark application even before launching the product, a condition essential for the success of a UDRP proceeding. However, a closer analysis reveals that the domain <fidgetcube.com> was registered by the applicant after product launch, which is less than ideal. Ideally, intellectual property rights, including domain names, should be secured before a product hits the market.

“Formlabs”. – Similarly, Formlabs Inc. was compelled to take multiple extrajudicial actions to reclaim domain names opportunistically registered the same day its product launched on a crowdfunding platform. As in the previous example, this temporal concordance was seen as a clear indication of bad faith. This case, however, features an intriguing detail: the defendant registered multiple domain names replicating the “Formlabs” brand across various extensions, such as <formlabs.nl> (case DNL2018-0041[4]), <formlabs.biz>, <formlabs.info>, <formlabs.net>, <formlabs.org>, <formlabs.nu> (case D2018-1526[5]), and <formlabs.eu> (case DEU2018-0029[6]). Depending on the extension, applicable rules and procedures vary slightly, requiring separate procedures and thus multiplying legal costs. This factor should be carefully considered when launching a brand, as the dispersion of required actions can quickly increase expenses.

Anticipation. – These cases highlight the importance of protecting intellectual property rights before launching a product. To maximize success in domain name recovery proceedings, businesses must secure their trademarks and domain names in advance of commercialization to prevent malicious exploitation of emerging brand recognition.

Adopting a proactive approach. – A well-structured domain name strategy is crucial for protecting and enhancing a brand in a globalized digital environment. By proactively managing domain name registrations, a company can not only secure its online presence but also reduce the risks of cybersquatting and traffic diversion. This approach is especially important for companies seeking to establish their brand in new international markets, where name misuse risks are high.

3.1.2 Preventive registrations

Preventive registrations: an essential strategy to secure digital identity. – For any brand seeking to protect its digital identity, preventive domain name registrations are key. For lesser-known brands in particular, registering not only the main name but also its variations in common extensions (such as <.com>, <.net>) and geographic extensions in targeted areas (like <.fr> for France or <.cn> for China) is essential. These proactive registrations prevent potentially malicious third parties from registering similar domains, reducing cybersquatting risks and unwanted redirections to unaffiliated or harmful sites. Additionally, preemptively registering common typographical errors of the domain helps capture user mistakes, preventing cybersquatters from diverting visitors to competing or inappropriate pages and preserving brand credibility. Proactive domain name registrations also inspire confidence among consumers and business partners by demonstrating that the company is actively protecting its online identity and presence.

3.1.3 Preventive blockings

In the fight against cybersquatting, brands can rely on preventive blocking tools that enhance their protection in the digital environment. A range of tools is available to provide a relatively strong defense against certain types of abuse.

• Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). – The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) is a centralized database of verified trademarks established by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to strengthen intellectual property rights protection within the domain name system. By registering trademarks with TMCH, holders benefit from two key mechanisms:
• Sunrise period: Before the launch of a new top-level domain (gTLD), TMCH-registered trademark owners can register domain names corresponding to their trademarks in advance, reducing cybersquatting risks.
• Claims service: During the 90 days following the launch of a new gTLD, any attempt to register a domain name matching a TMCH-registered trademark triggers a notification to the applicant, informing them of existing intellectual property rights. If the registration proceeds, the trademark holder receives an alert, enabling a swift response to potential misuse.

Through TMCH, trademark information is centralized, simplifying and enhancing brand protection on the internet, providing businesses with an effective tool to prevent online infringements.

• – This tool, launched in February 2024, is designed specifically to protect brands from cybersquatting attempts. GlobalBlock proactively blocks domain name registrations that are identical or similar to a brand across over 600 extensions, including generic top-level domains (gTLDs), country-specific domains (ccTLDs), and Web3 extensions (like those from Unstoppable Domains). GlobalBlock offers two levels of protection: the basic GlobalBlock, which prevents the registration of exact matches to the brand’s name, and GlobalBlock+, which intercepts typographic and homoglyphic variants often exploited by cybersquatters to confuse users. Key features include “Priority AutoCatch,” which continuously monitors and automatically acquires expired domain names corresponding to the brand, and “Domain Unblock,” allowing brands to unblock a previously protected domain for temporary or permanent use as needed. GlobalBlock represents a significant advancement in brand protection on the web, providing businesses with a robust, agile defense to build their digital presence confidently, free from online threats. To benefit from GlobalBlock, brands must be registered with the TMCH.
• – Similar to GlobalBlock and predating it, AdultBlock was designed to prevent unauthorized registration of domains linked to adult content. It covers the extensions .xxx, .adult, .porn, and .sex. By proactively blocking undesirable registrations, AdultBlock helps protect brand integrity and reputation, particularly for businesses keen to maintain a consistent, professional image online.

3.1.4 Monitoring

Domain name monitoring services. – Monitoring provides a proactive way to detect registrations of domain names identical or similar to a brand. These services cover various parameters, enabling broad oversight across nearly the entire domain ecosystem:

• Language: monitoring includes linguistic similarities and transliterations, helping identify domain name registrations that may infringe the brand in different languages.
• TLD coverage: monitoring spans country-specific domains (ccTLDs), generic domains (gTLDs), and new extensions (new gTLDs), ensuring comprehensive oversight.

Results from this monitoring are compiled in detailed reports provided at intervals suited to the brand owner’s needs—daily, weekly, or monthly—allowing swift responses to suspicious registrations.

Targeted monitoring of specific domains. – This involves closely monitoring domain names already identified as potential threats. This “focused” monitoring continuously tracks changes associated with the domain in question, such as WHOIS data, DNS servers, and website content. Specialized services send alerts when changes are detected, allowing a quick response to suspicious or malicious activities. For example, a WHOIS information change could indicate an ownership transfer or an attempt to conceal identity, while a DNS server change might signal a redirection to a fraudulent site. Maintaining constant vigilance over these developments allows companies to anticipate and counter potential threats effectively.

3.1.5 Internal awareness

Engaging employees: the first line of defense. – Training employees on the risks of cybersquatting and brand protection is essential to safeguarding an organization’s integrity and reputation. By educating staff on threats like cybersquatting, typosquatting, and identity theft, companies reinforce their first line of defense against these attacks. Tailored training programs help employees recognize early warning signs of potential abuse, such as suspicious domain name registrations or unauthorized online content. This collective vigilance supports customer and partner trust while reducing litigation and corrective action costs. Investing in continuous staff training ensures that each team member becomes a crucial player in brand protection, fostering a corporate culture resilient against digital threats.

3.1.6 Brand and domain name “twinning”

Twinning and consistency. – The relationship between brands and domain names resembles inseparable twins in the digital realm. When a company registers a brand, securing corresponding domain names in targeted regions becomes a strategic imperative. For a brand registered in China, for instance, reserving <brand.cn> and Chinese character extensions (<brand.中国> and <brand.中國>) is crucial to ensure continuity and consistency between the company’s physical and digital identities. This strategy not only safeguards against cybersquatting but also establishes the brand authentically within the targeted market, building consumer trust.

3.2 Jurisdictional tools

The jurisdictional aspect: enforcing authority. – The term “jurisdictional” derives from the Latin “jurisdictio,” meaning “to declare the law.” A process is considered jurisdictional when a neutral third party renders a binding decision that applies the law, providing a solution that is mandatory for the parties involved and may have financial implications. Thus, a state court judgment is jurisdictional, as is an arbitration award. A decision rendered in the context of UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) proceedings is also jurisdictional, with the added benefit of near-automatic execution.

Mediation. – The jurisdictional nature of UDRP proceedings contrasts with mediation, where the neutral third party does not impose a decision but instead assists the parties in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. Mediation is not entirely absent from alternative dispute resolution methods in domain name disputes, but its value is limited when one party acts in bad faith, as is often the case with cybersquatting.

Our analysis will focus on extrajudicial jurisdictional procedures because, aside from emergency judicial measures such as injunctions, these mechanisms—like UDRP—are frequently preferred for their speed and cost-effectiveness, making them accessible and efficient dispute resolution solutions.

3.2.1 Extrajudicial proceedings

UDRP: a quick and effective solution against abusive domain registrations. – Extrajudicial methods for resolving domain name disputes, such as the UDRP, provide a fast, effective path for addressing conflicts over abusive domain registrations. Created by ICANN[7] and WIPO[8], UDRP is designed to protect trademark holders by allowing them to challenge the registration of identical or similar domain names registered in bad faith. The process is conducted by a neutral third party who renders a binding decision, often automatically enforced, bypassing the need for state courts.

UDRP: a global model for online dispute resolution. – The success of UDRP has inspired the adoption of similar mechanisms in many countries for country-specific top-level domains (ccTLDs), sometimes with specific adaptations. This expansion reflects UDRP’s effectiveness as a global model for managing online disputes, offering a fast, cost-effective solution that secures the digital landscape for rights holders.

3.2.2 Notoriety in extrajudicial proceedings

Notoriety and UDRP criteria application. – While UDRP dispute resolution does not strictly require brand notoriety to establish the cybersquatter’s bad faith, it benefits significantly when notoriety is present. Proving bad faith is generally easier when the brand in question is well-known, as it is reasonable to presume the cybersquatter was aware of it when registering the disputed domain. This notoriety creates a favorable context for demonstrating malicious intent.

Using evidence in the absence of notoriety. – For lesser-known brands, a lack of notoriety is not an insurmountable obstacle in a UDRP proceeding. Protection against cybersquatting is not exclusive to well-known brands[9]. Owners of such brands can rely on evidence demonstrating the cybersquatter’s bad faith, such as blatant copying of the brand’s website, unauthorized use of the logo or other distinctive elements, and visual similarity between the legitimate and counterfeit sites. This is how a company owning the “Sereed” brand successfully demonstrated the abusive nature of the domain <sereedstore.com>:

« The Respondent’s website prominently features photographs and videos of balance bikes identical to those marketed under the Complainant’s SEREED trademark. This direct copying of the Complainant’s products, combined with the use of the SEREED trademark in the domain name, strongly suggests an intent to deceive consumers into believing that the website is operated by, or affiliated with, the Complainant. By using the disputed domain name in this manner, the Respondent is seeking to exploit the Complainant’s trademark for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the webstore »[10].

De même, il n’est pas nécessaire que le cybersquatteur reproduise exactement le site Internet du titulaire de la marque ; il suffit que le site soit imité d’une manière qui crée ou risque de créer une confusion dans l’esprit du public :

« The fact that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name following registration, to resolve to a website which prominently features the Complainant’s TENWAYS trademark, and is highly similar – if not even identical – in terms of color, design, and product images, to the Complainant’s official website, and allegedly offers TENWAYS branded e-bikes, establishes both the Respondent’s actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights as at the date of registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent’s intention to take unfair advantage of those rights »[11].

Such tangible evidence strengthens the argument that the cybersquatter aims to impersonate the legitimate owner to divert traffic or harm the brand.

4. Addressing non-abusive registrations

During proactive monitoring of new domain name registrations, it may happen that a domain identical to a company’s brand is detected, but registered in good faith by another entity that also holds a homonymous brand. In such cases, two scenarios typically arise.

• Scenario 1: competition between the two companies. – When two companies in similar or identical fields find themselves in competition, it’s essential for them to open a dialogue to clarify their respective goals and examine their products and markets. This transparency aims to identify solutions for coexistence, which can then be formalized in a brand coexistence agreement. This legal document outlines the terms for sharing the name without one party infringing on the other’s interests. However, even if these companies operate on opposite sides of the world, globalized commerce can make peaceful coexistence challenging. Rather than resorting to legal disputes, seeking common ground is often preferable. A specialized intellectual property mediator can be invaluable in this process, as this neutral expert can help both parties reach a balanced and satisfactory outcome. Without an agreement or coexistence contract, the second company, a recent market entrant, may be accused of failing to conduct due diligence before registering its brand or domain name, potentially undermining its legitimacy and exposing it to sanctions.
• Scenario 2: no competition between the two brands. – If the two homonymous brands operate in non-competitive sectors, a brand coexistence agreement is still advisable. Such an agreement sets clear boundaries on each party’s activities, ensuring that both companies agree not to encroach on each other’s business areas in the future. This type of contract helps prevent potential conflicts, as illustrated by the well-known example of Apple Corps (founded by The Beatles) and the computer company Apple. Initially, the two companies entered into a coexistence agreement, but Apple’s entry into the music industry with iTunes led to unexpected friction.

Thus, whether companies are competitors or not, a brand coexistence agreement is a valuable tool for safeguarding their commercial presence, protecting their rights, and maintaining a harmonious relationship in both digital and physical spaces.

5. Intellectual property insurance

It’s worth mentioning that some insurers offer policies covering intellectual property issues. Intellectual property protection is vital in an innovation-driven and competitive global market, enabling businesses and creators to capitalize on intangible assets like patents, trademarks, and copyrights. However, these assets face various risks, including counterfeiting, disputes, cyber threats, and administrative errors, which can lead to significant financial losses. Intellectual property insurance provides tailored solutions to manage these risks, covering defense costs in case of disputes, compensation for damages, business interruption losses due to rights infringements, and costs of restoring rights.

IP insurance policies are specialized, with thorough assessments of protected assets and tailored territorial coverage. Some policies are “offensive,” covering the costs of enforcing rights in case of infringement, while others are “defensive,” providing protection against legal challenges. By choosing suitable IP insurance, companies can focus on innovation without the financial anxieties linked to legal disputes. In today’s ever-evolving digital environment, such protection becomes a strategic asset for ensuring business continuity and growth.

6. The intellectual property budget

Even for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) without a famous brand, an intellectual property budget is essential for several reasons:

• Differentiating products and services. – Intellectual property protects the innovations, products, and services that set a business apart from its competitors, helping create a unique market value.
• Securing intangible assets. – By safeguarding its intangible assets, the business prevents competitors from copying its creations, preserving its competitive advantage and ensuring long-term stability.
• Mitigating legal risks. – Investing in intellectual property also protects against potential legal disputes.
• Enhancing credibility and attracting investors. – Holding intellectual property rights, including a portfolio of domain names, increases the company’s credibility and value, an attractive asset for investors and partners.

Ultimately, allocating a budget to intellectual property strengthens a business’s stability and supports future growth.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cybersquatting poses a serious threat to brands. Lesser-known brands are not immune. Although these brands often have fewer resources to address such abusive practices, effective and adaptable solutions are available.

IP Twins provides customized support to protect your brand online, whether through preventive domain name registrations, continuous monitoring to detect any cybersquatting attempts, or resorting to extrajudicial procedures like UDRP. By anticipating risks and adopting a proactive protection strategy, businesses can secure their digital identity, safeguard their reputation, and avoid costly losses. With IP Twins, you can ensure that your brand remains a protected asset, ready to thrive in an ever-evolving digital landscape.

References

[1] Results obtained from a search for “tiktok” in the “domain name” field of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) database: wipoi.int.

[2] WIPO D2016-2284, Oculus VR, LLC v. Levickii Vitalii Jurevich, Levickaja Valentina Vasilevna / Privacy protection service – r01.whoisproxy.ru, <oculusukraine.com>, transfer, February 12, 2017 ; WIPO D2018-0464, Oculus VR, LLC v. PrivacyGuardian.org / Vildan Erdogan, <oculusvenues.com>, transfer, April 25, 2018 ; WIPO D2018-0850, Oculus VR, LLC v. Javier Díaz Calvo, Active Thinking, <compraroculus.com>, transfer, June 6, 2018.

[3] WIPO DCO2018-0011, Antsy Labs LLC v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0146656011 / Jonathan Ng, Fidget Cube, June 6, 2018.

[4] WIPO DNL2018-0041, Formlabs Inc. v. Eduard de Boer, Wezacon, September 24, 2018.

[5] WIPO D2018-1526, Formlabs Inc. v. Eduard de Boer, Wezacon, August 28, 2018.

[6] WIPO DEU2018-0029, Formlabs Inc. v. Eduard de Boer, Wezacon, 14 januari 2019.

[7] Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers: icann.org.

[8] World Intellectual Property Organization: wipo.int.

[9] « Even if the Complainant’s trademarks were not well-known in the Respondent’s country, it was his responsibility under paragraph 2 of the Policy, in registering a domain name, “to determine whether (your) domain name registration infringes or violates someone else’s rights » (WIPO D2012-1244, S.A. Cottet v. Y.G. Cho, August 8, 2012) ; « The Policy is also not reserved to big companies or well-known brands, but available to all trademark holders » (WIPO D2016-1070, Kåbe-Mattan AB v. Tapio Lehtinen, Netline O, July 11, 2016).

[10] ADNDRC Case No. CN-2401638, Dongguan Longzhen Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v. yunlong li, 28 October 2024.

[11] WIPO D2024-1421, Tenways Technovation Limited, 深圳市十方运动科技有限公司 (Shenzhen Shifang Technovation Limited) v. termistotle mobile, May 22, 2024.