Cybersquatting has evolved. Behind what appears to be nothing more than a domain name may now lie an entire fraudulent infrastructure: an online store, a carefully crafted visual identity, a seamless purchasing journey, legal notices, and a false sense of legitimacy. Through the
Drawing on more than one hundred domain name decisions involving football clubs, this article explores how cybersquatting has evolved beyond the registration of domain names to become the foundation of broader online abuse, including phishing, counterfeit sales, impersonation, and coordinated fraud campaigns.
Two new generic top-level domains, .DOT and .FLY, will soon enter their Sunrise Periods, giving trademark owners an opportunity to secure matching domain names before general availability. While the defensive value of these extensions will vary depending on the brand and its industry, the Sunrise Period remains the most effective time to evaluate and protect valuable digital assets.
AI is reshaping the phishing landscape. Hallucinated domain names, highly convincing phishing emails and AI-generated website clones are giving fraudsters new advantages. This article examines the latest research on these emerging techniques and the defensive strategies brands can adopt to detect and prevent AI-assisted online fraud.
The BVLGARI UDRP decision is a timely reminder that not all domain extensions carry the same level of risk. Some are far more likely to reinforce the credibility of online fraud. This article explores how brand owners can prioritise the extensions that matter most and adapt their domain name protection strategy accordingly.
European country-code registries continue to implement practical measures in response to the NIS2 Directive. This update reviews the latest changes affecting .DE, .PT and .HR domain names, and explains what corporate domain portfolio managers need to do to remain compliant and avoid disruptions.
Professional footballers are building valuable portfolios of trademarks, domain names and digital assets. This article explores how intellectual property and Online Brand Protection help safeguard players against cybersquatting, counterfeiting and online fraud.
A recent decision of the Paris Judicial Court in Chanel v. Kamad Reworked provides important guidance on the legal limits of upcycling under trade mark law. The court held that incorporating Chanel-branded components into newly created jewellery resulted in the manufacture of an entirely different product, preventing reliance on the exhaustion of rights doctrine. The decision also highlights the limited effectiveness of disclaimers and authenticity certificates when a renowned trade mark remains the dominant element perceived by consumers. More broadly, the ruling reflects a growing international trend in which courts seek to balance sustainability objectives with the protection of trade mark owners’ investments, reputation, and brand value.
Starting on July 7, 2026, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) will assume responsibility for administering Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) for .UK domain names. While the transition marks an important development in the management of UK domain name disputes, the DRS itself remains unchanged. Its rules, mediation process, expert panel, and appeal mechanism will all continue to operate as before. This article examines what is changing, what is not, and why the DRS remains one of the most distinctive domain name dispute resolution systems in the world.
Condemned to pay nearly USD 11 million, influencer Nicholas Tuinenberg found himself at the centre of a dispute involving counterfeiting, trade dress infringement, and influencer marketing. The case raises important questions about the evolving role of influencers in the promotion of infringing products and the growing legal risks faced by content creators in the digital marketplace.
