Surge in disputes over cybersquatting
The arrival of a new generation of web addresses has sparked a surge in cybersquatting disputes since October 2013, according to law firm Hugh James.
The firm says that there have already been 48 disputes arising out of web addresses using one of the new generic Top Level Domains with endings like .shop or .sport; however, that number is expected to rise rapidly.
Cybersquatters register web addresses with the aim of selling the rights to use them at an inflated price or attracting web traffic to drive advertising revenue. In some cases squatters even post defamatory content on the website to try and force businesses to buy the website address from them.
Hugh James says that the new gTLDs open up a huge number of potential new web address combinations for businesses, increasing the likelihood of companies’ brands being held to ransom by cybersquatters.
Senior associate Tracey Singlehurst-Ward said: “Many businesses have expressed fears that these new web addresses will create a wave of legal disputes, and it looks like those fears are justified. UK firms are having to spend time and money fending off cybersquatters and rival companies who have managed to register one of the new generation of web addresses with their company name in it.
“The worry is that businesses’ customers will be confused by the rival web addresses. Online brands are absolutely vital to most businesses now, and the web address is an important part of that.
“Many businesses are taking a proactive approach and registering protective web addresses which cybersquatters may otherwise have targeted. Provided the registration is proper on their part, this may prevent them from having to enter into a dispute in the future. However, the surge in disputes we’re seeing shows that many businesses are being pipped to the post by cybersquatters, meaning they have to launch a claim to prevent the misuse of their brand.”
To successfully prevent another business from using their brand in a domain, businesses have to prove that the domain address is confusingly similar to a trademark or unregistered mark they own; that the domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interest in the mark or name; and that the domain was registered in bad faith by the other business or individual to undermine the trademark holder.
