Category Archives: Domain Name Disputes

U.S. Seizes Domain Names Used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

[news release] The United States has seized 92 domain names that were unlawfully used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to engage in a global disinformation campaign, announced the Department of Justice.

Continue reading U.S. Seizes Domain Names Used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Facebook Files Lawsuit Against India-based Proxy Service Over Deceptive Domains

Facebook has filed a lawsuit against the India-based proxy service Compsys Domain Solutions Private Ltd. over the registration of domain names that were designed to deceive people by impersonating the social media giant’s family of apps, like:, and

Continue reading Facebook Files Lawsuit Against India-based Proxy Service Over Deceptive Domains

Bizarre Plot Sees Man Jailed For Plotting Domain Name Theft At Gunpoint

An American man has been sentenced to 14 years in jail after being convicted of having his cousin try to hijack a domain name from another man at gunpoint, reports Associated Press. Rossi Lorathio Adams II from Cedar rapids, Iowa, aged 27, was sentenced to the federal prison term following his conviction in April of one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by force, threats and violence. Adams also must pay restitution and court fees.

According to the report, Adams founded social media company State Snaps, whose followers often used the slogan “Do It For State!” Adams repeatedly tried to buy the domain from another Cedar Rapids man, but the owner refused to sell.

“In 2017, Adams convinced his cousin, Sherman Hopkins Jr., to break into the domain owner’s house, where he tried to force him at gunpoint to transfer the domain to Adams. During a struggle, Hopkins and the domain owner were shot but both survived. Hopkins was sentenced last year to 20 years in prison for the crime.”

In another report from Forbes, it says “for the better part of three years, Adams’ State Snaps account, founded while he was at Iowa State University, documented all sorts of college debauchery. Adams racked up more than 1.5 million followers along the way. … Operating on Instagram and Twitter, but doing the largest portion of its posting on Snapchat, State Snaps allowed students to submit clips and photos of their most outrageous behaviour.”

But Adams coveted the domain name which he didn’t have. He attempted to purchase it from the registrant multiple times between 2015 and 2017 according to the Department of Justice, but the domain owner had no interest in selling. So Adams tried to steal it, recruiting his cousin, already a felon and living in a homeless shelter at the time, Adams wanted his cousin to break into the registrant’s home and threaten him at gunpoint to give up the website, according to Forbes.

“On June 21, 2017, Adams drove his cousin to the owner’s house, gave him a demand note with instructions on how to transfer ownership of the domain to Adams’ GoDaddy account. Adams’ cousin entered the domain holder’s home with a cellphone, stolen gun and taser in hand while wearing a hat, pantyhose over his head and dark sunglasses to cover his eyes. The domain holder, upstairs in his home, spotted the intruder at the bottom of the steps and tried to lock himself in his room. Adams’ cousin kicked open the door, grabbed the domain holder by the arm and demanded access to his computer. He placed the gun to the man’s head and told him to follow the directions in the note provided by Adams. The intruder hit the domain holder in the head multiple times with the pistol, which resulted in the domain holder entering into a struggle to gain control of the gun. He was shot in the leg during the struggle, but took possession of the firearm and shot Adams’ cousin in the chest multiple times before calling the police.”

Adams “will also have to pay nearly $9,000 in restitution, including $1,477.60 to the victim and domain holder. Most remnants of the State Snaps accounts have disappeared from the internet and have been suspended by Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter for violating terms of service. Adams’ sentencing seems to close the chapter on the brief run of the Do It For State movement.”

WIPO Conference To Look Back At 20 Years Of UDRP

The WIPO-designed Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) turns 20 this year and to commemorate they’re holding a conference at their Geneva headquarters on 21 October.

The conference, As the UDRP Turns 20: Looking Back, Looking Ahead, will take stock and look ahead in terms of UDRP jurisprudence, ADR system design, relevant Internet developments, and a range of other topical subjects.

In the 20 years it’s existed, WIPO’s UDRP has adjudicated over 45,000 cases and this milestone will be commemorated. WIPO will not hold its traditional two-day Advanced Domain Name Workshop this year.

The conference is aimed at the more than 100 attending UDRP Panellists as well as brand owners, trademark practitioners, party counsel, registrars, ccTLD administrators, academics, and other domain name and Internet stakeholders.

Participants can register online. The fee for the event is CHF 250 and space is limited; refunds for cancellations will be permitted up to 7 October. There is also a conference page here.

WIPO Now Providing Dispute Resolution Services for .CN and .中国

WIPO have announced that as of 1 August they began providing domain name dispute resolution services for .CN and .中国 (China).

In their announcement, the World Intellectual Property Organization note the services are pursuant to the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (.CN Policy), the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy Rules (.CN Rules), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy and China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy Rules (WIPO Supplemental Rules).

For those wishing to lodge disputes, they should consult the dedicated page for .CN and .中国 domain name dispute resolution services, including links to the above policy and procedural rules, model pleadings and case fees.

The page also features a comparison table highlighting the differences between the .CN Policy and the UDRP.

Under the WIPO-initiated Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) the WIPO Center has processed some 44,000 cases. WIPO also provides its domain name services for over 75 Country Code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) as well as a number of generic top-level domain including .com and a number of new gTLDs to which the UDRP applies.

Confusing The Similarity Of Trademark Law In Domain Name Disputes

This article by Professor Christine Haight Farley originally published in the Akron Law Review anticipates doctrinal disorder in domain name disputes as a result of the new generic top-level domains (gTLDs).

The abstract for the article goes on to say that in the course of the intense and prolonged debate over the possibility of new gTLDs, no one seems to have focused on the conspicuous fact that domain name disputes incorporating new gTLDs will be markedly different from the first-generation domain name disputes under previous gTLDs.

Now second-generation disputes will have the added feature of the domain name having a suffix that will likely be a generic word, geographic term, or trademark. This addition is significant. Rather than disputes over <>, we will have disputes over <mcdonalds.ancestry>.

Before these new gTLDs, Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) panels have routinely ignored the gTLD portion of the domain concluding that the suffix is inconsequential to their determinations of confusing similarity. This approach has already changed. While this change may seem trivial especially in a non-precedential system, the consequence of this change may be profound for trademark owners’ rights on the internet and portend a fundamental shift in how trademarks will be called upon to pick winners and losers in this new land grab.

It’s a 29-page article, which in its conclusion says:

The stated objective of the New gTLD Program was to enhance competition and consumer choice and enable the benefits of innovation via the introduction of new gTLDs. That objective would imply that new second-level domains should be widely available for registration. Registrants should be forewarned, however, that any second-level domain name registration that contains a trademark may be found to be confusingly similar even though the new gTLD should indicate to internet users that the domain name would not belong to the trademark owner. Continued lowering of the threshold as to what constitutes a “confusingly similar” domain name may make most of the newly created domain names subject to trademark holder takeover.

Currently the article by Farley, who is a Professor at the American University Washington College of Law, is currently only available publicly on the Social Science Research Network here.

.CL Registrants Get Free Legal Assistance in Disputes

Registrants of .cl domain names that become caught up in disputes regarding their domains may now be eligible for free legal assistance in a programme NIC Chile has facilitated.

The programme is offered through an alliance of legal clinics at Chilean university law faculties. It’s aimed at helping registrants, mostly for individuals and small businesses, who may not have the resources to defend disputes.

NIC Chile, the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) manager for .cl, will not take a position in these disputes but believes it is necessary to offer registrants who opt for this benefit the possibility of being advised by entities independent of NIC Chile. The legal advice will be given by undergraduate and graduate law students, with the guidance of their professors, can work on improving the conditions of defense of users of .CL domains.

The advice involves assigning academic value to the work of the legal consultancy, so that students can acquire the tools to represent the client in this online arbitration system, which dispenses with the traditional class teaching.

Initially the programme began with a pilot involving 3 universities:

  • Finis Terrae University, SME Legal Clinic
  • Catholic University of the North, legal clinic
  • Catholic University of the Most Holy conception, legal clinic.

The results of the pilot programme were positive and based on the good results, NIC Chile say other registries have shown an interest in replicating the service. Following the success of the pilot phase the program is incorporated as a permanent service available to all .cl registrants that are involved in domain name disputes and who comply with the eligibility conditions established by each participating law faculty.

The original NIC Chile announcement is available only in Spanish here and for accuracy this should be consulted.

New .EU and .ЕЮ Registrations Continue to Grow, But Total Registrations Drop

There were 171,667 new .eu and .ею domain name registrations in the fourth quarter of 2018, but despite this growth, total domains under management decreased from 3,747,879 as of 31 October to 3,684,750 at 31 December according to EURid's Q4 2018 Progress Report released last week.

Portugal, Norway and Cyprus, as in the third quarter of 2018, were again the countries with the highest growth with 13.2%, 9.1% and 4.9% respectively for the fourth quarter (11.0%, 9.9% and 10.1% respectively for Q3), according to the report [pdf].

Annually, the countries with the top growth to the end of December were Cyprus (46.0%), Portugal (35.6%) and Romania (34.0%).

Leading the countries with the biggest declines was the United Kingdom largely if not entirely due to Brexit and eligibility uncertainty with a 24.1% decline for year and 11.8% for the quarter taking total registrations for the UK to 240,887, down from 317,286 at the end of December 2017.

Another reason for the decline is EURid’s ramped up efforts towards tackling domain name abuse within .eu, deleting over 36,000 suspended domain names in October alone.

The top ten countries for .eu registrations were Germany with 989,432 registrations, down 0.6% for the quarter, followed by Netherlands (474,697 and down 5.5%), France (330,323 and down 1.9%), Italy (267,465 and up 1.1%), Poland (265,571 and up 1.1%), UK (240,887 and down 11.8%), Czech Republic (156,868 and up 0.7%), Austria (153,939 and down 4.8%), Belgium (141,343 and up 0.9%) and Spain (116,985 and up 1.0%).

The average renewal rate for the 2 top level domains was 77%, up 3% since Q3.

A major development in the fourth quarter was the unveiling of the 2018 .eu Web Awards winners. Overall, the nomination and voting period for the 5th iteration of the .eu Web Awards tallied over 130 nominees with more than 9,500 votes. The finalists attended the gala on 21 November 2018, where the winners were announced.

Another meaningful development from the quarter was EURid’s continued participation in CodeWeek. Aiming to make a beneficial impact on today’s youth, EURid built upon last year’s efforts with even more workshops and interactive sessions for children to take part in, all in an effort to teach them the fundamentals of coding and programming.

The full report is available from:

UK Retailer ASOS Seeks Ownership of “Collusion” In Domain Names

British clothing giant ASOS is seeking ownership of the word “collusion” in domain names according to a cease and desist letter sent to an EFF client. According to a post on the EFF blog, their client’s “domain doesn’t have anything to do with clothing—it’s about contemporary U.S. political debates. It is about as far from trademark infringement as possible.” Tuesday EFF sent a response letter demanding ASOS withdraw its baseless threat.

In their post, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) explains the full backstory as “something of a Russian nesting doll of stupidity. It begins with Rudy Giuliani, former New York mayor and current attorney to President Donald Trump. Last year, some Twitter users noticed that Mr. Giuliani was making typographical errors in his tweets in a way that inadvertently created well-formed URLs. A September 15, 2018 tweet read, in part, as follows: ‘#REALNEWS: Woodward says no evidence of collusion.So does Manafort’s team.’”

“After seeing this tweet, our client registered ‘’ and directed the URL to the Lawfare blog’s coverage of connections between President Trump and Russia. Other people have also registered the domain names of Giuliani typos. Giuliani, who was once named a cybersecurity advisor to Trump, falsely claimed that Twitter was ‘invading’ his tweets.”

“What does this have to do with clothes, you ask? Well, in October 2018, Asos launched a new clothing line called ‘Collusion.’ It describes Collusion as ‘a new fashion brand offering bold, experimental, inclusive styles for the coming age.’ Not content with a vaguely dystopian branding choice, Asos followed up by sending a threatening letter to our client claiming that the registration of infringes its trademark.”

“Asos’s lawyers are accusing our client of ‘taking unfair advantage of ASOS’ reputation in the COLLUSION brand and the COLLUSION trade mark by luring customers to your website for your own gain.’ This is absurd. Our client wasn’t even aware of the Collusion brand until Asos sent its letter. Our client registered as a satirical comment on Giuliani’s tweet and the state of U.S. politics. No one is going to confuse Lawfare’s Trump-Russia coverage with Asos’s self-described ‘ultimate youth label.’”

But ASOS and their lawyers didn’t do their homework. EFF’s client registered their domain name before Asos launched its Collusion label and further, “the URL points to a page about the political meaning of collusion—not to anything about clothing.”

“Asos’s letter to our client opens with large-type red text: ‘Failure to respond to this letter may result in further legal action being taken without further notification to you.’ The law firm that sent the threat, Stobbs IP, has a history of abusing the universal domain-name dispute resolution policy, or UDRP, to try to take control of others’ domains. If Stobbs IP tried to do that to our client, it would be yet another attempt at reverse domain hijacking. We hope that Asos and Stobbs IP have enough sense to withdraw their threat.”

German Court Rules Domain Registrars Liable For Some Pirate Site Infringements

A German court has ruled that domain name registrars can be held liable if a website owner is unresponsive to takedown requests, according to a TorrentFreak report, even when the infringing activity is limited to a single page.

The ruling came from the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken who ruled that even a single link can require a registrar to take a domain offline. TorrentFreak reports the case was filed by Universal Music over Robin Thicke’s album Blurred Lines and a now defunct torrent site. A similar order has hit The Pirate Bay as well.

The case first came to be noticed in September 2013 when, one of the most-visited torrent sites at the time, disappeared. TorrentFreak notes the “downtime was initially shrouded in mystery, it later became clear that the site had been targeted in a copyright infringement action.”

“In order to stop the distribution of a copy of Robin Thicke’s album Blurred Lines, Universal Music had obtained an injunction against Key-Systems, a German-based registrar where the domain name was registered.”

Key-Systems appealed the ruling due in part to the precedent it set but at the time had no other option than to comply. Now TorrentFreak reveals the “Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken concluded Key-Systems can be held secondarily liable for the infringing actions of a customer if it fails to take action if rightsholders point out ‘obvious’ copyright infringing activity online.”

“This means that, if a site owner is unresponsive to takedown requests, Key-Systems and other registrars can be required to take a domain name offline, even when the infringing activity is limited to a single page.”

The Bundesverband Musikindustrie (BVMI, German Federal Music Industry Association) has expressed satisfaction with the ruling.

“This is a further important clarification for the benefit of the creative and its partners, which helps ensure that the contours of the adjudicated Internet become increasingly clear and fair,” said René Houareau, Managing Director, Law and Policy at the BVMI [in German].

“The OLG affirms the responsibility of the so-called registrars under clearly defined conditions and are affected rights holders so that another important legal means at hand to defend themselves against the illegal use of their content on the Web.

“As the Registrar, in contrast to an access provider, has a contractual relationship to the one who is actually responsible for the making available of copyright illegal content, the Court here rightly rejects a merely subsidiary liability and in particular with regard to an effective redress in favour of the rights holders.”

However the website in question is no longer online. H33T reappeared first at and later at

TorrentFreak notes how the German ruling can affect other sites and registrars as well. They note a similar legal battle involving the registrar 1 API who lost a case earlier this year that required it them to disconnect several Pirate Bay-related domains.

“The domains in question include,,, and These were already disabled years ago, and are no longer in use, but it confirms that registrars can be required to take action against pirate sites.”

Lawyer Mirko Brüß told TorrentFreak that in this case, the court clarified that registrars not only have to take a domain offline, they should also prevent it from being transferred to another company.

TorrentFreak further reports that the “Pirate Bay’s former registrar 1 API was not allowed to appeal the case any further, but Key-Systems still has the option to take the case to the German Federal Court. This means that the H33T case may not be over yet.”