Blockchain arbitration

How does arbitration fare in Web3? The article recalls arbitration's trump card in international crypto disputes: awards enforceable in the 172 states parties to the 1958 New York Convention. Major platforms — OpenSea, Rarible, Unstoppable Domains — already stipulate arbitration clauses in their terms of service, though their validity may be questioned where consent is doubtful, these being contracts of adhesion subject to consumer protection laws. The article then distinguishes three models: off-chain arbitration, conducted under classical institutional rules; on-chain arbitration, whose procedure is embedded in the smart contract with automatic enforcement of the outcome; and crowdsourced arbitration, entrusting decisions to panels of anonymous jurors rewarded when they vote with the majority — whose verdicts, the author notes, may well not qualify as enforceable arbitral awards. It closes by asking whether UDRP-style policies could inspire dispute mechanisms for NFTs and crypto-domains implicating intellectual property.

DNS and Web3: How Can We Avoid Importing Cryptosquatting into the DNS?

The DNS and blockchain-based alternative naming systems are converging, with projects such as .BLOCKCHAIN and the .ROBOT cryptoTLD seeking to operate the same string in both worlds. In August 2026, ICANN's Technical Study Group released an Initial Report on integrating gTLDs with alternative naming systems, built on a "string + controller" principle: the same name must remain under the same control across systems, with its status kept in sync. In September 2026, the SSAC supported this synchronisation but noted that applying the UDRP and the URS becomes difficult when a registrant exists only in an alternative system, without conventional registration data. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center warns that cybersquatting is already widespread in these systems: mapping names automatically into the DNS would import existing infringements. Trademark owners therefore need functionally equivalent protection mechanisms, including a way to prevent infringing names from being activated, as initiatives like Unstoppable Domains joining GlobalBlock have begun to show.

24 September 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Web3: New Opportunities and Growing Threats for Brands

Web3 offers brands a double-edged frontier. On the opportunity side, NFTs let houses like Nike and Gucci engage consumers through virtual experiences and authenticated digital goods. On the threat side, anyone can mint an NFT reproducing a trademark — the MetaBirkins litigation (Hermès v. Rothschild) being the emblematic case — and blockchain domains such as .eth or .sol live in a decentralised, minimally regulated space with no equivalent of the UDRP. Litigation remains costly and out of reach for most brands, while decentralisation defeats traditional enforcement and calls for international cooperation. The article closes with a proactive playbook: register trademarks in classes 9 and 42, monitor NFT marketplaces actively, pursue rapid takedowns, and secure blockchain domains before others do — because in Web3, prevention is worth far more than cure.

11 February 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Rush and Distribution: A Sector Map of the 2026 Reveal Day

On 7 October 2026, ICANN published the applications filed in the first new gTLD round since 2012: 1,614 primary applications for 986 distinct strings, submitted by 480 entities. That is fewer than in 2012 (1,930 applications for 1,409 strings), with evaluation fees now at USD 227,000, but the round is more contested: 55% of applications face a competitor, against 39% in 2012. Assigning each string to a sector reveals a demand driven by digital technology. Artificial intelligence is the most fiercely disputed sector, with .AGENT drawing thirteen applicants, and the leading AI companies have secured their own names. Brands have responded with restraint: 333 .BRAND applications, one in five, only nine of them French. Geographic names, so prominent in 2012, have almost disappeared, while niches such as health and the professions are emerging, including a community application for .AVOCAT. For trademark owners, the priority is to screen the list before the objection period opens on 17 November 2026.

9 October 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

DNS Abuse: How Can Domain Names Linked to the Same Actor Be Connected?

On 18 August 2026, ICANN published for public comment the Initial Report of its DNS Abuse Mitigation Policy Development Process (PDP 1). Among its proposals are Associated Domain Checks: when a registrar acts on an abuse report, it should also examine the other domain names held by the same customer. In its comments of 25 September 2026, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center supports the approach but points out its main limitation: the checks stop at the edge of a single registrar's portfolio. Bad actors know this and spread their registrations across several registrars, which hampers consolidated UDRP proceedings. WIPO suggests exploring cross-registrar mechanisms without saying which data could link the names. The article argues that payment data, pseudonymised, could serve as that common denominator, while acknowledging its limits (prepaid cards, fraud, multiple payment methods): an indicator rather than proof. It marks a shift from a one-domain, one-investigation logic to a network approach.

28 September 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

16 February 2023

Jurisdiction

Topics

Industry

Related Decision(s)

Please select listing to show.

Filter articles

Filter for Topics
Filter for Industries
Filter for Jurisdictions