Cryptoassets and intellectual property infringement: which jurisdiction?

For thirty years, comparative private international law has sought uniform answers to online infringement; blockchain radicalises the question. The infringing cryptoasset — NFT or decentralised domain name — is everywhere at once, which in private international law amounts to nowhere. The article tests four connecting factors. Dispute resolution clauses: improbable between right holder and infringer. The defendant’s domicile (forum rei): undermined by decentralisation and anonymity. The place of the causal event: minting occurs across IPFS nodes scattered over multiple jurisdictions, impossible to locate. The place of damage: courts hesitate between accessibility and targeting (“focus”), leaving victims to choose between an unavailable forum and costly multi-jurisdictional litigation. The author’s pragmatic conclusion: when the direct perpetrator cannot be identified, turn to the intermediaries — platforms such as OpenSea or Rarible — identifiable defendants in an ecosystem designed to have none.

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

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

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

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

16 February 2023

Jurisdiction

Industry

Related Decision(s)

Please select listing to show.

Filter articles

Filter for Topics
Filter for Industries
Filter for Jurisdictions