Decentralized domain names: the need for discussion between operators and intellectual property right holders

They are called blockchain domain names, Web3 domains, crypto domains or decentralised domain names — and their operators, Unstoppable Domains or the Ethereum Name Service, promote them as censorship-proof: no issuer can dispossess the holder of his private key. That strength is precisely the legal weakness the article dissects: outside ICANN’s framework, there is no UDRP, no accredited registrar, no takedown, hence no predictability for trademark, design or copyright holders facing infringing names. The author’s warning to operators is direct: without IP-protection mechanisms, they expose themselves to contributory infringement liability — the Harley-Davidson v. SunFrog precedent and its USD 19.2 million in statutory damages showing the scale of the risk. His proposal: a concerted framework, either transposing the notification-and-takedown procedures of the ICANN world, or building an alternative model together with right holders.

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

.ROBOT: A CryptoTLD Aiming for Its DNS Twin

Unstoppable Domains announced on 3 November 2025 its intention to apply for the .ROBOT top-level domain in ICANN's 2026 round, in partnership with the 0G Foundation. The ambition: a namespace dedicated to robotics and artificial intelligence operating simultaneously in the traditional DNS and on the 0G blockchain, where a Web3 pre-sale is already live with minting expected in early 2026. The article uses this case to explain the emerging 'twinTLD' model — a blockchain extension seeking its exact double in the DNS to preserve on-chain functionality while gaining Web2 legitimacy. It also anticipates the procedural path ahead: possible competing applications, ICANN evaluations and objections, and a potential last-resort auction. For brand owners, the article recommends defensive registrations, multi-domain blocking mechanisms and closer monitoring of on-chain activity, as Web2 and Web3 identities increasingly need to be managed as one continuum.

4 November 2025
Initially published on iptwins.com

Tracing and Disclosure: Belgium Enlists Registrars in the Fight Against Sports Piracy

Registrars are no longer asked only who holds a domain name, but how that holder pays. On 19 August 2026, Belgium’s Department for Combating Online Infringements of Copyright (BAPO) issued five decisions ordering Hosting Concepts, Hostinger, Key Systems and one registry to disclose, within ten working days, data on the holders of domain names used by illegal sports streaming sites. Implementing orders obtained by DAZN and The 12th Player before the French-speaking Business Court of Brussels, and relying on Article 10 of the Digital Services Act and Articles XVII.34/1 et seq. of the Code of Economic Law, the request goes far beyond WHOIS: identities, full IBANs, crypto wallets, IP addresses and twelve months of connection logs, under a strict duty of silence. Measured against the case law of the Court of Justice (Promusicae, Mircom, Coty Germany, La Quadrature du Net), this “follow the money” turn raises questions of territoriality, proportionality and data protection, and opens a path that online brand protection may one day borrow.

22 September 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Lacoste v Shein: When a Platform Can No Longer Hide Behind Hosting Status

A platform is not one legal object. In Lacoste v Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. and Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd. (Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 1, 8 July 2026, RG 25/12454), the Court of Appeal refused to let the operators of shein.com shelter behind the hosting exemption of Article 6 of the Digital Services Act: goods “sold by Shein”, Shein labels and packaging, and the Commission’s designation of the service as a very large online platform revealed a hybrid activity, and the characterisation attached not to the platform as a whole but to the role actually played in the disputed transactions. The judgment reaches beyond the twenty offending products. “Lacoste”, typed into the internal search engine, infringes the word marks; “crocodile”, a free word, grounds unfair competition and parasitism. Interim damages rise from €30,000 to €300,000 — the defendants’ own failure to disclose their turnover counting against them — and the measures run across the European Union.

28 August 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

30 August 2022

Jurisdiction

Industry

Related Decision(s)

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of WisconsinHarley-Davidson v. SunFrog (19,2 M USD de dommages-intérêts légaux)
Please select listing to show.

Filter articles

Filter for Topics
Filter for Industries
Filter for Jurisdictions