Emmanuel Gillet

Domain Name Law

Domain names: collection of recent extrajudicial procedures that could have been avoided

Through some fifteen recent WIPO proceedings — lego.art, auchan.online, kiehls.boutique, sezane.fashion, pinktv.live, oranje.casino, dalkia.ninja, zameen.ae, allergy.partners, unique.photo, hertz.gold, sofitel.vip, petits-fils.com, ivy-hill.com, groupesamse.eu — the article demonstrates a simple thesis: most of these disputes could have been avoided by preventive registration. The recommended strategy extends the “twinning rule” (one trademark, one domain name) beyond the historical TLDs (.com, .net, .org, .info) to the sector-specific extensions matching the brand’s activity and the geographic extensions matching its trademark territories, completed by surveillance covering typosquatting in every script — and, for compound names, by registering hyphenated and unhyphenated forms alike. The arithmetic concludes: the cost of a single extrajudicial procedure covers decades of renewals.

Read the article on IPTwins ↗︎

Read next

Domain Name Law

COSHIELD: The Scope of the UDRP in Trademark Disputes

Not every dispute involving a trade mark and a domain name amounts to cybersquatting. In Polyco Healthline Limited v. David Beatson (WIPO Case No. D2026-1893), the panelist denied the complaint brought against coshield.com, a domain used since 2020 to sell personal protective equipment in the very sector where the complainant has exploited its SHIELD trade mark since 1997, and despite a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in 2021. The decision turns on the moment of acquisition: created in 2014, the domain name appears to have changed hands in May 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the combination of “Co” and “Shield” could describe the business rather than target Polyco. The evidence being “finely balanced”, bad faith was not established. This article examines why trade mark infringement and cybersquatting are two paths that do not necessarily converge.

Cybersquatting · Domain Name Law · Trademark Law · UDRP
23 August 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com
Domain Name Law

Football Clubs and Cybersquatting: When a Domain Name Becomes the Infrastructure of Abuse

Football clubs have become prime targets for cybersquatters, but abusive domain names are no longer used merely to divert web traffic or exploit a club's reputation. Increasingly, they form part of a broader criminal infrastructure supporting phishing campaigns, counterfeit merchandise, fake ticket sales, fraudulent streaming platforms, cryptocurrency scams and other forms of online fraud. Drawing on an analysis of more than one hundred UDRP decisions involving football clubs from around the world, this article identifies the principal patterns of abuse, the domain name strategies adopted by cybersquatters, and the legal reasoning developed by UDRP panels. It highlights how attackers exploit supporters' trust by combining famous club names with terms relating to tickets, official stores, memberships, academies, streaming services or digital assets. Beyond the case law, the article argues that domain names have become a critical component of cybercrime ecosystems. It therefore examines the practical implications for brand owners and rights holders, emphasizing the importance of proactive domain name strategies, continuous monitoring and rapid enforcement mechanisms. The article concludes with practical recommendations to help football clubs and other rights holders strengthen their online brand protection in an increasingly complex digital environment.

Brand Monitoring · ccTLD Disputes · Combosquatting · Counterfeiting · Cybersquatting · Domain Name Monitoring · Marketplace Enforcement · New gTLDs · Phishing · Social Media Enforcement · Trademark Law · Typosquatting · UDRP
19 July 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com
Third-Party Liability

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.

Counterfeiting · Court Litigation · European Digital Law · Marketplace Enforcement · Trademark Law
28 August 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com
Domain Name Law

COSHIELD: The Scope of the UDRP in Trademark Disputes

Not every dispute involving a trade mark and a domain name amounts to cybersquatting. In Polyco Healthline Limited v. David Beatson (WIPO Case No. D2026-1893), the panelist denied the complaint brought against coshield.com, a domain used since 2020 to sell personal protective equipment in the very sector where the complainant has exploited its SHIELD trade mark since 1997, and despite a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in 2021. The decision turns on the moment of acquisition: created in 2014, the domain name appears to have changed hands in May 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the combination of “Co” and “Shield” could describe the business rather than target Polyco. The evidence being “finely balanced”, bad faith was not established. This article examines why trade mark infringement and cybersquatting are two paths that do not necessarily converge.

Cybersquatting · Domain Name Law · Trademark Law · UDRP
23 August 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

← All articles

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

29 September 2021

Jurisdiction

WIPO

Topics

Cybersquatting · Domain Name Monitoring · Online Brand Protection · UDRP

Industry

Related Decision(s)

D2021-2205WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterLEGO Juris A/S ()
D2021-1180WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterELO v. Chao Yue ()2021-08-05
D2021-1636WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterL’Oréal v. KHALID Ajan ()2021-07-12
D2021-2248WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterBenda Bili v. François Joseph de Boissieu ()2021-08-18
D2021-2415WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterPINK TV ()2021-09-13
D2021-1228WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterBML Group Limited ()2021-07-20
D2021-2100WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterDalkia (, procédure terminée)
DAE2021-0002WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterZameen Media (Private) Limited v. Rashed Saeed Saif Aleter Aldhanani ()2021-02-16
D2021-1341WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterAllergy Partners, PLLC v. Gabriella Garlo ()2021-06-20
D2021-1461WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterUnique Photo, Inc. (, procédure terminée)
D2021-1663WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterHertz System, Inc. v. Gabriella Garlo ()2021-07-13
D2016-1919WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterAccor et SoLuxury HMC v. He Yong Jian ()2016-11-09
D2021-1235WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterPETITS-FILS v. Domain Admin, Hush WhoIs Protection Ltd. ()2021-06-07
D2021-1898WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterIvy Hill Asset Management, L.P. ()2021-08-24
DEU2021-0012WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterSociété SAMSE v. Nicolas Mabileau ()2021-06-20
Please select listing to show.

Filter articles

Filter for Topics
Filter for Industries
Filter for Jurisdictions