Emmanuel Gillet

Domain Name Law

Enhancing transparency in domain name disputes: the case for including registration agreement language in WhoIs data

Under Article 11 of the UDRP Rules, the language of the proceedings is determined by the language of the domain name’s registration agreement. Yet that language does not appear in WhoIs data: a trademark owner preparing a complaint must guess it from the registrar’s website — often available in several languages, as with GoDaddy — or from a country field that is unreliable, especially where privacy services mask the registrant’s location or in multilingual regions. The article argues that this opacity can be exploited by cybersquatters and generates procedural inefficiencies, with providers requesting translations and resubmissions. It highlights the pragmatic solution implemented by EURid, which displays the language of the registration contract directly in WhoIs data, and calls on ICANN to adopt the same approach to make UDRP proceedings more transparent and efficient.

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

Online Trademark Infringement: When the Corporate Veil Does Not Shield the Director

In a judgment of 7 October 2026 (No. 25-14.170), designated for publication in the Bulletin and the Rapport, the Commercial Chamber of the French Court of Cassation clarified when the manager of an SARL may be held personally liable for trademark infringement committed through the company's e-commerce website. First, the civil court must determine whether the acts personally attributed to the manager constitute the intentional criminal offence of trademark infringement under Article L. 716-10 of the French Intellectual Property Code. If they do, the offence is misconduct separable from corporate duties under Article L. 223-22 of the Commercial Code, and no prior criminal conviction is needed. Second, the manager's refusal to ensure compliance with a court order requiring the company to produce accounting and commercial documents is itself separable misconduct, even though the order was addressed to the company and not to him. Rights holders thus have two independent routes to the director's personal liability.

Counterfeiting · Court Litigation · Online Brand Protection · Trademark Law

26 October 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

Domain Name Governance

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.

Artificial Intelligence · Domain Name System · dotBrand · ICANN · New gTLDs · Online Brand Protection · Trademark Law

9 October 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

← All articles

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

1 March 2024

Jurisdiction

Topics

ICANN · UDRP · WHOIS & Registration Data

Industry

Related Decision(s)

Please select listing to show.