Emmanuel Gillet

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.

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

What the BVLGARI Case Teaches About Domain Extension Strategy

The expansion of the domain name system has fundamentally changed the legal significance of top-level domains (TLDs). While UDRP panels have traditionally regarded the TLD as a largely technical element that plays little role in assessing confusing similarity, the decision concerning bvlgari.bar and bvlgari.baby demonstrates that this approach is evolving. The panel considered that the semantic meaning of the extensions reinforced the association with BVLGARI’s business activities, making the disputed domain names more likely to mislead Internet users and supporting findings of confusing similarity, lack of rights or legitimate interests, and bad faith registration and use. Beyond analysing the decision itself, the article argues that not all domain name extensions carry the same legal or commercial significance. As the number of descriptive and industry-specific TLDs continues to expand, their contextual meaning may increasingly influence cybersquatters’ strategies, consumers’ perceptions and panels’ reasoning. The article concludes that brand owners should adopt a more selective and risk-based approach to domain name portfolio management, prioritising defensive registrations and monitoring efforts in extensions that are particularly relevant to their products, services or industry.

Brand Monitoring · Cybersquatting · Domain Name Monitoring · New gTLDs · Trademark Law · Typosquatting · UDRP

12 July 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

Domain Name Governance

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.

Cybersecurity · Cybersquatting · Domain Name Law · Domain Name System · ICANN · Online Brand Protection · UDRP

28 September 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

← All articles

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

19 July 2026

Jurisdiction

Forum, Nominet, WIPO

Topics

Brand Monitoring · ccTLD Disputes · Combosquatting · Counterfeiting · Cybersquatting · Domain Name Monitoring · Marketplace Enforcement · New gTLDs · Phishing · Social Media Enforcement · Trademark Law · Typosquatting · UDRP

Industry

Related Decision(s)

Please select listing to show.