Emmanuel Gillet

Domain Name Law

Pru.com: a lack of prudence, a bluff, a fluke, and a success

Registered in 1997, the three-letter domain pru.com was sold around late 2016 to China's Shenzhen Stone Network Information (SSN) for roughly USD 100,000 — with insurer Prudential, owner of the PRU brand since 2002, missing out. After failed negotiations in 2020, Prudential filed a UDRP complaint and then sued under the ACPA before the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which ordered the transfer in June 2021 — a judgment affirmed by the Fourth Circuit in January 2023. The article dissects why Prudential prevailed: SSN's strategic blunders, from the content of its parking page to belated trademark filings, and the court's notable holding that 'registration' under the ACPA extends to subsequent renewals of a domain. A rich case study on the value of three-character domains and the interplay between UDRP and federal litigation.

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

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

Blockchain & Law

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.

Blockchain · Cybersquatting · Domain Name System · ICANN · New gTLDs · Online Brand Protection · UDRP · URS · Web3 Domains

24 September 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

← All articles

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

4 April 2023

Jurisdiction

Forum, United States

Topics

Court Litigation · Cybersquatting · UDRP

Industry

Related Decision(s)

21-1823U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Shenzhen Stone Network Information Ltd., No. 21-1823, 24 January 2023 (pru.com)2023-01-24

1:20-cv-00450U.S. District Court, Eastern District of VirginiaU.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia, Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Shenzhen Stone Network Information Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-00450, 30 June 2021 (pru.com)2021-06-30

FA1106001392709Forum (National Arbitration Forum)Forum (NAF), Prudential Insurance Co. v. Konstantinos Zournas, Claim No. FA1106001392709, 26 July 2011 (pru.us)2011-07-26

Please select listing to show.