Trademark and Domain Name Conflicts: How to Combat Cybersquatting via UDRP

In the digital era, a domain name is not only the entry point to an enterprise's online presence but also a crucial vessel of brand value. However, as domain name registration becomes more accessible, the conflicts between malicious domain squatting and trademark rights are becoming increasingly frequent. When a company’s trademark is registered as a domain by others and used for improper purposes, how can it efficiently defend its rights? The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), a globally recognized dispute resolution mechanism, has become a key tool for combating cybersquatting.

I. The Root of Trademark and Domain Name Conflicts

There is a fundamental conflict between the global nature of domain names and the territorial nature of trademark rights. According to the rules of ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), domain names follow a "first-come, first-served" principle, while trademark rights are subject to national or regional laws. This structural difference gives cybersquatters an opportunity to exploit the system:

Types of Cybersquatting:

Domain Hoarding: Mass registration of domains related to well-known trademarks.
Phishing Websites: Impersonating brands to commit fraud.
Domain Hijacking: Demanding high ransoms from trademark holders for reclaiming the domain.

Typical Case: Luxury brand Hermès once faced the domain “hermesbags.com” being squatted. Through the UDRP procedure, they successfully reclaimed the domain.

II. UDRP Framework: Core Rules and Application Scenarios

Introduced by ICANN in 1999, the UDRP aims to provide trademark holders and domain registrants with a low-cost and efficient dispute resolution process. The policy hinges on three key criteria:

1. Legitimate Trademark Rights:
The complainant must prove they have legally protected rights in the trademark associated with the disputed domain (e.g., a registered trademark or a common law mark established through use).

2. Bad Faith Registration and Use:
The complainant must show that the respondent registered or used the domain in bad faith. Examples include:

Intent to sell the domain at a significant profit (e.g., a price far exceeding registration costs).
Disruption of a competitor’s business (e.g., registering “apple-phone.com” to sell competing products).
Creating confusion or misleading consumers (e.g., designing the site to resemble an official brand site).

3. Lack of Legitimate Interest:
The respondent must be unable to demonstrate legitimate interests in the domain (e.g., not using it for a genuine business purpose or for fair criticism).

Authorized Providers:
UDRP cases can be filed with ICANN-accredited providers such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC). The process typically takes 45–60 days and costs between $1,000 and $5,000.

III. Key Strategies for Winning a UDRP Case

1. A Complete Chain of Evidence

Trademark Rights: Submit trademark registration certificates, usage records, and evidence of market impact (e.g., advertising expenditures, media coverage).
Bad Faith Evidence: Collect emails where the respondent demands an excessive transfer fee, screenshots of the domain linking to infringing content, or historical WHOIS records (e.g., frequent ownership changes to evade accountability).
Industry Precedents: Cite similar past cases to strengthen arguments (e.g., the WIPO case on “Oppo mobile domain dispute”).

2. Choose the Right Dispute Resolution Provider

Institutional Tendencies: WIPO is known for strong protection of well-known trademarks, while some regional centers may prioritize local language or legal considerations.
Language Support: For domains in non-English scripts (e.g., Pinyin domains), select a provider that supports the relevant language.

3. Anticipate Respondent Defenses

Common Arguments: The respondent may argue that the domain was registered before the trademark application (requiring evidence of the trademark's acquired fame), or claim the domain is used for fair commentary (which must be disproven with evidence).
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Risk: If the complainant abuses the UDRP process to wrongfully seize a legitimate domain, they may be found guilty of “reverse domain name hijacking” and face legal consequences.

Conclusion:
UDRP serves as a vital international mechanism to address trademark-domain name conflicts. For companies, proactively protecting their digital assets and understanding the strategic use of UDRP can be key to maintaining brand integrity in the online world.

Share this page