The Freename Forum

The French trade mark protection company IP Twins has published a study on out-of-court dispute resolution procedures under country code top level domains. Even though the UDRP is generally held in high regard, it is only one of several possible solutions.

In December 2024, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) celebrates its 25th birthday. Introduced for disputes over domain names with generic endings (gTLDs) such as .com, .net or .shop, numerous country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) have now adopted the UDRP in unchanged form, namely .ag, .ai, .as, .bm, .bs, .bz, .cc, .cd, .co, .cv, .cy, .dj, .ec, .fj, .fm, . ga, .gd, .gt, .la, .lc, .md, .me, .mg, .mw, .nr, .nu, .pa, .pk, .pn, .pr, .pw, .ro, .sc, .sl, .sn, .so, .tj, .tt, .tv, .ug, .ve, .vg and . ws; there are also a number of country extensions such as .ac, .br, .ch, .es or .lv, whose dispute resolution procedure is based on the UDRP but is not identical to it. In a 12-page ‘white paper’, which can be downloaded free of charge by providing some personal details, IP Twins has attempted to provide an overview of the various dispute resolution procedures that apply worldwide for the 239 ccTLDs analysed. Regional differences and the respective arbitration courts that conduct these proceedings are emphasised. The aim is to inform and better protect trade mark owners in order to curb the misuse of domains.

According to IP Twins' research, a total of 153 ccTLDs offer an out-of-court dispute resolution procedure. Of these, 114 are subject to the UDRP or a similar procedure for which, for example, additional criteria must be met to prove bad faith, where the procedure is extended to rights beyond registered trademarks or for which a specific procedural language is prescribed; the remaining 39 ccTLDs rely on their own procedure. In Europe, the Americas and Oceania, more than 65 per cent of the countries surveyed have introduced formal dispute resolution mechanisms; in the Americas and Oceania, the UDRP is very frequently applicable at around 35 per cent. Europe shows its particularity with a very high availability rate of an out-of-court procedure, which almost 75 per cent of domain endings offer. In Africa, on the other hand, only half of the countries analysed have implemented dispute resolution policies for their ccTLDs. This is due to limited resources, a more heterogeneous level of digital use and national priorities focussing on other aspects of digital development. It should not be forgotten, however, that in over 35 per cent of countries worldwide there is no out-of-court dispute resolution procedure for domains. This lack of formal mechanisms increases the risks for rights holders, as there is often no quick or easily accessible way to resolve domain disputes out of court. Conversely, this means that trade mark owners or other intellectual property rights holders often have to resort to lengthy, costly and complex legal proceedings to combat problems such as cybersquatting.

The study also mentions Germany, for whose country ending .de there is no out-of-court dispute resolution procedure. In this country - as in Luxembourg - the so-called dispute entry is used. To this end, the claimant must prove to DENIC eG that they could have a right to the disputed domain; a domain with a dispute entry can then continue to be used by its holder, but cannot be transferred to a third party. However, it is up to the domain holder himself to pursue his asserted right and, if necessary, enforce it in civil court. According to IP Twins, this approach represents a minimalist procedure.

Further information can be found at:
https://iptwins.com/2024/11/07/study-on ... worldwide/

You can find DENIC's dispute service (in German) at:
https://www.denic.de/service/dispute