Coming to terms with Domain Name Disputes.
Countless fledgling businesses across the world have fallen prey to a nasty digital marketing “plan.” Domain name conflicts can occur in a variety of situations. Someone may hold or use a domain name that is deceptively similar to your brand, infringing on your trademark. A rival may register a domain name that includes your trademark and redirect it to a competitor’s website. When a former partner or worker leaves your firm, he or she may try to steal your domain name with them.
For harmful purposes, some people, groups, and even established corporations would shamelessly steal a domain name and link it to a different top-level domain. “Cyber squatters” is a term used to describe them. There are several motivations for this action, one of which is to capitalize on brand awareness generated by the original company’s current digital marketing activities. This sort of fraud may affect anyone, and it’s something that any firm with a digital presence should be aware of.
Assuming that all precautions have been taken to prevent purchasing an already-registered website domain name, the following is the recommended line of action:
Fill out a URS Complaint form.
ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) launched the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) in 2013 as a faster and less expensive mechanism to help domain rights holders settle disputes with domain registrants. This approach may result in the termination of domains in question, among other things. ICANN has assigned three accredited URS providers as of December 2015:
• MFSD MFSD MFSD MFSD MF
• Forum
• ADNDRC Panel (Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre) (National Arbitration Forum)
The problem with handling domain name disputes.
Handling domain name conflicts in a rapidly changing internet are complicated and difficult, not least because of the rapid pace of change.
Other problems that parties in domain name disputes face involve verifying “bad faith registration and use,” domain name concerns being rejected if the wrong parties are labeled, and the simple truth that only one “cybersquatter,” or someone who authenticates, traffics, or uses a domain name in bad faith with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of another’s a trademark, may be challenged at any given time.
Conclusion.
The domain names were registered in order to capitalize on the marks’ unique personalities and renown. However, as the number of domain name users increased, this protection created a slew of issues. The current methods to Internet domain name disputes are aimed at protecting trademark owners against bad-faith registrations and usage of domain names that are confusingly similar to their trademarks. This is an unusual expansion of trademark policy into a new field of legal control in certain ways. This is significant since traditional trademark law and policy aim to prevent customer misunderstanding regarding the source and, to some extent, the quality of certain items.