Skip to content

Inside your domain: fighting domain name abuse

Brendan Peters

Domain names are the addresses we type into our internet browsers to be taken to a website, like ‘stewartmckelvey.com’. Even easy-to-remember domain names can be confused with similar ones, making them a vector of attack for bad actors. A comprehensive study published this year by the European Union has confirmed that domain name abuse is a persistent and growing issue globally. Over a three-month period, the authors recorded a staggering 2.7 million incidents and 1.68 million abused domain names.

Raising awareness of these threats and what to do about them is one step towards a safer cyber future, and this post reviews an accessible and efficient mechanism for resolving domain name disputes.

Addressing confusion: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

To address domain name abuse, the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”, an agency of the United Nations) began administering the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Administrative Procedure (“Procedure”) in 1999. Through the Procedure, anyone can make a complaint, requesting to have a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark either cancelled or more often, transferred to the complainant’s control. A large body of cases has been reported under the Procedure.

An early but instructive example is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Richard MacLeod, in which Mr. MacLeod of Toronto had registered ‘wal-martsucks.com’ and wanted half a million dollars from Wal-Mart for control of the domain name. Mr. MacLeod didn’t host any content at the disputed domain, but there are many other examples of confusingly similar domain names leading customers to illegal content, such as websites selling counterfeit goods or pushing violent images and speech.

A successful complaint requires clear and concise evidence of three elements:

  1. The domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark;
  2. The respondent has no legitimate rights in the domain name; and
  3. The domain name had been registered in bad faith.

In the Wal-Mart example, elements (2) and (3) were met as Mr. MacLeod was effectively holding the domain name hostage, and element (1) was met as the domain name was found to be confusingly similar to Wal-Mart trademarks. In meeting all three elements, Wal-Mart successfully had the domain name ‘wal-martsucks.com’ transferred to its control.

While the Procedure deals with the most popular domains (.com, .org, .net), there is an analogous procedure available specifically for domain names with ‘.ca’.

A successful complaint can be cost- and time-effective

With respect to element (1), a complainant may rely on registered trademark rights or show use of an unregistered mark in association with goods and services to establish common law rights. Businesses that sell online usually have electronic copies of marketing materials and invoices showing sufficient information to establish common law rights in the mark for the purposes of the Procedure. This is especially important for smaller businesses that may not have resources to register their trademark rights and do not have a large budget to put towards evidence collection.

The complaint is submitted entirely electronically to WIPO and a decision is usually rendered by a panelist, an individual chosen by WIPO who possesses relevant skills and experience, within a few months. It generally costs a couple of thousand dollars in fees to submit the complaint, which is often done with the assistance of a trademark lawyer. Especially compared to court proceedings, the Procedure stands as a cost-effective and practical way to fight domain name abuse.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Intellectual Property group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

“Sale” away: The SCC’s more flexible approach to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods

July 9, 2024

By Jennifer Taylor & Marina Luro A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision has clarified how to interpret exclusion clauses in sale of goods contracts. The Court in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v Pine Valley…

Read More

Recent case re-confirms temporary ailment is not a disability

June 24, 2024

By Mark Tector and Tiegan A. Scott Decision On April 3, 2024, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ABKB”) upheld a decision of the Chief of the Commissions and Tribunals (the “CCT Decision”), which held…

Read More

Compensation for expropriation: Fair, but not more than fair

June 17, 2024

By Erin Best, Stephen Penney, Robert Bradley, Megan Kieley1 and Elizabeth Fleet1 Expropriation is a live issue in Canadian courts. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to broaden the test for constructive expropriation in Annapolis…

Read More

Changes affecting federally regulated employers

June 10, 2024

By Killian McParland and Sophie Poulos There have been many changes in recent months affecting employers governed by federal labour and employment laws. In September 2024, Stewart McKelvey will be hosting a webinar to review…

Read More

Impending changes to Nova Scotia’s Workers’ Compensation Act – Gradual onset stress

June 4, 2024

By Mark Tector and Annie Gray What’s changing? Currently, workers’ compensation coverage in Nova Scotia applies to only a narrow subset of psychological injuries. Specifically, in Nova Scotia – as in all Atlantic Provinces –…

Read More

Appeal Courts uphold substantial costs awards for regulators

May 22, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Michiko Gartshore Professional regulators can incur substantial costs through discipline processes. These costs are often associated with investigations, hearings as well as committee member expenses and are an unfortunate by-product of…

Read More

Less than two weeks to go … Canada Supply Chain Transparency Reports are due May 31st

May 21, 2024

By Christine Pound, ICD.D., Twila Reid, ICD.D., Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Sheila Mecking, Hilary Newman, and Daniel Roth Introduction The first reports under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the…

Read More

Court upheld municipality’s refusal to disclose investigation report

May 1, 2024

By Sheila Mecking and Sarah Dever Letson A recent decision out of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick,[1] upheld the Municipality of Tantramar’s decision to withhold a Workplace Assessment Report under section 20(1)…

Read More

Occupational Health and Safety sentencing decision – Nova Scotia

April 29, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Tiegan Scott Earlier this month, the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia issued its sentencing decision in R v The Brick Warehouse LP, 2024 NSPC 26, imposing a monetary penalty of $143,750 (i.e.,…

Read More

Canada 2024 Federal Budget paves the way for Open Banking

April 22, 2024

By Kevin Landry On April 15, 2024, the Canadian federal budget was released. Connected to the budget was an explanation of the framework for Canada’s proposed implementation of Open Banking (sometimes called consumer-driven banking). This follows…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top