I keep regular tabs on the WIPO and NAF dispute cases. Admittedly I read the denied cases more than the successes so that I can see how people are compiling and presenting their cases and why they feel the name should be moved to them. A recent spike in “wwwbrand” cases got me thinking back to a webinar that my colleagues did recently.
Vincent D’Angelo and Colin Darbyshire hosted a webinar on what the most infringed terms are within domain names – no surprise it was the “www” without the corresponding dot – wwwbrand that was the leader of the pack. (download your copy of our white paper here).
I queried the WIPO and NAF databases and found that over the years 900+ domains containing wwwbrand have been part of disputes filed. What was surprising was that 10 of these domains were disputed more than once – the original complainant won the case, transferred the domain name and then subsequently allowed the name to lapse. They were then re-registered and the brand holder filed a dispute again.
When the costs to prepare and file a dispute can easily hit 5 figures, is it really cost effective to repeat the exercise again?
How much could these brand owners have saved if they had originally registered the domains themselves? My colleague, Robert Holmes prepared a white paper last year on that topic (download your copy here) and found that for costs of over $221M to file disputes, brand holders could have registered the same domains themselves for around $1M.
CSC’s Global Brand Advisory Team recommends a balanced approach of registrations and monitoring to ensure that your online IP is thoroughly protected – ask us how.
Global Brand Advisory Team
Corporation Service Company