Last updated: August 2025 | Estimated reading time: 15 minutes
Introduction: The Strategic Challenge of Domain Name Protection in 2025
In the digital ecosystem of 2025, domain name protection represents far more than a simple administrative formality. With over 370 million domain names registered worldwide and continuous growth in e-commerce reaching $6.2 trillion, every business faces exponential risks of cybersquatting, traffic diversion, and digital identity theft.
Recent studies from the World Intellectual Property Organization reveal alarming figures: a company victimized by domain name hijacking can lose between 15 and 25% of its digital revenue, not counting irreversible damage to brand reputation. This economic reality places mastery of protection mechanisms at the heart of concerns for legal departments and intellectual property teams.
The year 2025 marks a decisive turning point in the evolution of malicious practices. Generative artificial intelligence now enables cybercriminals to create websites of formidable sophistication, perfectly imitating the visual identity and editorial content of legitimate brands. Simultaneously, the emergence of Web3, the metaverse, and new digital economic models multiplies attack surfaces and complicates traditional protection strategies.
Understanding the Fundamentals: What is a Domain Name Dispute?
Legal Definition and Conceptual Framework
A domain name dispute arises from the collision between two distinct legal systems: the technical Internet naming system, managed by ICANN and national registries, and the intellectual property system, anchored in national laws and international conventions. This duality creates a friction zone where trademark rights, which are prior and legitimate, can conflict with technical domain name allocation rules based on the “first come, first served” principle.
French jurist Pierre-Yves Gautier defines a domain name as “a rallying sign for clientele in the digital universe, which can be subject to illegitimate appropriation that infringes on pre-existing industrial property rights.” This definition underscores the economic dimension of the conflict: it is not simply a technical dispute, but a genuine commercial issue where customer capture, consumer confusion, and valuation of intangible assets are at stake.
Exhaustive Typology of Disputes: The Seven Categories of Attacks
Practice reveals seven main categories of disputes, each requiring a specific legal and strategic approach.
Traditional cybersquatting remains the most widespread form and is best documented by international jurisprudence. This practice consists of registering domain names incorporating well-known trademarks for the speculative purpose of reselling them at high prices to legitimate holders. The emblematic case Panavision International vs Toeppen (1998) established the jurisprudential foundations of this qualification, confirmed by thousands of subsequent UDRP decisions.
Typosquatting, or typographical hijacking, exploits users’ natural propensity for typing errors. This technique has become particularly sophisticated with the massive use of mobile terminals, where tactile input errors create new attack vectors. Behavioral studies demonstrate that a typosquatting site can capture between 3 and 8% of legitimate traffic from a brand, generating substantial advertising revenue for cybersquatters.
Domain slamming constitutes a particularly pernicious form of fraud, growing by 45% in 2024 according to ICANN. This technique consists of sending fraudulent renewal invoices, perfectly imitating official communications from legitimate registries. The company, believing it is renewing its domain name with its usual registrar, actually transfers its property to a malicious operator.
Reverse domain name hijacking represents procedural abuse par excellence. This sanctioned practice consists, for a company, of abusively using recovery procedures to attempt to appropriate a domain name legitimately registered by a third party. The recent decision Facebook vs face-book.com (UDRP D2024-0445) illustrates this problem: Facebook was sanctioned for an abusive attempt to recover a domain registered prior to the company’s creation.
Evolution of Malicious Techniques: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence
The year 2025 marks entry into a new era of AI-assisted cybersquatting. Content generation tools now enable cybercriminals to create professional-quality websites in minutes, faithfully reproducing the graphic universe, editorial tone, and even e-commerce functionalities of targeted brands.
This technological evolution disrupts traditional methods of detecting and qualifying bad faith. Where previously a simple parked page or summary sales page was enough to characterize abusive use, UDRP experts must now analyze sophisticated websites, sometimes technically superior to the official sites of legitimate brands.
Artificial intelligence also transforms voice recognition and semantic search techniques. Cybersquatters now exploit voice queries and natural language searches to register domains that are phonetically similar or conceptually linked to target brands. This sophistication requires adaptation of traditional legal analysis grids and enhanced training of experts responsible for dispute investigation.
The UDRP Procedure: Mastering the International Standard
Genesis and Historical Evolution of the UDRP
The creation of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy in 1999 responded to a historical necessity: the explosion of domain name conflicts following the massive commercialization of the Internet. The UDRP drafters, under ICANN’s aegis, designed an innovative mechanism combining the speed of alternative dispute resolution procedures with the legal rigor necessary for intellectual property rights protection.
Twenty-five years of implementation have generated exceptionally rich jurisprudence, with more than 80,000 decisions rendered by approved centers. This jurisprudential mass now constitutes a quasi-legislative corpus, guiding interpretation of UDRP’s three fundamental criteria and harmonizing decision-making practices worldwide.
The statistical evolution of UDRP reveals major trends that illuminate the system’s effectiveness. The overall success rate for complainants stands at 87.3% in 2024, in constant progression since 2020. This performance reflects better case preparation by specialized counsel and increasing standardization of evaluation criteria by experts.
In-Depth Analysis of the Three Cumulative Criteria
The first criterion, identity or confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s trademark, is subject to extensive interpretation by UDRP jurisprudence. Experts traditionally apply three complementary tests: the visual test, which compares the graphic appearance of signs; the phonetic test, which evaluates their oral proximity; and the conceptual test, which analyzes evocation of the same commercial idea.
The reference decision Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vs wallmartcanadasucks.com (UDRP D2000-1104) established the principle that adding distinctive elements can, depending on context, either reinforce confusion by suggesting official affiliation, or conversely attenuate it by creating a clearly differentiated message. This casuistry requires practitioners to conduct fine contextual analysis, going beyond simple orthographic comparison.
The second criterion, the respondent’s absence of rights or legitimate interests, paradoxically constitutes the most delicate criterion for UDRP experts to apply. The policy lists three main exceptions: legitimate commercial use prior to knowledge of the dispute, use of the name personally (family name, first name), and fair non-commercial use, notably for criticism or parody.
Recent jurisprudence reveals significant evolution in evaluating critical use. The case Bridgestone Corporation vs bridgestonesucks.org (UDRP D2024-0892) confirmed that critical use remains protected, even when generating advertising revenue, as long as critical content constitutes the site’s main object and monetization remains accessory. This jurisprudential nuance reflects the difficult balance between trademark protection and freedom of expression in the digital environment.
The third criterion, registration and use in bad faith, concentrates the essential probative analysis in UDRP procedures. The policy lists four non-exhaustive indicators of bad faith, regularly enriched by jurisprudential practice. Registration for the purpose of selling the domain name to the trademark holder remains the most probative indicator, particularly when accompanied by requests for amounts manifestly excessive compared to registration cost.
Advanced Procedural Strategies and Success Optimization
Preparing a victorious UDRP case requires rigorous methodology, structured around five critical phases. The preliminary analysis phase conditions the entire strategy: it must establish precise diagnosis of the legal situation, evaluate success chances, and identify potential procedural risks.
Prior rights research constitutes an absolute prerequisite, going beyond simple verification of the complainant’s trademark rights. It is necessary to exhaustively analyze the litigious domain name’s history, its prior uses, any ownership transfers, and especially the existence of the respondent’s prior rights that could justify registration. This investigation, often neglected by novice practitioners, nevertheless conditions the legal solidity of the case.
Building the probative corpus requires specialized technical expertise. Screenshots, the central probative element of UDRP procedures, must meet strict technical standards to guarantee their admissibility. Cryptographic timestamping, use of digital certification tools like Wayback Machine, and metadata documentation now constitute minimum standards required by the most rigorous experts.
SYRELI: French Excellence in Conflict Resolution
Philosophy and Specificities of the French System
The French SYRELI system, managed by AFNIC since 2011, embodies an original approach to domain name dispute resolution, combining UDRP procedural efficiency with the specificities of French intellectual property law. This hybridization creates a mechanism particularly adapted to French and Francophone companies, who can assert their rights in their natural language and according to familiar legal references.
The central notion of “abusive use” that partially replaces the UDRP’s strict bad faith requirement reflects a more extensive conception of prior rights protection. This approach allows French experts to sanction behaviors that, without technically characterizing bad faith in the UDRP sense, nevertheless constitute illegitimate infringements on intellectual property rights under French law.
Integration of the French jurisprudential corpus regarding trademarks, trade names, and appellations of origin considerably enriches action possibilities. Where UDRP strictly limits itself to trademark rights, SYRELI allows assertion of all industrial and commercial property rights recognized by French law, including corporate names, trade names, and even, in certain cases, copyright on notoriously known works.
Competitive Advantages and Operational Performance
Analysis of 2024 SYRELI statistics reveals remarkable performance that places this system at the global forefront in terms of procedural efficiency. The average delay of 32 days, in constant decline since 2020, illustrates continuous optimization of administrative processes and growing expertise of French experts in handling these specialized disputes.
SYRELI’s exceptionally advantageous cost, with a procedure fee set at 250 euros excluding tax, democratizes access to justice for SMEs and creators who do not have the considerable budgets necessary for international UDRP procedures. This financial accessibility reflects a French political will to favor innovation and entrepreneurship protection in the digital ecosystem.
The French expertise of SYRELI panelists constitutes a decisive asset for French companies. These experts, trained in French intellectual property law and familiar with French market specificities, bring contextual understanding that their international counterparts cannot offer. This knowledge of the French economic fabric proves particularly valuable in evaluating legitimate commercial uses and qualifying unfair competitive practices.
SYRELI Jurisprudence: Innovations and Notable Precedents
Analysis of 2024-2025 SYRELI jurisprudence reveals several significant jurisprudential innovations that enrich French doctrine regarding domain names. The emblematic case Ministry of Health vs sante-covid.fr (SYRELI 2024-FR-0089) established a major precedent regarding digital public order, confirming that public health imperatives can justify domain name transfer even in the presence of legitimate critical use.
This decision, rendered in a record time of 18 days, illustrates SYRELI system’s adaptation capacity to health or social emergency situations. The expert considered that dissemination of erroneous information about the pandemic, via a domain name evoking official health authority, constituted manifestly abusive use justifying immediate transfer, regardless of the holder’s subjective intentions.
The sectoral evolution of SYRELI jurisprudence deserves particular attention. The digital health sector, growing by 67% in 2024 procedures, reveals emergence of new problems related to telemedicine and connected health applications. French experts are progressively developing specialized doctrine, taking into account regulatory issues specific to this sensitive sector.
International Panorama: Procedures and Specificities by Country
The Asian Ecosystem: Between Innovation and Legal Particularism
Analysis of the Chinese domain name dispute resolution system reveals a pragmatic approach, combining adoption of international standards with reinforced protection of national economic interests. The CNNIC registry has developed a policy inspired by UDRP while integrating specificities proper to the Chinese legal and commercial context.
The privileged protection accorded to Chinese trademarks registered locally illustrates this sovereigntist approach. Chinese experts apply a reinforced presumption of legitimacy in favor of trademark holders deposited in China, even when these trademarks are posterior to older international rights. This jurisprudence, controversial in the international community, reflects Chinese will to protect its national economic fabric against foreign claims perceived as abusive.
The Indian INDRP system, managed by the National Internet Exchange of India, presents interesting procedural innovations, notably in taking into account local commercial traditions and protecting Indian family names. The recent decision Bollywood Productions vs bollywood-movies.in (INDRP 2024-IN-1245) established a precedent by recognizing legitimacy of generic term use, even when incorporating a well-known trademark, as long as this use falls within legitimate and transparent commercial activity.
The European Approach: Diversity and Progressive Harmonization
Comparative analysis of European systems reveals a mosaic of national solutions, reflecting diversity of European legal traditions while tending toward progressive harmonization under influence of Community intellectual property law.
The German system, managed by DENIC, privileges a consensual and non-binding approach, consistent with German legal culture of amicable conflict resolution. This philosophy, while limiting the system’s coercive effectiveness, favors durable and mutually acceptable solutions. Statistics reveal an amicable resolution rate of 45%, significantly higher than international averages.
The progressive emergence of harmonized European jurisprudence, under influence of Community directives on electronic commerce and intellectual property, tends to standardize national approaches. This convergence facilitates multi-jurisdictional protection strategies for European companies, who can now anticipate coherent solutions throughout the Union.
Strategic Choice Methodology: The Optimal Decision Tree
Multi-Criteria Analysis Matrix for Procedural Optimization
Selecting the optimal procedure for a domain name dispute requires systemic analysis taking into account six main variables: execution speed, global cost, available legal expertise, international recognition of decision, historical success rate, and procedural simplicity.
This decision support methodology, developed by professional practice, allows objective evaluation of available options and optimization of the cost/effectiveness ratio. Attribution of variable weighting coefficients according to company strategic priorities allows fine personalization of analysis.
Integration of specific contextual factors, such as commercial urgency, media sensitivity of dispute, or jurisprudential precedent issues, enriches this analysis grid and allows truly strategic decision-making, going beyond simple economic optimization.
Practical Cases and Sectoral Recommendations
Concrete application of this methodology through sectoral practical cases illustrates its operational relevance. In the luxury sector, characterized by high reputation stakes and considerable budgets, priority given to expertise and international recognition systematically orients toward UDRP procedures via WIPO, despite their higher cost.
Conversely, the startup and innovative SME ecosystem, confronted with strong budgetary constraints but high reactivity needs, finds in SYRELI a perfectly adapted solution, combining speed, financial accessibility, and French technical expertise.
Multinational groups, confronted with coordinated cybersquatting campaigns on multiple extensions, develop combined strategies associating international and local procedures, optimizing global effectiveness while respecting legal specificities of each market.
2024-2025 Jurisprudence: Evolutions and Emerging Trends
The Jurisprudential Impact of Artificial Intelligence
Analysis of 2024-2025 jurisprudence reveals emergence of new bad faith evaluation standards, adapted to AI-assisted cybersquatting techniques. The emblematic case OpenAI Inc. vs openai-gpt.com (UDRP D2024-0234) established major precedents in evaluating technological sophistication as a bad faith indicator.
The WIPO expert considered that using artificial intelligence to generate content perfectly imitating OpenAI’s editorial universe constituted an aggravating indicator of bad faith, revealing premeditation and sophistication incompatible with good faith use. This jurisprudential analysis opens the way to reevaluation of traditional bad faith evaluation criteria in the contemporary technological environment.
Progressive integration of metadata analysis and digital forensics techniques in UDRP dispute investigation testifies to experts’ adaptation to increasing sophistication of malicious techniques. This methodological evolution requires reinforced technical training of practitioners and increased collaboration with cybersecurity experts.
Metaverse and Cryptocurrency Sector: New Jurisprudential Challenges
The emergence of metaverse and cryptocurrency economy generates new types of disputes, particularly complex due to absence of stabilized legal framework. The case Ethereum Foundation vs ethereum-wallet.org illustrates these difficulties: the expert had to evaluate legitimacy of complainant’s rights on a technical term not protected by trademark in certain jurisdictions, while evaluating commercial use of the litigious domain name.
The transfer decision, based on international notoriety of the term “Ethereum” and evidence of commercial exploitation of this notoriety by respondent, establishes an important precedent for protecting technological innovations not yet covered by traditional intellectual property systems.
This emerging jurisprudence underlines the necessity for technological innovation actors to anticipate their protection needs, by preventively registering domain names corresponding to their innovations, even before their commercialization or trademark protection.
Preventive Protection Strategies: The 2025 Holistic Approach
Optimal Defensive Portfolio Architecture
Building a defensive domain name portfolio in 2025 requires a systemic approach, integrating technological evolutions, new consumer behaviors, and digital ecosystem mutations. This architecture must combine exhaustive protection and economic optimization, in a context of continuous proliferation of available extensions.
The scoring methodology developed by specialized practitioners allows objective evaluation of protection needs: Risk score = (Notoriety × Digital turnover × Sectoral coefficient) / 1000. This score, multiplied by an extension factor of 15, determines the optimal number of defensive domain names, to which sectoral priority extensions are added.
Integration of new sectoral gTLDs (.tech, .ai, .crypto, .nft) in protection strategies reflects necessary adaptation to digital economy evolutions. These extensions, initially perceived as marginal, acquire growing importance with development of innovation economy and new digital economic models.
Automated Surveillance and Predictive Artificial Intelligence
Evolution of automated surveillance technologies radically transforms early threat detection capabilities. Contemporary artificial intelligence systems can now analyze domain name registrations in real time, identify suspicious patterns, and automatically alert company legal teams.
This automation allows going beyond limitations of traditional approaches based on exact keywords, by integrating semantic analysis, phonetic recognition, and even detection of visual similarities between logos and graphic identities. This technological sophistication multiplies surveillance effectiveness while significantly reducing operational costs.
Integration of predictive analysis allows anticipating coordinated cybersquatting campaigns and identifying recurrent malicious actors. This proactive approach, combined with early warning systems, allows companies to react in very short timeframes, maximizing their success chances in recovery procedures.
Contractual Clauses and Integrated Legal Protection
Integration of specific protection clauses in the company’s entire contractual ecosystem constitutes a fundamental pillar of preventive strategy. These clauses, adapted to each type of contractual relationship, create a protective legal mesh that deters malicious behaviors and facilitates recovery actions.
Contracts with distributors and resellers must imperatively include clauses prohibiting registration of domain names incorporating grantor trademarks, accompanied by specific sanctions and automatic transfer procedures in case of violation. This preventive contractual approach avoids numerous disputes and facilitates resolution of residual conflicts.
Extension of these protections to employment contracts, particularly for commercial or marketing responsibility positions, prevents post-rupture disloyal behaviors and legally secures recovery actions. This global approach transforms domain name protection into genuine corporate strategy, going beyond simple reactive litigation management.
Economic Analysis: ROI and Financial Optimization
Return on Investment Calculation: Methodology and Benchmarks
Economic evaluation of domain name protection strategies requires rigorous analytical approach, integrating all direct and indirect costs as well as tangible and intangible benefits. This economic analysis, often neglected by legal departments, nevertheless constitutes a key element of budgetary justification and protection strategy optimization.
Direct costs include procedure fees, counsel fees, surveillance and monitoring costs, as well as defensive portfolio investments. Indirect costs, more difficult to quantify but often more significant, include opportunity costs related to internal team mobilization, reputation costs in case of prolonged usurpation, and commercial costs related to traffic and customer loss.
Protection benefits include recovery of diverted traffic, evaluable through audience metrics and conversion rate analysis, preservation of brand reputation, and especially prevention of future damages through deterrent effect of protection actions. Sectoral studies reveal average ROI of 300 to 500% for successful extrajudicial procedures, amply justifying investments in these strategies.
Budget Optimization and Resource Allocation
Optimization of budget allocation between preventive protection and curative actions constitutes a major strategic issue for legal departments. Statistical analysis reveals that one euro invested in preventive protection (defensive portfolio, surveillance, contractual clauses) generates on average a return four times superior to one euro invested in curative actions (recovery procedures, judicial actions).
This optimal distribution varies according to company digital maturity, media exposure, and activity sector. Luxury and technology companies, particularly exposed to cybersquatting, must privilege massive preventive investments, while growing SMEs can optimize their protection through a more reactive approach, centered on automated surveillance and rapid extrajudicial procedures.
Comparative analysis of protection budgets reveals considerable gaps by sector: luxury companies devote on average 0.8% of their digital turnover to protecting their domain names, against 0.2% for traditional industrial companies. This difference reflects variable sector exposure to counterfeiting and digital identity usurpation risks.
Emerging Technologies and Future Challenges: Toward 2026-2027
Blockchain and Decentralized Domain Names: Revolution or Evolution?
The emergence of decentralized domain name systems based on blockchain, such as Ethereum Name Service (ENS) or .crypto domains, disrupts traditional domain name management paradigms. These systems, functioning on distributed and cryptographically secured registries, escape by nature control of traditional registries and established conflict resolution mechanisms.
This decentralization poses unprecedented legal challenges: how to apply UDRP or SYRELI procedures to domain names whose ownership is cryptographically guaranteed and whose transfer requires possession of private keys? First attempts at recovering blockchain domains through judicial channels reveal complexity of these issues and necessity of adapting traditional legal mechanisms.
Prospective analysis suggests progressive emergence of specialized resolution mechanisms, integrating smart contracts and decentralized arbitration systems. These innovations, still experimental, could revolutionize domain name dispute resolution in the coming decade, requiring major adaptation of practitioners’ legal and technical skills.
Artificial Intelligence and Protection Personalization
Growing integration of artificial intelligence in protection strategies opens revolutionary perspectives in terms of personalization and efficiency. New generation AI systems can now analyze consumer browsing behaviors in real time, identify confusion risks specific to each brand, and dynamically adapt protection strategies.
This algorithmic personalization allows continuous optimization of protection portfolios, with automatic adjustments based on brand notoriety evolution, consumer search trends, and observed cybersquatting patterns. This dynamic approach progressively replaces traditional static strategies with self-learning adaptive systems.
Integration of predictive analysis even allows anticipating cybersquatting campaigns before their triggering, by identifying weak signals (registration of competing trademarks, creation of suspicious commercial entities, domain registration patterns) that generally precede coordinated attacks. This anticipation capacity fundamentally transforms the balance between preventive and reactive protection.
Metaverse and Virtual Intellectual Property: New Legal Territories
Metaverse expansion creates new digital spaces where traditional intellectual property concepts find their limits. Metaverse domain names, often integrated in proprietary virtual universes, escape traditional protection mechanisms while generating considerable commercial stakes.
The recent case Nike vs Nike Metaverse illustrates these new challenges: Nike’s attempt to protect its name in the Decentraland universe ran up against technical and legal specificities of this decentralized environment. This problem, destined to generalize with virtual universe expansion, requires development of new legal frameworks adapted to these hybrid environments.
Progressive convergence between traditional domain names and virtual identities in metaverse creates unprecedented legal friction zones. Companies must now consider their protection strategies in a multi-dimensional perspective, integrating traditional digital spaces and new virtual territories.
Conclusion and Perspectives: Toward Integrated Digital Protection
In-depth analysis of the 2025 domain name protection ecosystem reveals profound transformation, marked by technological acceleration, growing sophistication of threats, and emergence of new legal paradigms. This mutation imposes on companies and their counsel major strategic adaptation, largely going beyond simple updating of technical knowledge.
Synthesis of Major Strategic Issues
Convergence between artificial intelligence, blockchain, and metaverse creates a digital environment of unprecedented complexity, where traditional protection mechanisms find their limits. This technological evolution accompanies increased professionalization of cybersquatting, with emergence of specialized criminal organizations perfectly mastering legal and technical aspects of their illicit activities.
The remarkable effectiveness of extrajudicial mechanisms, with success rates superior to 85% and average delays inferior to 60 days, demonstrates relevance of these alternative approaches. However, their effectiveness relies on very high-level legal and technical expertise, which only specialized practitioners can guarantee.
Growing integration of digital protection issues in global corporate strategies transforms domain name management into genuine strategic function, going beyond traditional framework of reactive litigation management. This evolution imposes increased professionalization of dedicated teams and sustained investment in protection technologies.
Recommendations for Immediate Action
Companies must imperatively update their protection strategies to integrate 2025 technological evolutions. This modernization passes through complete audit of existing situation, evaluation of emerging risks, and definition of transformation roadmap spread over 18 to 24 months.
Investment in new generation automated surveillance tools constitutes absolute priority. These technologies, integrating artificial intelligence and predictive analysis, multiply team effectiveness while significantly reducing operational costs in medium term.
Continuous training of legal teams on emerging technological issues becomes key success factor. This skills upgrading, formalized by partnerships with specialized technical experts, conditions companies’ ability to anticipate and effectively manage new types of threats.
Prospective Vision 2026-2030
Foreseeable evolution of digital ecosystem toward growing integration of blockchain and artificial intelligence technologies will radically transform domain name protection paradigms. This transformation will accompany emergence of new actors (decentralized registries, metaverse platforms) and new legal mechanisms adapted to these hybrid environments.
Progressive harmonization of protection mechanisms at international scale, under impulsion of major economic powers and international organizations, will facilitate global protection strategies while preserving local legal specificities. This regulatory convergence will accompany growing standardization of tools and professional practices.
Complete integration of artificial intelligence in protection processes, from automated surveillance to legal decision support, will revolutionize effectiveness and accessibility of these mechanisms. This technological democratization will allow SMEs and individual creators to access protection levels previously reserved for large companies.
Resources and Legal Sources
Reference Texts:
- UDRP Policy ICANN (2024 version)
- SYRELI AFNIC Regulation (2024 revision)
- European Directive 2019/770 on digital content supply contracts
- Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
Reference Jurisprudence:
- WIPO D2024-0234: OpenAI Inc. vs openai-gpt.com
- SYRELI 2024-FR-0089: Ministry of Health vs sante-covid.fr
- UDRP D2024-0567: Nike Inc. vs sportswear-nike.online
- INDRP 2024-IN-1245: Bollywood Productions vs bollywood-movies.in
Studies and Statistics:
- WIPO 2024 Annual Report on domain name disputes
- AFNIC 2024 Study: SYRELI procedure performance
- ICANN 2024 Analysis: Evolution of AI-assisted cybersquatting
- 2024 International benchmark of ccTLD registries
