
Exploring the reasoning behind a decision that can save you thousands.
In these challenging economic times, where domain and online enforcement budgets are stretched, it is a common tactic for brand owners to seek to make savings in their domain portfolio.
Whilst domains corresponding corporate brands or house marks are usually exempt from draconian cuts, the position is often less clear for domains corresponding to secondary brands, straplines or descriptors even if there are matching trade mark registrations.
Whilst this may seem a reasonable approach at first glance there are risks attached to this strategy both from a security and legal perspective.
By allowing a domain to expire, the domain owner is essentially surrendering all control to it. Cybercriminals and infringers are fully aware of this and often target expired domains in attempts to capitalise on them in a variety of ingenious ways.
Firstly, online criminals could snap up the domains and use them in an attempt to hijack associated emails and steal confidential company information. They could even use the domains to divert the brand owner’s customers, partners and suppliers and redirect to a bank account under their control as part of a BEC (“Business Email Compromise”) scam.
Alternatively, the perpetrators could create cloned copycat websites at the newly acquired domains that resemble the brand owner’s genuine site that contains downloadable links that are littered with malicious files.
Lastly, a cybersquatter could simply attempt to hold the brand owner to ransom for the return of the domains.
When attempting to recover domains through formal domain complaint procedures such as the UDRP, it is common misconception that having a prior trade mark registration that corresponds to the domain would be enough to guarantee success. This is simply not correct!
In the domain complaint proceedings, one has to show “cybersquatting” which is a narrower test to trade mark infringement. This requires an objective assessment of the domain registrant’s intentions and conduct for registering and using the domain.
If there is sufficient evidence to show that the registrant was aware of the brand owner and deliberately registered and used the domain to take advantage of or profit from the brand owner’s goodwill and reputation, then there is a good chance of success.
However, this task becomes far more difficult if the mark in the domain is more descriptive in nature (which is often the case for secondary brands) as it is possible for the domain registrant to argue that they selected and used the domain for its descriptive value, rather than for its potential to confuse Internet users as to source or affiliation.
In effect, the chances of recovering of the domains through UDRP proceedings turn on the distinctiveness of the name in the marketplace and thus the protectability of the mark itself. If the mark itself lacks inherent distinctiveness, then this could lead to a situation where a brand owner is simply unable to recover a “dropped” or “expired” domain through UDRP proceedings event though they have a prior matching trade mark registration.
The good news? You do not have to choose between cost savings and brand security. By centralising your domain portfolio with Lexsynergy, you can maintain full protection while reducing expenses.
Our proprietary domain management portal eliminates outsourcing costs, giving you direct control over your domains without additional fees.
As one of the world’s most directly accredited registrars, even our competitors rely on us. This extensive accreditation network ensures lower renewal costs by cutting out the middlemen.
Our team provides expert guidance to help you formulate essential domain strategy, optimising your portfolio without exposing your brand to risk.
Before making any decisions about dropping domains, engage with us and see how we can help you streamline costs while keeping your brand secure.