Avv. Ivett Paulovics Law Firm
4 Contributions by Avv. Ivett Paulovics Law Firm Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note offers an introduction to cybersquatting. It involves registering a domain name that incorporates another business’s trade mark with the purpose (or consequence) of taking unfair advantage of that mark. It also encompasses typosquatting, being the registration of a domain name featuring a misspelt version of another party’s trade mark. There are several avenues to pursue action against cybersquatters, including Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)...
What is cybersquatting?
Also referred to as domain name squatting, it is the bad-faith registration of a domain name that matches or is confusingly similar to a trade mark or name, with the intention of profiting from the goodwill attached to that mark or name. The practice exploits the trade marks of businesses, individuals, or other entities, aiming to secure commercial benefit for the ‘squatter’ and/or to
TMT
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note reviews how state immunity intersects with arbitration proceedings in Italy. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. For Practice Notes on state immunity across multiple jurisdictions (including England and Wales), consult our state immunity subtopic: State immunity and arbitration—overview.
The Italian approach to state immunity
Italy has long contributed to the development of the doctrine of state immunity, moving from an absolute model—anchored in the traditional principle par in parem non habet iudicium—towards a more refined restrictive approach. Italian courts, together with their Belgian counterparts, were among the first to challenge absolute immunity in the early twentieth century.
At present, Italy follows the restrictive doctrine, limiting immunity to acts performed iure imperii—namely, manifestations of sovereign authority—while excluding acts undertaken iure gestionis, including those of a commercial or private-law character.
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note sets out an explanation of Nominet’s dispute resolution service (DRS), which applies to all .uk domain names.
Application and purpose of the Nominet DRS
The .uk DRS offers a swift, practical and cost-effective route for resolving disputes over domain names without the need to pursue litigation. It is operated by Nominet, the registry for .uk domain names. The Nominet DRS covers all .uk domain names registered and administered by Nominet and is incorporated by reference into the Terms & Conditions of Domain Name Registration for each .uk domain name. When a complainant invokes the process, the domain name holder (respondent) is bound by the DRS policy, including its procedural rules. The outcome of the process is enforced by Nominet.
Although closely modelled on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the Nominet DRS has distinctive features, including a dedicated mediation phase, the option of a
TMT
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note sets out an overview of the URS, a rights protection mechanism closely modelled on, yet distinct from, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and elements of the .uk Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS). The URS provides a fast‑track, lower‑cost route for the most clear‑cut instances of cybersquatting. This Practice Note does not cover the UDRP or the DRS. For more on those, see the following Practice Notes:
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) process
Preparing a UDRP complaint—before you start
Nominet dispute resolution service (DRS)
Application and purpose of the URS
The URS applies to:
all new generic Top Level Domain Names (new gTLDs)
some of the so‑called legacy gTLDs (namely .asia, .biz, .cat, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .org, .pro, .tel, .travel, .xxx)
some country code top level domains (eg .pw for
TMT
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
