Domain name meaning

How to use this Checklist This Checklist flags common matters that arise when negotiating and drafting agreements to transfer intellectual property rights (IPRs) in a website. Many of the same points are also pertinent to other types of transaction. Key commercial considerations technical and functional requirements defining the relevant IPRs any cross‑licensing arrangements the terms underpinning the transfer of rights rights held by third parties Use the third column to capture observations or remarks as you work through the Checklist. Checklist for the transfer of intellectual property rights in a website &x2610; Verify each party’s legal status and whether any third parties (such as group affiliates) will benefit from the proposed agreement. &x2610; Confirm when the transfer becomes effective and whether it is contingent on any other agreements or events. &x2610; Confirm if the deal is a one‑off assignment of IPRs or if there will be ongoing licensing or support; where continuing...

Number and identity of the partners How many partners will there be, and who are they? What is each partner’s status: individual, company, another partnership, or other entity/body? Do all partners possess the requisite qualifications? Will any be salaried or fixed‑share partners? What rights and duties will they hold? Will they sign and be bound by the partnership agreement? Can new partners be brought in; if so, must they sign a deed of adherence? Is unanimous approval required to admit new partners? Business details What activities will the partnership undertake? Is it an ongoing venture or a one‑off project (or projects)? Are any regulatory consents, approvals and licences needed? What will the partnership be called; does the name clash with an existing one? Carry out searches at Companies House and the Trade Marks Registry. Will a domain be needed; check availability and register it. Where will the partnership...

Number and identity of the partners What is the total number of partners, and who are they? In what capacity does each participate—individual, company, another partnership, or other entity/body? Who will act as general partner(s) and who as limited partner(s)? Can additional limited partners be admitted, and if so, on what terms? May limited partners hold other business interests and undertake activities beyond the limited partnership, including interests and activities in direct competition with it? Business details What activities will the limited partnership undertake? Is it an ongoing enterprise or a one-off project or series of projects? Are any regulatory consents, approvals, and licences required for the intended business? What name will the limited partnership trade under? Does the chosen name conflict with any registered limited partnership or business name? Carry out Companies House searches. Who will be responsible for registering the limited partnership with Companies House? Is a domain name...

In this issue Court of Protection UK taxation for private clients Updates to HMRC Manuals Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Budgets and Finance Bills Private client insolvency Digital and crypto assets Charity and philanthropy Disputed trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax‑efficient investments International Further Private Client updates this week Question of the week News alerts—daily and weekly LexTalk® Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Court of Protection Court rules that an anonymity application under CPR 39.2(4) and section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 must proceed on a statutory basis (PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v Local Health Board) The claimant, a boy born in 2012, pursued a clinical negligence action against an NHS trust for injuries at birth. The claim, issued in March...

In this issue: International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments LexTalk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information International arbitration Singapaore—anti-suit injunction in support of arbitration In CMC v (1) DOW (2) MB, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) granted an anti‑suit injunction (ASI) to halt overseas proceedings brought to contest an arbitral tribunal’s decision. Singapore was the seat of the arbitration, and the Singapore courts had exclusive authority to determine any such challenge. Setting out the principles governing ASIs, the court concluded the criteria were fulfilled and there was no convincing reason to withhold relief on the facts. Although the defendant had links to a foreign government, it was not entitled to sovereign immunity because it was a ‘separate entity’ and the contract was a ‘commercial transaction’. See News Analysis: Anti‑suit injunction in support of arbitration (CMC v (1) DOW (2)...

Fridriksson v Samherji Hf [2025] EWHC 1873 (Ch) What are the practical implications of the case? This judgment offers useful direction on the outer limits of conduct that can be acknowledged as freedom of expression, the court’s approach to weighing competing provisions under the European Convention on Human Rights (the ‘Convention’), and the circumstances in which freedom of expression may operate as a defence to alleged intellectual property right infringement. On the summary judgment application, the defendant contended that there should be no boundary to what counts as freedom of expression, encompassing his actions here. The Master held that where rights collide they must be measured by their respective importance in the specific context of the clash. In these circumstances, the Master concluded that the defendant’s invocation of Article 10 of the Convention to resist the transfer of the domain name and the website had no real prospect of success: the defendant’s artistic work had already been executed, and there was no proper justification for permitting any further...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: This Practice Note addresses the transfer of .com and other generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) registrations and accompanies Precedent: gTLD domain name transfer agreement (.com). It mirrors the Transfer Policy presently in effect, which had to be introduced by August 2025. Yet, in April 2025, after a review of the Transfer Policy, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) opened consultation on a number of proposed amendments that, among other things and measures, will replace the use of AuthInfo codes and abolish the 60-day transfer lock, both of which are outlined below. This Practice Note will be revised as and when the Transfer Policy is revised. Domain names consist of multiple elements, including the domain ending, also known as the top-level domain (TLD). TLDs occupy the highest tier of the domain name system (DNS). A DNS functions much like a telephone directory for the internet, converting domain names into IP addresses and enabling internet users to reach websites and other online resources. The role of...

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 interfere with legitimate activities... Evolution and key characteristics of cybersquatting The phenomenon took hold in the 1990s during the early phase of internet...

Practice Note This Practice Note sets out the factors to weigh before preparing a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaint in a prospective domain name dispute. It covers: Preliminary considerations Is UDRP the right option? Assessing the merits Identifying the Registrant Contacting the Registrant Pre-UDRP checklist See also Precedents: Letter of claim—abusive domain name registration (UDRP) and UDRP complaint. Preparing a UDRP complaint should not be your first move when managing a potential domain name dispute. This Practice Note guides you through what to consider before you begin. By following these steps, many prospective disputes may fall away—saving you or your client time and money; and if you do proceed to draft a UDRP complaint, you can be more confident that you have laid the groundwork for some of the more challenging aspects. This Practice Note and its accompanying precedents draw on guidance and decisions issued by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)...

This Licence is entered into on [ insert date ] (the Commencement Date): Parties [ insert licensor name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Licensor); and [ insert licensee name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Licensee), (each of the Licensor and the Licensee being a party and, together, the Licensor and the Licensee are the parties). Background (A) [ Explain the relationship between the Licensor and the Licensee. ] (B) [ The Licensor has entered into an agreement with the Licensee [ dated [ insert date ] ] (the Main Agreement) for [ insert other description of relevant transaction (referencing any relevant related agreements) ] (‘ Transaction ’). ] (C) The Licensor has agreed to...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ]. Parties [ insert name ], a company incorporated in England and Wales, whose registered company number is [ insert company number ] and whose registered office is [ insert address ] (Transferor); and [ insert name ], a company incorporated in England and Wales, whose registered company number is [ insert company number ] and whose registered office is [ insert address ] (Transferee), each of the Transferor and the Transferee being a party and, together, the Transferor and the Transferee being the parties. Background The Transferor is the lawful registrant of the Domain Name [ s ] described below. The Transferor has agreed to [ sell and ] transfer the Domain Name [ s ] to the Transferee, and the Transferee has agreed to [ buy and ] accept the registration of the Domain Name [ s ] in accordance with the terms of this Agreement... ...

[ insert name and address of sender ] (We) Our reference: [ insert reference ] Your reference: [ insert reference ] [ insert address of recipient ] (You) 1 In this letter, the following terms have the following meanings: 1.1 Affiliate refers to any entity that, directly or indirectly, Controls, is Controlled by, or is under shared Control with, another entity; 1.2 Authorised Persons denotes the officers and directors, members and partners, employees, consultants, sub-contractors, agents, representatives, or professional advisers of a party and/or its Affiliate(s); 1.3 Confidential Information means all information of a confidential nature that either we or you hold or obtain from the other (whether directly or indirectly), including the other’s know-how, trade secrets, plans, developments, financial, commercial, technical, tactical, strategic, marketing, operations, customer or product information, personnel information, any information marked as or agreed to be confidential, any other information that either we or you know, or could reasonably be expected to know, is confidential, and any such information relating...