About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Receives 5,000th Cybersquatting Case Under UDRP

Geneva, May 20, 2002
Press Updates UPD/2002/193

The Geneva-based Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) received its 5,000th domain name case under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) this month as English football club Tottenham Hotspur kicked off proceedings to win back its Internet identity from an alleged cybersquatter. In addition to the 5,000 cases received under the UDRP, the Center has handled over 15,500 cybersquatting cases under specific dispute resolution policies, bringing the total number of cybersquatting cases filed with WIPO to 20,511. Coincidentally, the first domain name case received by WIPO in December 1999 was filed and won by the World Wrestling Federation, another sporting entity. Scores of sports-related cases have been filed and resolved under the UDRP.

The number of cases received under domain-specific dispute resolution policies - primarily Sunrise (for .info) and STOP (for .biz) - amounts to 15,511. These procedures were designed to avoid the flood of cybersquatting cases generated by the initial introduction of new generic top level domains (gTLDs) in 2002, which extended the number of gTLDs from the original three (.com, .net and .org) to ten (with the introduction of .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .pro). In addition to these domains, WIPO also provides dispute resolution services for 33 country-code domains (ccTLDs).

The Center is receiving new UDRP cases at an average rate of three per day, suggesting that the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names continues. Yet, significant progress has been made from the early days when the UDRP went into effect and the average number of cases filed daily reached five. "This trend is encouraging and indicates that the expedited on-line dispute resolution service has been effective in dissuading Internet pirates from hijacking names," said Mr. Francis Gurry, Assistant Director General, who oversees WIPO's work relating to domain names. "This doesn't mean that our work is over - we must continue our efforts to ensure that the Internet becomes a secure market place for people to do business. Preventing abuse of intellectual property rights in a digital environment that is expanding by the day is a large part of that effort," Mr. Gurry added.

A review of the cases received shows the multinational nature of the phenomenon. The Center has so far processed disputes in ten languages - Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish. The geographical distribution of parties involved in UDRP cases filed with the WIPO Center spans 110 countries. The top five filing countries are United States of America (46.8%), United Kingdom (9%), France (6%), Spain (5.5%), and Germany (5.1%). The top five respondent countries are United States of America (44%), United Kingdom (9.4%), Spain (6%), Republic of Korea (5.2%) and Canada (3.9%).

As an illustration of the significant public attention to the phenomenon, the Center's website, where all decisions are published and which includes a new legal index of all decisions, has received over 30 million hits. The most visited decisions include those relating to the entertainers Madonna and Sting and actress Julia Roberts. Madonna and Julia Roberts won their cases, whereas Sting was unable to prove the three conditions required to win back a domain name (see https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cases/all.html). Under the UDRP, a complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that the respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

The domain name categories most concerned in WIPO cases include food, alcohol and restaurants; fashion; entertainment; Internet and information technology; and media and publishing. A decision on the Tottenham Hotspur case is expected in two months. The website of the Center is https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains.

For further information, please contact the Media Relations and Public Affairs Section at WIPO:

  • Tel: (+41 22) - 338 81 61 or 338 95 47
  • Fax: (+41 22) - 338 88 10
  • Email: publicinf@wipo.int.