{"id":4625,"date":"2025-03-20T16:51:56","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T15:51:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/solidnames.fr\/speculative-domain-name-registration\/"},"modified":"2025-03-20T16:51:56","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T15:51:56","slug":"speculative-domain-name-registration","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/solidnames.fr\/en\/speculative-domain-name-registration\/","title":{"rendered":"Speculative domain name registration"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cybersquatters register trademarked domain names with the principal aim of selling them to the trademark owners for financial considerations far in excess of their registration costs<\/strong>. The squatter can either set a fixed price for immediate redemption of the squatted domain name, or enter into negotiations. <\/h4>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Out-of-court UDRP<\/strong> procedure<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

In the event of a dispute over a cybersquatted domain name, brands frequently use the international out-of-court “UDRP” procedure (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy)<\/strong> to settle their dispute within two to three months.
To be successful, a cybersquatting victim must meet the following three criteria:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. the domain name registered by the registrant is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark<\/strong> or service mark in which the complainant (the natural or legal person filing the complaint) has rights; and<\/li>\n
  2. the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests<\/strong> in the domain name; and<\/li>\n
  3. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Over 90% of decisions are favorable to trademark holders, who recover or have cancelled cybersquatted domain names.<\/p>\n

    <\/span><\/p>\n

    Pay the cybersquatter less than the UDRP?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    However,<\/strong> the UDRP procedure comes at a cost that is borne solely by the brands that have been the victims of cybersquatting: $1,500 to be paid to WIPO, plus the costs of the law firm representing them<\/strong>. The cybersquatter risks only the loss of the disputed domain name, which he has often bought for a few euros from a discount registrar. <\/p>\n

    Before initiating a “UDRP” procedure, the trademark will often put the cybersquatter on notice to surrender the disputed domain name free of charge. The cybersquatter may try to sell the domain name to the trademark at a lower price than that of the procedure, such as the typosquatting naxtixis.com<\/a> at $788, galerieslafayette.biz<\/a> at \u20ac900, sporteleclerc.com<\/a> at \u20ac1,200, or a bargain price of $6,000 for the batch of 8 domain names squatting on CIC bank cicbankonline.com, cicdigitalbank.com, ciconlinebank.com, creditmutueldigital.com, digitalcic.com, digitalcreditmutuel.com, ecicbank.com, onlinecreditmutuel.com<\/a>. Brands face a difficult choice: <\/p>\n