Domain Name News: May 2025

• Domain name industry news
  • .MEDs for all 
  • EURid Q1 2025 Report
  • Annual update on .UK domain names suspended for criminal activity
• Domain name recuperation news
  • Legitimate interest and lack of targeting defeat UDRP complaint
  • When food trucks collide: a recipe for UDRP rejection
  • No skin in the game: denial for cosmetic complaint under the UDRP

For earlier Anchovy News publications, please visit our Domain Names practice page. Learn more about Anchovy® - Global Domain Name and Internet Governance here.

Domain name industry news

.MEDs for all

Medistry LLC, the Registry that runs the .MED new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD), has recently announced that it is now making its gTLD available to all without restrictions.

Initially launched in 2016 as a restricted gTLD for private and regulated use, .MED is seeing all restrictions lifted, which is a significant change of business model.  In its press release, Medistry states that .MED serves “a market sector [in which] consumers often struggle for reliable information online” and that .MED websites “deliver value by indicating source authority in an online environment that craves this very need”.

General Availability for .MED will start on 2 September 2025, meaning that all entities (companies and individuals) will be able to register a .MED domain name without any restrictions.  However, registrars have been able to submit pre-orders since 1 May 2025.  As applications are processed on a first-come, first-served basis and there is no prior phase giving priority to brand owners, the latter are advised not to wait until general availability to submit applications in order to secure their domain names under MED.

Currently counting less than 42,000 domain names, the “new” .MED may see this number increase as it now joins the ranks of other medically-oriented gTLDs such .DOCTOR, .CLINIC, .HEALTH or  .HEALTHCARE.

For more information on .MED or any other TLD, please contact David Taylor or Jane Seager.

Back to the top

EURid Q1 2025 Report

EURid, the Registry responsible for the management of the country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) .eu, .ею (“.eu” in Cyrillic script) and .ευ (“.eu” in Greek script), recently published its first quarter report for 2025.

Domain names under .eu, .ею and .ευ can be registered by any individual who is a resident or citizen of a European Union member state, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway, as well as by any organisation established in one of those states.

The report highlights that there are currently close to 3.73 million domain names registered in the .EU namespace (including over 37,000 Internationalised domain names, or IDNs), which reflects continued demand for a European digital identity.  Registrants of .EU domain names (under .eu/.ею/.ευ) are mostly based in Germany (953,585 domain names), the Netherlands (450,381), France (308,315), Italy (269,028) and Poland (237,663).

EURid recorded 161,323 new domain name registrations in Q1 2025, which is slightly less than in Q4 2024 (165,391).  Yet overall registrations have seen a steady increase (+46,769 domain names year to year), driven by business expansion, digital transformation, and brand protection strategies.  In addition the domain name renewal rate continues to be around 80%.

Moving with the times, EURid has revamped its website, offering “improved accessibility and navigation”, a “fresh visual identity” and providing content in the 24 official languages of the European Union.  The report also highlights EURid’s commitment to a safer digital environment as it “identified and addressed over 23 500 suspicious .eu domain name registrations, taking proactive steps to prevent potential misuse.”

For more information on .EU domain names, please contact David Taylor or Jane Seager.

Back to the top

Annual update on .UK domain names suspended for criminal activity

Nominet, the Registry responsible for running the .UK country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD), has recently published its annual report on .UK domain names that have been suspended due to criminal activity.  The report covers the 12 months from 1 November 2023 to 31 October 2024.

According to Nominet, over this 12-month period, it significantly increased its detection and analysis of domain name abuse, resulting in 6,315 sites being suspended in 2024, compared with 2,230 in 2023.  In addition, Nominet recorded a higher number of detections from “threat feeds”, and its “coordinated and targeted investigations” resulting in an increase in mass suspensions.

The main abuse trends identified across the .UK extension over the course of the year were as follows:

Mobile Providers

In 2024, scam calls pretending to be from UK mobile providers affected a growing number of individuals, with fraudsters registering .UK domain names in order to appear legitimate.  Nominet suspended 176 domain names that were found to be associated with the scam.

Fake Education Registrations

Nominet also detected patterns in .UK domain registrations that were designed to imitate genuine UK educational institutions.  According to Nominet, there were attempts to entice visitors to provide their personal details to sites that looked identical to that of the genuine educational institution. Nominet subsequently suspended 207 .UK domain names that were falsely presenting themselves as colleges, 80 as universities, and six as schools.

Fake Retailers

Nominet has also been focusing, with their improved detection of fake fashion brand websites, on .UK websites that falsely claim to be selling “clothing ‘drops’” (the release of new clothing items or collections in limited numbers).  The Registry suspended a number of websites in connection with these activities.

Law Enforcement Takedowns

Nominet continues to work with law enforcement agencies in order to protect users from online crime.  When Nominet is alerted to an incident by law enforcement agencies, it works with its registrars to suspend the domain names concerned.  Any such suspension is undertaken in accordance with its Criminal Practices Policy.

According to Nominet, 913 domain names were suspended during the 12-month period covered by the report, compared to 1,193 in 2023 – the lowest number of suspensions since Nominet started tracking in 2013.  In addition, Nominet collaborated with law enforcement agencies to target illegal streaming sites, which resulted in the shutdown and legal prosecution of unlawful streaming service providers.

As for the future, in the latter half of 2025, Nominet will introduce a new Domain Health Initiative, with the “ambitious aim” of making the .UK domain name space “the most trusted namespace through proactive, proportionate, and collaborative measures".

Paul Fletcher, Nominet’s CEO, summed up the Registry’s efforts as follows:

“Our latest report reveals a significant step forward in our ongoing efforts to create a safer digital world. By leveraging advanced threat detection tools and working closely with law enforcement, we’ve not only increased our ability to identify and suspend criminal domains, but we’re also disrupting sophisticated online criminal networks targeting vulnerable people. We’ve seen a marked increase in proactive abuse detection, demonstrating our commitment to protecting internet users from emerging online threats. And we’re going one step further in 2025 and beyond, with a new Domain Health Initiative – which looks to keep .UK’s openness and accessibility – but achieve systemic deterrence against abuse.”

Back to the top

Domain name recuperation news

Legitimate interest and lack of targeting defeat UDRP complaint

In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Panel denied a UDRP Complaint concerning the Domain Name <partsmaxus.com>.  The Panel found that the Complainant had failed to demonstrate that the Respondent had registered and was using the Domain Name in bad faith and that the Respondent did have legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name, thus failing to establish the second and third elements of the UDRP.

The Complainant, Partsmax, Inc., was a Florida-based company specialising in the sale of refurbished, aftermarket, and rebuilt automotive parts.  The Complainant was using the domain names <partsmax.com> and <partsmax.co>, and held a United States trade mark registration for PARTSMAX, registered on 17 July 2012.

The Respondent, Partsmax LLC, registered the disputed Domain Name on 22 November 2016.  The Respondent had been using the Domain Name in connection with a website offering electronic components for various sectors, including aerospace, medical, industrial, defence, and transportation.  This website appeared to be the United States branch of an international company that included affiliated entities operating under the same  "Partsmax" name in Germany and Turkey, through the domain names <partsmax.de> and <partsmax.com.tr>.

To be successful in a complaint under the UDRP, a complainant must satisfy the following three requirements:

(i)         The domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii)        The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;  and

(iii)       The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant argued that the disputed Domain Name was confusingly similar to its PARTSMAX trade mark, differing only by the addition of the letters "us".  It further claimed that the Respondent had no legitimate interests in the Domain Name and was using it in a way that created confusion among consumers, including use of an allegedly imitative logo.  The Complainant also claimed that the Respondent was operating in the same market and seeking to divert the Complainant's customers.

The Respondent did not submit a formal response, but later contacted the Center from an email address using the disputed Domain Name stating that it had used the disputed Domain Name since 2016.  Evidence showed that the disputed Domain Name had indeed been used actively, and the Respondent's company had been registered in Connecticut a few weeks before the disputed Domain Name was registered in 2016.  Archived pages demonstrated that the disputed Domain Name had resolved to a functioning website operated by Partsmax LLC offering electronic components, with content and branding consistent with its Turkish and German affiliates.

Regarding the first element, the Panel found that the disputed Domain Name was confusingly similar to the PARTSMAX trade mark.  The addition of the letters "us" (often appearing at the end of domain name strings to signify an abbreviation for the United States), did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the entirety of the trade mark was reproduced within the disputed Domain Name.

Turning to the second element, the Panel found that the Respondent had rights and legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name.  It concluded that the Respondent was commonly known by the Domain Name, as its registered business name, "Partsmax LLC", corresponded directly to it.  The Panel noted that the Domain Name had been used since at least 2017 for a legitimate business offering electronic components.  The addition of  "us" was consistent with the naming adopted by the international Partsmax group in Germany and Turkey.

As for the third element, the Panel concluded that the Complainant had not established bad faith.  It noted that the Complainant's market was geographically limited to South Florida and focused on automotive collision parts, whereas the Respondent operated internationally, providing electronic components for various industries.  The Respondent's first use of the Partsmax name in 2011 predated the Complainant's trade mark registration and aligned with the group's branding.  The Panel also highlighted the descriptive nature of the PARTSMAX trade mark and observed the existence of various third parties using similar terms.  Furthermore, the Complainant failed to provide supporting evidence or a persuasive rationale as to why the Respondent, as part of an international electronics group, would seek to imitate it.  Nor was the PARTSMAX trade mark sufficiently distinctive to presume such targeting.  Finally, the Panel found that the claim of customer confusion was unsupported by evidence.

The Panel concluded that the Complainant had failed to prove the second and third elements of the UDRP and therefore denied the Complaint.

This decision highlights the importance of demonstrating clear and convincing evidence of both lack of rights and bad faith in UDRP proceedings.  Where a respondent can show a legitimate interest and a business rationale for using a domain name, even if it matches a registered trade mark, a UDRP panel is unlikely to order a transfer in the absence of demonstrable targeting or abuse.

The decision is available here.

Back to the top

When food trucks collide: a recipe for UDRP rejection

In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Panel denied the transfer of the Domain Name <seattlefoodtrucks.org>, primarily due to its descriptive nature and the Respondent’s use of it for a website offering services aligned with the meaning of this Domain Name.

The Complainant was East Coast Renaissance LLC, a local organization based in Seattle, United States. Since 2011, it had continuously operated the domain name <seattlefoodtruck.com> as a platform designed to connect local food trucks within the Seattle community. In addition to this domain name, the Complainant had also registered other similar domain names, such as <seattlefoodtruck.org>. In 2024, the Complainant filed an application to the register the US trade mark for SEATTLE FOOD TRUCK.COM, but the USPTO had subsequently issued a Nonfinal Office Action on the basis that the applied-for mark was "primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of Applicant's services".  At the time of the decision, the Complainant’s application was still pending.

The Respondent, 8 Socks LLC, was led by the founder of streetfoodfinder.com, a nationwide advertising and directory platform for food trucks, which was launched in 2013. Alongside the Domain Name, the Respondent registered 20 other domain names related to food trucks in specific geographic areas, all under the ".org" gTLD, including <miamifoodtrucks.org>, <dallasfoodtrucks.org>, and <vancouverfoodtrucks.org>.

The disputed Domain Name <seattlefoodtrucks.org> was registered on 2 February 2018 and used to resolve to a website promoting the "Best Food Trucks in Seattle".

To be successful in a complaint under the UDRP, a complainant must satisfy the following three requirements:

(a)        The domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(b)        The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(c)        The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

With respect to the first limb, the Complainant argued that its organisation and the domain name <seattlefoodtruck.com> were well-known and frequently featured in local media. As such, the Domain Name was said to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s unregistered trade mark rights in SEATTLE FOOD TRUCK.COM.  In its Response, the Respondent argued that the Complainant lacked protectable trade mark rights, noting the USPTO’s refusal of its trade mark application and the Complainant’s failure to demonstrate that “seattlefoodtruck.com” had acquired distinctiveness as a source identifier for its services. The Respondent further contended that the term was widely used in a descriptive manner, providing several examples to support this claim.

The Panel declined to rule on the Complainant’s trade mark rights, citing both the pending status of its USPTO application and the Complainant’s weak and unsupported showing of unregistered rights. More fundamentally, the Panel found it unnecessary to address this issue, as the Complainant had failed to satisfy the second and third elements, as outlined below.

Regarding the second limb, the Complainant asserted that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In response, the Respondent argued that it had a legitimate interest, evidenced by its good-faith use of the Domain Name as a descriptive term in connection with its broader business of providing information about food trucks in various locations.

The Panel agreed with the USPTO’s position that the terms “Seattle food truck(s)” are largely descriptive and, as such, more likely to be legitimately used by multiple parties. In this context, the Panel found that the Respondent’s simultaneous registration of 20 other domain names, along with its ongoing use of the Domain Name for a website offering services consistent with its descriptive meaning, clearly indicated an intent to register the Domain Name for its descriptive value rather than to exploit any alleged fame or goodwill associated with the Complainant. In the absence of credible evidence showing that the Respondent specifically targeted the Complainant or its services, the Panel concluded that the second limb was not met.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concluded that the Complainant had failed to establish that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Accordingly, the third limb was not satisfied, and the Complaint was denied. It is worth noting that the Panel also found the Complainant guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, citing its deliberate omission of the USPTO’s refusal of its trade mark application—an omission the Panel considered misleading in the context of the case.

This decision serves as a timely reminder for trade mark owners—particularly those relying on descriptive or geographically-based terms—to proceed with caution when initiating UDRP proceedings. Brand owners should bear in mind that domain names that incorporate descriptive or geographically descriptive terms (e.g., “Seattle food truck(s)”) are inherently less distinctive and more likely to be used legitimately by third parties. Without clear evidence that such terms have acquired distinctiveness through substantial use and recognition, the UDRP is unlikely to assist.

The decision is available here.

Back to the top

No skin in the game: denial for cosmetic complaint under the UDRP

In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the UDRP or the Policy) before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Panel denied the transfer of the disputed domain name <soskin.com>, reflecting the Respondent’s surname, finding that the Complainant had failed to demonstrate a lack of legitimate interests as well as bad faith registration and use by the Respondent.  The Panel also made a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

The Complainant was Cosmetic Research Group, a French company specializing in the manufacturing and sale of cosmetic products, and the Respondent was an individual based in the United States of America.

The disputed domain name, <soskin.com>, was registered in January 1998. It was used primarily for personal family email communications and, for a time, hosted a family website.  At the time the Complaint was filed, in March 2025, the disputed domain name resolved to an "under construction" page provided by the Registrar, which contained geo-targeted advertising links in French for "Facial Care," "Skin Crème," and "Face Serum," related to the Complainant's business. The Panel, located in the United Kingdom, visited the website at the disputed domain name in April 2025, and noted that the page featured different sponsored advertising links from those observed by the Complainant, which were nevertheless related to the Complainant's line of business.

To be successful in a complaint under the UDRP, a complainant must satisfy the following three requirements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:

1. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service markin which the complainant has rights; and
2. the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and
3. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In relation to the first limb, the Complainant owned a series of SOSKIN trade marks, including French and international registrations dating back to 1992. The Complainant also held an American registration for the SOSKIN trade mark from 2007.  The Complainant also operated a website under the domain name <soskin.fr> registered in 2003.  The Respondent did not dispute that the Complainant had rights in the trade mark SOSKIN.  The Panel found that the disputed domain name was identical to the Complainant's SOSKIN trade mark as the entirety of the mark was reproduced within the disputed domain name, satisfying the first element of the Policy.

In relation to the second limb, the Complainant argued that the Respondent held no trade mark rights in SOSKIN and that the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying advertising links to cosmetic products competing with its own.  The Complainant submitted that this use was not bona fide and that the Respondent had failed to establish rights or legitimate interests.  Anticipating a surname-based defence, the Complainant relied on prior UDRP cases involving domain names containing respondents' surnames in which the complainants had prevailed.  The Complainant also asserted that the Respondent had taken no steps to prevent confusion with the Complainant's brand.  The Respondent stated that <soskin.com> reflected his surname and had been used continuously for personal and family email since 1998.  The Respondent denied any commercial use or intent to mislead internet users and argued that the UDRP was not intended to strip individuals of domain names tied to their own names.

The Panel recalled that, while the burden of proof remained with the Complainant, once a prima facie case was made, the Respondent must produce evidence of legitimate interests.  In this case, the Panel found that the Respondent had been commonly known by the name "Soskin" and had used the disputed domain name consistently in connection with his surname.  In addition, the Panel determined that the Complainant had misapplied the legal standards of the cases it cited, which concerned domain names related to commercial activities without evidence of genuine use.  In contrast, the Respondent had demonstrated long-standing, non-commercial use of the disputed domain name for personal email and family updates.  Although the current site indeed displayed cosmetic-related advertisements, which could be interpreted as targeting the Complainant's rights, this element was commented on by the Panel under the third limb.  The Panel found that this did not override the Respondent's legitimate interest and concluded that the second element of the Policy had not been established.

In relation to the third limb, the Complainant argued that the Respondent must have been aware of its rights in the term SOSKIN at the time of registration of the disputed domain name in 1998, noting that its earliest SOSKIN trade mark dated back to 1992 and that it had since established a strong international presence in over 40 countries.  The Complainant further contended that the Respondent, as a former tech executive of an English company, physically based near France, could not have been unaware of its brand and could have opted for a more neutral domain name such as <soskinfamily.com>.  The Complainant pointed out that the disputed domain name reproduced its trade mark identically, and that it was being used for commercial gain through the display of advertising links relating to cosmetic products.  The Complainant added that the disputed domain name was also configured for email, which could signal bad faith due to the risk of fraudulent use.  The Complainant noted that it was aware of the Respondent using email addresses which were not associated with the disputed domain name.  Finally, the Complainant asserted that the use of a privacy service to hide the Respondent's identity further pointed to bad faith.  The Respondent denied any bad faith in either the registration or use of the disputed domain name.  The Respondent stated that he had registered the disputed domain name in 1998 solely for personal and family use, and that he had no knowledge of the Complainant or its brand at the time.  The Respondent emphasized that the Complainant's United States trade mark was only used in 2003, long after the registration of the disputed domain name.  The Respondent added that he did not select or control the cosmetic-related advertising links on the site, which were auto-generated by the Registrar and reflected user behavior or geo-targeting.  The Respondent maintained that he had no commercial interest in diverting traffic or exploiting the Complainant's brand and pointed out that the disputed domain name had been used consistently for personal purposes for over 27 years.

The Panel found that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name long before the Complainant had established any presence in the United States of America. There was no evidence that the Respondent had targeted the Complainant or sought to take unfair advantage of its reputation.  While the disputed domain name currently resolved to an "under construction" page featuring advertising links related to cosmetics, the Panel accepted the Respondent's explanation that he had no involvement in selecting or controlling the displayed content.  Under established UDRP precedent, a respondent cannot fully disclaim responsibility for automatically generated advertising links.  Nevertheless, the Panel found that the evidence suggested that the Respondent was likely unaware of the cosmetics-related links until the filing of the Complaint.  According to the Panel, archived records showed that unrelated advertising was likely to be visible from the Respondent’s location, and given the Respondent's primary use of the disputed domain name for email over 27 years, he may have had little reason to monitor the website content.  Moreover, the Panel noted that the display of targeted advertising links appeared to be a default setting covered by the service agreement of the Registrar.  In these circumstances, the Panel did not find that the Respondent had registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith.  However, the Panel recommended that the Respondent disable the "under construction" page to prevent future issues, a measure the Respondent had already indicated a willingness to undertake.

The Panel also addressed the issue of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.  The Panel found that the Complainant was clearly aware that the disputed domain name corresponded to the Respondent's surname and had been registered and used by him for over 27 years.  The Complainant had no basis to suggest that the Respondent was a subsequent or opportunistic registrant, nor did the Complainant investigate the disputed domain name's historical use, which included personal email and a family website.  In the Panel’s view, after the Registrar disclosed the Respondent's identity, the Complainant should have recognized that the disputed domain name was legitimately held and used for non-commercial purposes.  The Complainant nevertheless proceeded, relying on irrelevant precedent and ignoring context such as the automated nature of the advertising links. The Panel noted that a simple outreach could likely have resolved the matter, avoiding unnecessary costs and inconvenience to the Respondent.  The Panel concluded that the Complainant had brought the Complaint in bad faith and constituted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

This decision highlights that personal use of a domain name matching a surname can constitute a legitimate interest under the UDRP. The case further illustrates how prior communication between parties, if possible, can potentially resolve matters and avoid unnecessary disputes.

The decision is available here.

Back to the top

Authored by the Anchovy News team.

Anchovy News editorial team:

• Laëtitia Arrault
• Sean Kelly
• Ying Lou
• Cindy Mikul
• Eliza Parr
• Thomas Raudkivi
• Maria Rozylo
• Jane Seager
• David Taylor
• Tony Vitali
• Grace Wilshaw

Anchovy® - Global Domain Name and Internet Governance

Hogan Lovells offers a unique, comprehensive and centralised Paris-based online brand protection service called Anchovy® for global domain name strategy, portfolio management and global enforcement.  We are the only law firm to be an ICANN-accredited registrar and we are accredited with a number of country-specific Registries worldwide.

We also specialise in all aspects of ICANN’s new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) process and we are an agent for the Trademark Clearinghouse.  As the global Domain Name System undergoes an unprecedented expansion, brand owners must revise their online protection strategies and we are ideally placed to guide them.

We are also frequently brought in to advise on cybersecurity, data protection and on a whole range of technology-related issues.

For more information on our services, please contact David Taylor or Jane Seager.

Authored by the Anchovy News team.