Domain Name and Cybersquatting Lawyers
We have been heavily involved in domain name dispute and other legal issues for some 20 years.
Our principal, Adam Taylor, is a panellist with leading domain name arbitration bodies.
For example, since 2004, he has been a member of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s Domain Name Panel to arbitrate domain name disputes under the UDRP for gTLDs such as .com. Please see his WIPO professional profile. If you visit the WIPO domain dispute search page, you’ll find a list of over 200 domain name cases on which he has adjudicated.
Adam has also been a panellist (“Independent Expert”) under Nominet UK’s Dispute Resolution Service (covering .uk domain names) since it began in 2001. Please visit the Nominet DRS decisions search tool and select Search Type Expert and then search Adam Taylor to see the more than 100 .uk decisions which he has issued.
Every year, Adam attends the annual WIPO panellists conference in Geneva and the Nominet experts meeting in Oxford / London in order to keep abreast of latest developments in domain name disputes and cybersquatting. Sometimes he makes presentations at these meetings.
Adlex Solicitors have also acted as lawyers for parties (both large and small) in hundreds of domain name arbitration cases, both for complainants and respondents. By way of example, see this WIPO domain dispute search page for case reports of many UDRP cases in which we acted for one of the parties.
Our objective as domain name lawyers, when acting for trade mark owners, is to recover the domain name as quickly, simply and cost-effectively as possible without having to incur the costs of domain name recovery proceedings. Where such recovery cases are necessary, we have a very good idea of what it takes to succeed and how to avoid pitfalls – based on our experience in this area (including acting as a panellist / independent expert).
We have access to a range of investigative tools which can uncover patterns of misconduct including archive records. Such evidence is often the difference between winning and losing. In one case, a respondent claimed that it registered a domain name for its descriptive qualities and not to target our client. However, we uncovered another domain name connected with that respondent which mirrored that of another competitor in the same industry. The panellist cited that domain as the key factor evidencing bad faith. It can be difficult for lawyers not specialist in the area to know when / how / where to find that critical extra evidence.
Structuring pre-action correspondence correctly is also important, as what registrants do or do not say in response often supports the case.
When acting as solicitors for registrants / respondents, our objective is of course to defend the case as cost-effectively as possible. We will always recommend attempting to achieve settlement where appropriate.