domain name

In today’s digital environment, businesses are increasingly exposed to various risks related to the security of their online assets. Domain names, in particular, have become prime targets for cybercriminals and other malicious actors seeking to exploit a brand’s reputation or engage in cybersquatting. Aware of these challenges, Dreyfus Law Firm introduces its new Domain Name Monitoring Service, an innovative and comprehensive solution designed to proactively protect your company’s image, brands, and domain names.

The Importance of Domain Names in Today’s Digital Landscape

Domain names are much more than just a web address. They are your company’s gateway to the digital world, the online identity of your brand, and a key element of your business strategy. They convey your brand image, serve as a point of contact for your customers and partners, and are often integrated into your digital marketing efforts. However, the increased importance of domain names has also caught the attention of cybercriminals.

These actors exploit domain names in various ways to harm businesses. Whether through the creation of fraudulent websites using similar domain variations (a practice known as typosquatting) or by registering similar domains to lure your customers into phishing scams, the risks are real and multifaceted. Additionally, some malicious actors use these domains to set up email servers to launch deceptive email campaigns aimed at stealing sensitive information or spreading malware.

For all these reasons, proactive monitoring of your domain names has become an absolute necessity. Simply registering a domain name and assuming it is protected is no longer enough. You need to continuously monitor similar domain names, their usage, and their integrity, and be ready to react quickly if an issue arises. This is where Dreyfus Law Firm’s Domain Name Monitoring Service comes into play.

A Service Designed for Multi-Dimensional Protection

Our Domain Name Monitoring Service stands out for its holistic approach and its ability to cover all critical aspects of similar domain names. It is built on three main pillars: monitoring WHOIS records, online content publication, and email server activation associated with monitored domains.

1. WHOIS Record Monitoring: WHOIS is a public directory containing information about domain name owners, including their contact details, domain creation and expiration dates, and other relevant details. By monitoring these records, we can immediately detect any unauthorized or suspicious changes that could indicate an attempt to take control of your domain (e.g., a change in ownership or DNS servers). This information is crucial for anticipating threats and taking necessary action before any damage is done.

2. Online Content Publication Monitoring: Monitoring content published under domain names associated with your brand is equally essential. This pillar of the service focuses on detecting fraudulent, defamatory, or simply illegal content published on domains linked to your company. For example, a website that imitates yours and publishes false or malicious information can cause significant harm to your reputation. By quickly detecting content related to monitored domain names, we can promptly take the necessary legal action to have it removed.

3. Email Server Activation Monitoring: Finally, one of the most insidious aspects of domain-related cyberattacks is the activation of email servers to launch phishing or spam campaigns. By monitoring the activation of these servers, we can detect and neutralize these threats to limit the risk of them reaching your customers or partners. This type of monitoring is especially important in a context where email remains one of the preferred attack vectors for cybercriminals.

Monitoring Tailored to Your Specific Needs

We understand that each company is unique and that digital security needs can vary greatly from one organization to another. That’s why our Domain Name Monitoring Service is fully customizable. We offer two monitoring frequencies: weekly or daily, depending on your specific needs and the level of risk you are exposed to.

– Weekly Monitoring: For companies whose domain names are less likely to be attacked or who have less sensitive digital assets, weekly monitoring may be sufficient. This monitoring mode allows for the detection of changes or suspicious activities regularly enough to anticipate and manage risks without requiring real-time monitoring.

– Daily Monitoring: For companies with highly sensitive digital assets or those operating in sectors where cybersecurity risks are particularly high, such as finance, healthcare, or e-commerce, daily monitoring is recommended. This mode allows for almost instant response to any suspicious changes, thereby limiting the risks of malicious exploitation of your domain names.

Two Operational Modes for Optimal Responsiveness

To better meet our clients’ expectations, we have designed two distinct operational modes for our Domain Name Monitoring Service:

1. Automatic Notifications: This mode is ideal for companies that want to be informed in real-time of changes or suspicious activities related to their domain names. Whenever a modification is detected, whether it’s a change in WHOIS information, the publication of new online content, or the activation of email servers, you will be immediately alerted. This system allows you to react quickly to protect your rights and prevent irreversible damage to your brand or digital assets.

2. Legal Analysis and Recommendations: This mode offers an even higher level of service by including the intervention of our legal experts. Each detected change is carefully reviewed by our team of lawyers, who assess the relevance of the changes and determine if they pose a threat to your company. If a risk is identified, we provide detailed recommendations on the actions to take to manage this threat. This approach allows you to benefit not only from real-time monitoring but also from tailored legal expertise, ensuring that you receive only relevant alerts and are fully equipped to anticipate and resolve issues related to monitored domain names.

Why Choose Dreyfus Law Firm’s Domain Name Monitoring Service?

Dreyfus Law Firm is distinguished by its expertise in intellectual property and cybersecurity, as well as its commitment to providing personalized solutions tailored to each client’s specific needs. By opting for our Domain Name Monitoring Service, you benefit from robust and effective protection against digital threats, supported by a team of experienced professionals.

Our holistic and proactive approach allows you to secure your domain names optimally, ensuring that every aspect of their use is monitored and protected. Additionally, our ability to offer in-depth legal analyses and personalized recommendations makes us a partner of choice for any company concerned with protecting its digital assets in an ever-evolving landscape.

Conclusion

In a world where digital threats are constantly evolving, it is essential not to leave certain domain names unmonitored. Dreyfus Law Firm’s Domain Name Monitoring Service is designed to provide you with peace of mind by ensuring continuous and proactive protection of your digital assets. Whether you choose automatic notifications or detailed legal analysis, you can count on our expertise to secure your domain names and protect your business from the growing risks of cyberspace.

Don’t wait to take action. Contact us today to learn more about our Domain Name Monitoring Service and discover how we can help you secure your digital assets for a safer and more secure future while keeping your budget under control.

New AFNIC Mediation Procedure: Fast and Free Dispute Resolution for Domain Name Holders

On July 3, 2023, AFNIC launched a mediation procedure to resolve disputes between right holders and domain name holders. The aim of this innovative measure is to offer parties a free, amicable means of resolving disputes, limited, however, to domain names managed by AFNIC (“.fr”).

The main role of AFNIC (Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération) is to manage the domain name registry in France (.fr).

What Is Afnic’s New Mediation Procedure?

The AFNIC mediation procedure is a free service set up to settle disputes relating to “.fr” domain names. It aims to provide a rapid and effective solution to disputes that may arise between domain name holders, registrars, and third parties. Mediation is based on an amicable process, which means that it takes place without recourse to the courts, enabling the parties involved to reach an agreement without incurring additional costs.

The procedure is simple and accessible to all parties concerned. To initiate mediation, one of the parties must submit a request to AFNIC, providing information on the dispute in question, the domain names involved, and the reasons for the dispute. Once the request has been received, AFNIC can appoint a mediator to deal with the dispute. The mediator must be neutral and impartial.

Once this has been done, the mediator will contact the parties to hear their arguments and help them find common ground. This is a confidential process, usually conducted online. The significant advantage of this approach is that the dispute can be resolved without the parties having to face each other physically.

What Are the Advantages of Mediation?

AFNIC mediation offers a number of advantages for parties involved in a domain name dispute:

Firstly, the mediation procedure enables the parties to reduce their costs considerably, especially when compared with other, much more costly procedures.

Secondly, unlike legal proceedings, which can take months or even years, AFNIC mediation offers a rapid resolution, usually within a few weeks. This is also a real advantage for the parties, especially in view of the long delays associated with the usual procedures.

The mediation process is also confidential, preserving the reputation and confidentiality of the parties involved. The remote procedure facilitates interaction between the parties, who are not obliged to be in the same room or in direct communication to resolve the dispute.

Mediation also enables the parties to find creative, customized solutions that meet their specific needs. In this respect, it is a flexible measure.

Finally, it is a method of resolution that encourages cooperation and communication between the parties, thus facilitating an amicable resolution of the dispute.

AFNIC’s free mediation procedure is a valuable resource for holders of <.fr> domain names faced with disputes. It offers a rapid, confidential alternative to legal proceedings, enabling parties to resolve their disputes amicably. If you’re involved in a .fr domain name dispute, don’t hesitate to consider AFNIC mediation as an effective solution for reaching a fair and rapid agreement. You can well imagine its value in cases where the parties are willing to find an amicable solution… that’s what mediation is all about!

For expert guidance  on AFNIC’s mediation process, contact Dreyfus today for a free consultation to secure your online presence.

WIPO, Arbitration and Mediation Center, Case No. D2022-0593, April 15th 2022, Photomaton v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Ehren Schaiberger

In the decision made on April 15^th, 2022, Photomaton had its UDRP complaint rejected, that concerned a domain name of which it was previously a holder of.

This case is likely to attract a lot of attention as it illustrates the importance of regular monitoring of domain names and other industrial property rights that are subject to renewal.

The case is concerned with the domain name <photomaton.com>, which, according to the evidence, was held by the company Photomaton from the 16^th of January 2015 until January 2020. The situation may seem far-fetched, but it appears that the Complainant did not renew the domain name on time. The Respondent, Mega Domains, is a domainer who registers and puts domain names up for sale. At the time of this case, it held more than 10,000 domain names.

Respondent became the owner of the <photomaton.com> domain name when it expired via a so-called “Drop Catching” system. The logic suggests that the registration was done properly and that the Respondent had nothing to worry about, however the rules of the UDRP procedure are a little more complex.

What about a domainer who registers a domain name with a third party’s trademark that is not registered in the country where the domainer is located?

Complainant argued that it was the owner of French, EU and international trademark “PHOTOMATON” as well as the domain names <photomaton.fr> and <photomaton.be>. Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP provides that a combination of three elements are required to be met in order to claim the transfer of a disputed domain name: the existence of Complainant’s prior right that is confusingly similar to the domain name, evidence of absence of a right or legitimate interest of the domain name’s current holder and evidence of registration and use in bad faith of the domain name by the current holder.

Obviously, the first condition left no room for doubt for the Expert: the name was identical to the “PHOTOMATON” trademarks held by Complainant, as the gTLD “.com” was not considered in this comparison.

The second condition, on the other hand, was subject to more detailed consideration. Complainant argued that it had not given permission to Respondent to register and use the domain name in question and that Respondent was not known by the domain name or any of its derivatives, nor did it own any trademarks relating to the domain name. The Respondent argued that the term “Photomaton” was a descriptive term that he could register and resell at his convenience.

The Expert, far from stopping at a biased parallel between the English term “photo booth” and the term “photomaton”, affirmed by referring to an INPI decision, stating that the term “photomaton” was not considered descriptive in both English and French. In support of his argument, he added that even if the term had become restrictive, the domain name must be used genuinely, or at least clearly intended for such use, in relation to the dictionary definition and not for the purpose of trading in the trademark rights of others. This was not the case here, as Respondent had offered the domain name for sale on the ‘Dan’ platform for 37,000 US dollars, a price set on the basis of the notoriety of the term.

The third condition was the most controversial and the one that led the Complaint to fail. Complainant claimed that its trademark was an invented word, deemed distinctive by INPI case law, and it is very famous, at least in France, where it has been used for over 100 years. It was therefore unlikely that Respondent had registered the disputed domain name without knowing the Complainant’s trademark.  However, Complainant had not provided any evidence of the use of its brand or its scope in the United States, where Respondent was located.

Meanwhile, Respondent claimed that it did not know Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent added that his business consisted of the registration and resale of domain names that he considered descriptive. Respondent also provided evidence of the registration of numerous names containing the word “photo” or ending in “on”.

The Panel reflecting on the facts, concluded that it was clear that Complainant did not abandon its trademark, even if it did not renew the domain name, therefore a subsequent purchaser could not use it in a way that would conflict with its trademark right. The complexity of the case lies in the fact that Respondent argued that more than 100,000 domain names expire every day and that to avoid potential disputes, the latter used keywords that are likely to be rejected for registration, which included many trademarks. However, Respondent claimed to be using the databases of the US Trademark Office, where the mark “PHOTOMATON” was not registered. The Panel responded by stating that by offering the brand for sale on a worldwide scale, based solely on a US database, did not seem adequate in light of the database provided by WIPO.

The Panel concluded that the Complainant’s name was not registered as a trademark highlighting two points: firstly, a Google search made at the time of the registration of the domain name by Respondent did not clearly show Complainant’s trademark, but the geographical points where the photo booths were installed. Secondly, the Expert considered that Respondent had nonetheless undertaken numerous endeavours to ensure that the disputed domain name was not the subject of a trademark right. The Panel noted that failure to use a worldwide trademark database might not be excused in the future.

This is an unforeseen decision, which demonstrates the extent to which management of a domain name portfolio remains a major issue for companies of all sizes. So far, the <photomaton.com> domain name is still for sale on the Dan.com website for 37,000 US dollars.