WIPO Domain Name Report 2024: UDRP case filings remain strong
February 4, 2025
In 2024, trademark owners from 133 countries filed 6,168 cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and national ccTLD variations. This marks the second busiest year of domain name cases filed with WIPO since 1999 when WIPO created the UDRP, highlighting the continued importance of domain names in the global intellectual property and e-commerce landscape. These strong case numbers demonstrate the continued relevance and effectiveness of the UDRP in addressing cybersquatting and fraudulent activities involving domain names (e.g., phishing or fake invoices).
Annual Filings: Evolution since 2010
The United States of America, France, and the United Kingdom continued to lead the way as the top filing party locations.
Top 10 Complainant countries
Top 10 Respondent countries
WIPO domain name cases were conducted in 18 languages, with English (91%), French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Swedish, German, Dutch, Turkish, and Ukrainian being the top 10. This shows the international scope and diversity of the cases handled by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center).
Case Languages
Cases filed covered nearly every industry, with the top sectors being retail, banking and finance, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, Internet and IT, and fashion. This reflects the wide-ranging impact of domain name disputes on various sectors of the economy.
Top 10 Industries
The top 10 complainants included Carrefour, Meta Platforms, LEGO, Fenix International, Michelin, Sodexo, Philip Morris, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Equinor. These companies represent a mix of industries, from retail to pharmaceuticals, highlighting the importance of domain name protection for businesses of all types.
The top 10 complainant representatives filing domain name cases with WIPO in 2024 were CSC Digital Brand Services, Nameshield, IP Twins, ABION, SafeNames, Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, Dreyfus & associes, The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, Aeropage, and Walters Law Group.
WIPO ccTLD Program updates
In 2024, the WIPO Center began accepting cases for the .AD (Andorra), .CV (Cabo Verde), .LV (Latvia), and .RW (Rwanda) ccTLDs, and received its first filings and first decision for .SN (Senegal). The WIPO Center now provides dispute resolution services to over 85 ccTLDs.
The WIPO Center assisted national registries in updating their dispute policies: for .NL (Kingdom of the Netherlands) including Geographical Indications as a right protected per Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 updating .DO (Dominic Republic) to now be a paperless procedure, and .UA (Ukraine) applying to further third level domains.
The WIPO Center saw increases in domain name case filings for the ccTLDs of .AI (Anguilla), .AE (United Arab Emirates), .BR (Brazil), .ES (Spain), .IE (Ireland), .NL (Kingdom of the Netherlands), and .SE (Sweden). This reflected record filings in 2024 for .AE (United Arab Emirates), .AI (Anguilla), and .BR (Brazil).
The top 10 ccTLDs in 2024 in terms of domain name case filings were: .CO (Colombia), .AI (Anguilla), .CC (Cocos Islands), .ES (Spain), .CN (China), .NL (Kingdom of the Netherlands), .SE (Sweden), .IO (British Indian Ocean Territory), .BR (Brazil), and.EU (European Union).
Evolution of Top ccTLDs
During WIPO’s annual Assemblies, the WIPO Center hosted a Side Event for IP Offices and Country Delegates, discussing ways to enhance interaction between IP offices, national domain registries, and brand owners regarding domain names and trademarks.
Finally, the Guide to WIPO’s services for country code top-level domain registries was updated in six languages and publication of IP Offices and ccTLD Registries and Growing your Brand.
Updated WIPO Resources
In 2024, the WIPO Center began to update its domain name home page to include top 5 filing steps, including updated model case pleadings in 6 languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish).
In addition, the WIPO Center published FAQ resources on Expiration of domain names, WHOIS (now “RDAP”), and Language of case proceedings practices.
The WIPO Center hosted over 30 webinars for filing parties and law firms, universities, brand owners, ccTLD registries, and domain name experts from around the world.
UDRP Review Project
The WIPO Center along with the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) have convened a project team to conduct a review of the UDRP, in particular to identify areas where consensus may exist for future policy recommendations or practice updates. A draft report will be shared for broader public input and to inform ICANN’s policy processes. More information is available here.
Representative UDRP case summaries
Malala Yousafzai v. syed haider
WIPO Case No. D2024-1157
<malalayousafzai.com>
Women’s education activist and the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Malala Yousafzai serves as Chair of the Malala Fund nonprofit. The domain name <malalayousafzai.com> was parked for sale and the registrant claimed that his intention was to give the domain name to his daughter who bore the same name. In finding in favor of Yousafzai, the Panel found that she had provided "ample evidence" of the use of her name as a trademark-like identifier in commerce, citing the Complainant's status as a "bestselling author". The Panel moreover noted that the domain name was registered shortly after Yousafzai was nominated for the International Children’s Peace Prize and was awarded Pakistan’s National Youth Peace Prize (now renamed the National Malala Peace Prize), and the registrant provided no evidence to supports his claims to have a daughter with the same name.
Phoenix Group Management Services Limited v. Name Redacted
WIPO Case No. D2024-3829
<sluk-clients.com>
In this case, there was no infringing website but the domain name was used for email-based fraud. The registrant impersonated an employee of the Complainant in emails requesting money from would-be investors. The emails included the Complainant's logo and attached a nine-page brochure that made liberal use of the Complainant’s trademark and had all the appearances of having been produced by the Complainant. The Panel did not hesitate to find bad faith on the part of the registrant and the Complainant was able to reclaim the domain name and prevent further harm to the public.
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, MC Projects B.V. Maastricht, succursale de Granges-Paccot v. Ellie Metcalfe,et al.
WIPO Case No. D2024-1707
<michelincolombia.com> et al.
This case involved 138 domain names and 17 nominal registrants. The Panel found that despite the use of multiple aliases, there were sufficient commonalities such as pointing to the same website content and use of the same false contact details to support a finding that the domain names were either registered by the same person or at least were under common control. From there, the case was decided in favor of the Complainant – saving them substantial time and resources.
Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC v. Domain Admin, TotalDomain Privacy Ltd
WIPO Case No. D2024-4516
<myhrhersheys.com>
As part of a growing trend of cyberthreats using domain names, this case involved the registration of a domain name omitting the dot between the Complainant's third- and second-level domain name (“my.hr.brand”). The domain name was used to communicate with employees which presents a huge, and difficult to detect security threat. There was no question this was bad faith, and so the brand owner obtained control of the domain name to prevent further harm.
SAP SE v. Nathaniel Hunt
WIPO Case No. DAI2024-0053
<sap.ai>
Growing in popularity, WIPO administered more than 80 cases under the .AI ccTLD in 2024. This particular case dealt with a domain name targeting the famous SAP trademark. It was previously owned by SAP from 2017 until 2023, but inadvertently lapsed, at which point it was acquired by the registrant. Arguing that the domain name had substantial generic value independent of the Complainant and pointing to the growing popularity in .AI domain names and acronyms, the registrant claimed it was not targeting the Complainant. The Panel found that all of the circumstances in the case pointed to the fact that the Respondent was clearly aware of and targeting the Complainant and its famous SAP mark in the .AI ccTLD.