Since the new gTLD’s launched there are approximately 725,000 new gTLD registrations.
By my count, URS have been filed against 53 domain names and UDRP’s have been filed against 17 domain names (counts by domain names not cases)
So basically 70 domain names out of 725,000 or a 1,000th of 1% of all new gTLD domain names registered have been hit with a URS or UDRP.
It should be pointed out that not all of the filed cases went in the favor of the complainant and decisions are still pending.
Of course we are very early in the process, but so far there does seem to be anywhere the amount of enforcement activity of based on the hysteria of trademark groups over the last few years leading up to the launch of the new gTLD program.
Also over the 100 new gTLD’s that are now available to be registered only a handful are the subject of a UDRP or URS with .Guru (which has the most registrations) .Ventures, .Holdings, .Company, .Email and .Clothing leading the way.
A few other extensions have domain names that have been hit with at least one but less than 5 URS and UDRP combined:
.CEO
.Uno
.Buzz
.Land
.Berlin (2 out of 47K registrations)
.Menu
.Careers
.Tips
.Systems
.Link
.Technology
.Tips
.Viajes
.Bike
.Diamonds
.Lighting
.Equipment
That why I sleep like a baby at nite because I am the proud owner of none/zero gtlds
@BullS, you mean NEW gtlds, right? Same here. I am happy that 99.99% of all new gTLDs are bought by “investors” (what they think they are) and not end users. This makes the entire new gTLD program one big pigeon shit.
just because there have only been so many filed doesn’t mean there aren’t thousands more out there that are blatant trademark violations. there have been a number of them posted on various blogs that have not been URS or UDRP’ed yet.
CMAC
Same for .com, .net and .org
There are many more registered violations than filed cases at lot more in the extensions like .com that get traffic than in .uno
Trademark problems resulting from the nTLD initiative come in several forms:
(1) Legal actions such as URS and UDRP that have already occurred.
(2) Cybersquatting that may result in legal actions in the future.
(3) Cybersquatting that will never result in legal action.
(4) Defensive registrations on the part of companies large and small.
Obviously, we’re missing a lot if we only count #1. Most of us would expect #3 and #4 to be the largest numbers by far. So we should be looking at the total cost for all 4 categories. And that means
(1) Registration costs for both bad faith registrations and defensive registrations;
(20 Business costs that result from cybersquatting — e.g. traffic loss, phishing, etc.
If we’re going to talk about “trademark hysteria”, then we shouldn’t make a straw man of that perspective. Let’s examine the whole case.
Michael, I agree. I think trademark violations are (or can be) just as common in any gtld. The main difference being this time they have a never ending supply to gtlds to register obvious trademarks in.
At INTA Hong Kong meeting this morning heard that NAF has decided some URS cases for complainant where domain was dark (hence no use) or case was grey, not black&white. Need to check out-but if true that is very worrisome and not what URS was intended to be.