The .CO Registry, which administers the .CO (Colombia) country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD), has issued a Policy Update Reminder outlining changes to its policy governing the treatment of expired domain names. The changes are expected to take effect no later than 1 October 2026.

Under the proposed changes, registrars will be required to “adhere strictly to the .CO domain lifecycle and must not facilitate or execute changes in ownership of domain names that have expired and have not been renewed by the original registrant, unless expressly authorized by the .CO Registry.”

Once the changes come into effect, registrars will need to obtain prior authorisation from the .CO Registry before engaging in any of the following activities:

• Auctions of expiring or expired domain names
• Backorders on domain names that have not completed the deletion lifecycle
• Retention, self-allocation, or transfer of domain names to affiliated or third parties that prevent their natural deletion

.CO domain names are subject to a period of 65 days in total between their expiry and deletion, which is divided into a number of stages, including a Suspension period and a 15-day Restore Grace period before the domain names are ultimately deleted.

The new policy appears aimed at curbing the practice commonly referred to as "domain name warehousing", whereby a registrar takes control of an expired domain name under its management and retains it for its own commercial purposes. These purposes may include auctioning the domain name, or offering it for sale as a premium domain name at a price above the standard registration fee.

Some registrars also auction expired domain names before all renewal and restoration periods have expired, typically on the basis that the purchaser will receive a refund if the original registrant subsequently renews the domain name.

Nevertheless, the Registry has not entirely shut the door on such practices, stating that: “registrars currently offering auctions, backorders, or similar services for .CO domains are encouraged to contact the .CO Registry to discuss authorization and alignment with this policy.”

It will be interesting to see how hard a line the Registry takes in enforcing its new rules.

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

On 1 June 2026, EURid celebrated the 10th anniversary of .ЕЮ, the Cyrillic-script extension of .EU, marking a decade of “promoting linguistic diversity and digital inclusion across Europe”, in the words of the Registry.

Launched in 2016, the .ЕЮ domain name extension was introduced to give individuals, businesses and organisations using Cyrillic languages the opportunity to establish an online presence in their own language and script.  The extension continues to provide a digital identity that reflects the cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe, according to the Registry.

The broader .EU namespace now includes nearly 32,000 Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs), with domain names registered in local scripts and alphabets rather than just Latin characters.  Nearly 4% of those registrations are .ЕЮ domain names, representing close to 1,200 domain names.  Registrants now come from 28 countries, demonstrating sustained interest in Cyrillic digital identities across Europe.  Bulgaria accounts for 40% of all .ЕЮ domain names, while Germany, Estonia, Spain and Belgium are also among the leading countries using the extension.

According to Stefany Slavova, Bulgarian Liaison Manager at EURid:

“Ten years of .ЕЮ represents far more than a technical milestone…It reflects the importance of ensuring that all European citizens can fully express their identity online in their own language and script. The continued use of .ЕЮ shows that multilingualism remains essential for an inclusive internet.”

The story of .ЕЮ also mirrors a wider global trend.  As Internet users increasingly seek online experiences in their native languages, multilingual web spaces continue to grow.  Today, more than 60 internationalised country-code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) and 90 dedicated IDN generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) are available worldwide, expanding opportunities for people to engage online in scripts that reflect their linguistic heritage.

To visit the EURid website, please click here.

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

The National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), which operates the .IN (India) namespace, has reminded domain investors that auctioning and speculative trading of .IN domain names is prohibited under Registry policy, while warning that those found in breach could face domain name suspensions and other sanctions.

The warning was issued in an Advisory published on 11 May 2026, in which NIXI said it had become aware of .IN domain names being "offered, listed, promoted, or facilitated for auction and speculative trading” through various platforms.

According to the Advisory, "auctioning, bidding, speculative sale, or facilitation of auction of any .IN domain name" is strictly prohibited and constitutes a violation of .IN Registry policies and regulations. NIXI also instructed accredited registrars not to directly or indirectly facilitate such activities.

While the notice specifically targets registrants and registrars, its wording is broad enough to extend to investors, brokers and platforms involved in facilitating domain name transactions.

The Registry has stated that it reserves the right to place domain names on “server hold” status without prior notice, effectively suspending associated websites and email.  Registrants and registrars found to be involved in prohibited activities could also be blacklisted from future participation within the .IN namespace, while additional legal or regulatory action may also be taken.

While the advisory does not introduce a new policy, it serves as a reminder of NIXI's long-standing position on domain investing and, more importantly, signals a willingness to enforce the rules.

The warning also comes at a time when India's general approach to domain name regulation is becoming increasingly stringent. In 2026, NIXI implemented new protocols across its .IN and .BHARAT namespaces aimed at strengthening cybersecurity, reducing fraudulent domain name registrations and improving transparency. These changes include a mandatory Know Your Customer (KYC) requirement, pursuant to which registrants must verify their identity within seven days of domain name registration or renewal.  For foreign entities, this involves providing verified passport copies and documentation proving a legitimate interest or business link with India.

NIXI's recent announcements, particularly those reinforcing its long-standing policy prohibiting speculative trading in .IN domain names, have raised concern in the domain investor community.  At the time of writing, there seem to be many .IN domain names listed on the major domain name broking platforms, so it will be interesting to see whether the Registry follows up its announcement with more stringent enforcement measures.

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

DOMAIN NAME RECUPERATION NEWS

In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP or the Policy) before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Panel denied a UDRP Complaint, finding that the Respondent had established rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that there was insufficient evidence that the Domain Name had been registered and used in bad faith, particularly in light of the limited reputation of the complainant's trade mark at the time of registration of the Domain Name.

The Complainant was Rockher Haute Jewels, LLC, a company headquartered in Los Angeles, United States of America, specialising in the design and online sale of engagement rings and jewellery.  It owned United States trade mark rights for RHHR and ROCKHER, registered in 2019 and 2025 respectively.  The Complainant also owned the domain name rockher.com, consisting of its ROCKHER trade mark, through which it had operated its online jewellery business since at least 2017.

The Respondent was an individual who founded Her Rock LLC (the co-Respondent) in 2020. This entity, a company established under the laws of the State of New York, operated in the same sector as the Complainant, namely the sale of engagement rings and bridal jewellery.

The Domain Name her-rock.com was registered on 9 May 2020, and had resolved since that time to a website promoting the Respondent's jewellery business.

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 element, the Complainant argued that the Domain Name was "nearly identical" to its ROCKHER mark, differing only by the reversal of the words "rock" and "her" and the addition of a hyphen. The Respondent contended that the Complainant could not rely on its registered ROCKHER trade mark because the registration was not obtained until 2025, several years after registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent further noted that the Complainant had not alleged any common law rights in the ROCKHER mark as of 2020 and disputed that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.

The Panel nevertheless found that the Complainant's ROCKHER mark remained recognisable within the Domain Name. In particular, the Panel noted that the same two English words — "rock" and "her" — were present, albeit in reverse order, and retained their ordinary meaning in the context of jewellery, referring to a diamond ("rock") for a woman ("her"). The Panel therefore concluded that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to the Complainant's ROCKHER mark and that the first element was satisfied.

The Panel further observed that any consideration of unregistered or common law rights in the ROCKHER mark was unnecessary for the first element, although such rights could be relevant to the assessment of the second and third elements.

With regard to the second limb, the Complainant argued that it had not authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark and that the Respondent was using the Domain Name in connection with goods and services that directly competed with the Complainant's business. The Respondent, however, asserted a legitimate interest in the Domain Name based on its longstanding use of the name in connection with its business. In particular, the Respondent relied on the fact that Her Rock LLC had operated under that name for more than five years, claimed common law rights in HER ROCK and HER-ROCK.COM, and pointed to a pending United States trade mark application for HER ROCK JEWELRY.

The Panel agreed with the Respondent. It found that the Domain Name had been used for several years in connection with a bona fide offering of jewellery-related goods and services. The Panel also considered that the Respondent was commonly known by a name corresponding to the Domain Name, as evidenced by its company name and its consistent use of that name in both commercial and online contexts. Accordingly, the second element was not satisfied.

As far as the third limb was concerned, the Complainant asserted that the Respondent could not reasonably have been unaware of its existence before acquiring the Domain Name in 2020, given its online presence in the custom jewellery industry.  According to the Complainant, this was further evidenced by the Respondent's use of a logo similar to the Complainant's figurative trade mark.  The Respondent disputed any allegation of bad faith, arguing that its use of the Domain Name, corresponding to its corporate name, derived from the meaning attributed to the expression "Her Rock" in connection with its personalized jewellery business.  The Respondent further stated that it had never heard of the Complainant before 2025 and produced statements from industry professionals and customers, together with evidence suggesting that the Complainant's social media presence was relatively limited.

The Panel found that the Complainant had failed to demonstrate that its reputation was such that any entrant into the jewellery sector in May 2020 would necessarily have been aware of its business. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel relied on several factors, including the Complainant's relatively recent online presence, its limited social media following, and the geographical separation between the parties' businesses. The Panel also noted the absence of evidence establishing significant common law rights in the ROCKHER mark as of 2020. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the Respondent had not registered the Domain Name with the intention of targeting, exploiting or otherwise taking unfair advantage of the Complainant's trade mark rights. The third element was therefore not established and the Complaint was denied.

The panel also considered whether a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) might be appropriate, particularly in light of the Complainant's weak evidence of bad faith and the fact that no registered ROCKHER trade mark existed when the Domain Name was registered.

Ultimately, however, the Panel declined to make such a finding. In doing so, it noted that the Respondent had not requested a finding of RDNH and that the Complaint had been filed without the assistance of legal counsel.

The decision serves as a reminder that, while the threshold for establishing confusing similarity under the UDRP is relatively low, brand owners must still prove that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests and that the domain name was registered in bad faith. Where a respondent can demonstrate a genuine business operating under a corresponding name and the complainant's trade mark reputation was limited at the time of registration, establishing bad-faith registration may prove particularly challenging.

The decision is available here. 

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 for the disputed domain name integratedforms.com (the disputed Domain Name).  The Panel found that although the Parties had enjoyed a business relationship, with the Complainant providing products to the Respondent, for over twenty years, the Complainant had not provided evidence that it had used its INTEGRATED FORMS trademark as a source identifier for its products, or on its invoices.  As a result, the Panel found that it was plausible that the Respondent had registered the Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant's INTEGRATED FORMS name or trademark, found no registration and use in bad faith and denied the Complaint.

The Complainant, who operated under the name "Integrated Label Corporation", was a company incorporated in Illinois that provided high‑quality business forms and labels to customers in the United States as well as internationally.  The Complainant held a US trademark registration for INTEGRATED FORMS, registered in July 2007, as well as a US trademark registration for INTEGRATED LABELS, registered in March 2013.  Both registrations claimed first use in 1999.  The Complainant used the domain name integratedlabels.com for its commercial website and had done so since 1999.

The Respondent was an individual based in the United States.  The Panel noted that the Respondent owned the Quality Paper Corporation, an entity based in New York, United States.  According to the Complainant, the Respondent had been a customer of the Complainant for many years and annexes to the Complaint showed over a thousand transactions between the Parties from 2004 to 2025.

The Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name on 26 May 2025.  For a time, the disputed Domain Name resolved to a website that that stated that the Respondent was "your trusted leader in INTEGRATED FORMS and LABELS".

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 it had satisfied each of the elements under the UDRP, noting that the Respondent has long been aware of the Complainant and its trademarks given that the Respondent's company had been a customer of the Complainant for years. The Complainant also argued that the Respondent had used the disputed Domain Name to create the false impression that the Respondent's website was endorsed by the Complainant, which, the Complainant argued, was not the case.

The Respondent acknowledged that his company had been a customer of the Complainant for more than twenty years, yet argued that at no point during dealings with the Complainant, including during communications, had the Complainant used the trademark INTEGRATED FORMS.  The Respondent noted in particular that the Complainant's invoices featured the company name "Integrated Label Corporation" and never the term or trademark INTEGRATED FORMS.  The Respondent argued that he registered the disputed Domain Name in good faith for use in connection with his company's business of selling labels and forms. 

The Respondent further argued that he had sold a product known as "integrated forms", and integrated labels for over twenty years, which is "the common industry name for the product".

In relation to the first element, the Panel found that the Complainant had rights in the trademark INTEGRATED FORMS and that the disputed Domain Name was identical to that trademark.

The Panel declined to consider the second element in light of its finding under the third element.

In relation to the third element, the Panel found that the Complainant failed to prove that the Respondent had registered and was using the disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel noted that this was an unusual case given that the Parties had known each other for over twenty years and yet the Respondent plausibly claimed not to have been aware of the Complainant's INTEGRATED FORMS trademark during that business relationship.  The Panel found that while there was no doubt that the Complainant had trademark rights in the term INTEGRATED FORMS, there was no evidence that the Complainant had used this mark as a source identifier for its goods, and there was no evidence that the Respondent was aware of that mark.

The Panel did not consider the Respondent's contention that the term "integrated forms" was a generic industry term and so could not be protected under United States trademark law.  The Panel noted that the trademark INTEGRATED FORMS was not so inherently distinctive that one must infer that someone in the Respondent's position was likely aware of the mark when registering the disputed Domain Name. 

Ultimately, although the Panel noted that some unanswered questions remained, including why the Respondent registered the particular form of the disputed Domain Name only recently after years of the Parties working together, the Panel found that the Respondent's explanation for having registered and used the disputed Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant's INTEGRATED FORMS trademark was sufficiently plausible, and the burden of proof was on the Complainant to prove the contrary.  The Panel found that the Complainant had failed to do so, and so the Complaint failed under the third element. 

The Panel left open the question of whether the Complainant had a viable cause of action under federal trademark law, noting that this question was beyond the scope of the UDRP proceeding.

This decision highlights the need for complainants to adduce evidence of use and evidence of targeting of their trademark and name, even where the parties have a longstanding business relationship and it may be tempting to assume that such evidence is not necessary.  Making conclusory allegations will not be sufficient for a panel to make a finding of bad faith registration and use under the third element of the UDRP, particularly in circumstances such as the present case where a respondent plausibly asserts that they had no knowledge of the complainant's trademark rights.

The decision is available here.