In a recent blog post, Nominet, the organisation responsible for the .UK country code TLD (ccTLD), acknowledged that, in spite of being the third largest ccTLD, it is subject to the same demand slowdown as many other Registries have experienced in recent years.  As such, the Registry is seeking to develop, in collaboration with its members, a programme that encourages healthy growth, while continuing to maintain a hard line against abusive behaviour. 

In its post, the Registry stated: “As guardians of .UK, we want a growing and healthy domain. Key to that is ensuring .UK remains prominent and attracts the registrants of tomorrow.”

The Programme, which will be open to all member registrars, will offer a choice of either a one-month price promotion of £1 for the first year on all .UK domain name registrations (which will, in turn, allow registrars to offer a discounted registration fee to their customers), or marketing campaign funds aimed at raising the profile of the .UK TLD and reaching new markets.

The Registry has stated that marketing option would be competitive, with campaigns “selected on their ROI potential”, and with participation caps in place to ensure a variety of members can take part.  Members that opt for the marketing offer would be excluded from the price promotion. 

Nominet is keen to avoid the pitfalls that other TLDs (such as .XYZ and .TOP, which offer bargain basement domain name registrations) have either fallen or deliberately leapt into, in that such offers tend to encourage bad actors to register domain names en masse.  At the same time, the Registry is seeking to avoid supporting “unsustainable registrations that spike initially but then fall away”. 

With its two-pronged approach, Nominet hopes to get the balance right and has stated that “by bringing both elements together, our suggested framework encourages new registrations while providing a way for a wide variety of members to take part.” 

The Registry has invited feedback from its members prior to the 3 June 2026 launch date of the programme.

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

Management of the sTLD (sponsored Top-Level Domain) .AERO recently passed from SITA (Société Internationale de Télécommunication Aéronautique), the member-owned cooperative company that oversees global aviation IT and telecommunications, to US-based domain name Registry operator, Identity Digital.  The .AERO TLD was originally launched during ICANN's first “proof-of-concept” round in 2000 (along with .BIZ, .COOP, .INFO, .MUSEUM, .NAME and .PRO) and went live in 2001.

Unlike a standard gTLD, .AERO operates under a sponsored model with strict eligibility requirements.  Applicants must belong to the aviation industry and obtain a SITA Membership ID before registering domain names through accredited registrars.

Although SITA has given up the role of Registry operator, it is not fully stepping away and will continue acting as the TLD's official sponsor and policy authority while Identity Digital will take over management of the technical Registry operations.

Even though .AERO currently remains a highly restricted and tightly focused community TLD, history has shown that TLDs can evolve over time.  Extensions such as .XXX and .MED have gradually sought to expand beyond their original niche markets and the restrictions relating to same, whereas others like .BANK have increased their visibility while still maintaining strict eligibility requirements. 

In a competitive global domain name market, one in which Registries and registrars alike jostle for market share, it remains to be seen whether .AERO will continue as a highly restricted namespace or whether its management will eventually look to broaden the extension in an effort to increase revenue from a TLD that, at the time of writing, has only around 13,000 registered domain names.

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

In a recent blog post, Steve Forbes, Head of Customer Proposition at Nominet, the Registry responsible for running the .UK country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD), outlined the launch of a new .UK Registrar Dashboard. 

This follows the introduction of the Domain Health Initiative in 2025, which was established to support efforts to keep the .UK namespace free from domain name abuse and online harm.  The tool, which will be available to all Nominet members, is scheduled to begin rolling out this month and reflects increasing industry emphasis on measurable domain name health and registrar accountability.

According to Nominet, the development of the dashboard follows ongoing feedback from members highlighting the need for a more effective way to analyse the extensive range of data and metrics associated with .UK domain names.  In addition, the dashboard is intended to help registrars assess and improve their performance in relation to reducing domain name abuse, while also providing greater insight into their share of the .UK namespace.

The new dashboard has been developed using data publicly available within the .UK zone file, alongside abuse and security-related information linked to each registrar's Nominet tag.  In total, the tool consolidates 192 datapoints relating to .UK domain name registrations associated with a registrar's Nominet Tag, including insights into hosted content, abuse activity and security metrics.  The data will be refreshed on a monthly basis.  Access to each personalised dashboard will remain exclusive to the relevant registrar, with no visibility provided to other registrars.  Nominet has also confirmed plans to introduce additional datapoints in the future, enabling registrars to benchmark their performance against anonymised industry averages across key .UK metrics.

The development of the dashboard was informed by feedback from both the UK Registry Advisory Council (UKRAC), which represents member businesses of varying sizes, and Nominet's Managed Partners, comprising approximately the top 100 registrars by domain names under management.  Nominet has stated that it welcomes further feedback, comments and suggestions from members once the dashboard becomes available, with the aim of informing future iterations and enhancements.  An email containing instructions on how to sign up for the dashboard will be distributed later in May, ahead of the dashboard becoming available in June.

For more information on .UK 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 for the transfer of the disputed Domain Name vinitalyusa.com (the disputed Domain Name) finding that the Complainant had failed to establish registration of the domain name in bad faith under the third element of the Policy.

The Complainant in this case was Veronafiere, S.p.A., Italy, a joint stock company using the VINITALY mark in connection with exhibition services.  The Complainant owned Italian trade mark VINITALY registered in 2007 and claimed unregistered trade mark rights in the mark VINITALY.USA through use in commerce in the United States.

The Respondent was an individual, the manager of an American company Fiere Italiane, LLC, ("Fiere").  The disputed Domain Name was registered on 1 May 2023 and resolved to a website promoting a "Vinitaly USA" Italian wine trade fair event.

Fiere and the Complainant entered into an Agreement in July 2024 as a result of which Fiere provided planning and organisational services to the Complainant for the aforementioned wine trade fair.  The Complainant and Fiere also cooperated on the same event the year before.  The Complainant granted Fiere a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence to use the "Vinitaly" brand and VINITALY trade mark to fulfil its obligations under the Agreement.  The Complainant asserted that the Agreement had been terminated, a claim which the Respondent disputed.

To succeed in a complaint under the UDRP, a complainant must satisfy each of the following three requirements under the Policy:

(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;

(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 alleged that, as owner of the VINITALY trade mark in Italy and claiming unregistered trade mark rights in VINITALY.USA, the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name.  The Complainant claimed that the rights for the Respondent's company to use the VINITALY mark were terminated when the Agreement ended, and that the registration of the disputed Domain Name would not have been in accordance with the Agreement anyway.  The Complainant further asserted that the Respondent had registered the disputed Domain Name in bad faith by registering the Domain Name in its name, rather than that of the Complainant, and that the Respondent's use of the Domain Name was in bad faith as the Respondent was using the Domain Name to advertise and sell the Complainant's services under the Complainant's VINITALY mark.

The Respondent submitted that the dispute was not covered by the UDRP but was a contractual dispute as the Complainant and the Respondent had previously worked together and had entered into the Agreement.  The Respondent noted that it had owned the disputed Domain Name since May 2023 and had since then developed a platform dedicated to Vinitaly USA.  According to the Respondent, when the Complainant and Respondent began working together that year, the Respondent offered to use the disputed Domain Name to centralize communications on a platform, and that over the course of the Agreement, the registration and operation of the disputed Domain Name was conducted openly and with the Complainant's knowledge and participation.  Regarding the Complainant's allegations of trade mark infringement, the Respondent countered that the Agreement covered the use of the VINITALY mark, but no mention was made of Vinitaly.USA.  The Respondent contested the Complainant's claims of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith and asserted that the dispute would be better resolved before an arbitral tribunal to determine the validity of the Agreement.

In relation to the first limb, the Panel found that the disputed Domain Name was indeed confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark, as the mark was recognizable within it.  The first element of the Policy was therefore established.

The Panel did not find it necessary to consider the second limb, as it found that the third element was not fulfilled, meaning that the case was denied. Regarding the third element, the Panel considered the fact that the Parties knew each other and had a history of commercial cooperation and noted that the Respondent had registered the disputed Domain Name well before the Parties entered into the Agreement.  The Panel acknowledged that the Complainant's VINITALY trade mark had been in force at the time, although VINITALY.USA was first used much later.

The Panel noted that the Complainant had not provided much background information concerning its relationship with the Respondent, apart from providing the Agreement which showed the Parties worked together on the International Wine Expo.  The Panel underlined that understanding the events surrounding the registration of the disputed Domain Name was key to determining whether it had been registered and used in bad faith.  Given that the disputed Domain Name had been registered months prior to the Agreement between the Parties, the Panel found that the terms of the Agreement were of limited assistance in determining the Respondent's motives at the time of registration of the disputed Domain Name. 

The Panel pointed out that while the Respondent may have previously acknowledged that the Complainant was the owner of the VINITALY mark and brand name and received a licence at that time of the Agreement, this did not necessarily mean that the Respondent had registered the disputed Domain Name in bad faith in May 2023, and the Respondent had a number of possible reasons that would not necessarily indicate bad faith. 

Notably, the Panel considered that the Respondent may simply have wanted to secure the disputed Domain Name for the Parties' proposed joint venture at a time when it remained unclear what corporate vehicle would ultimately be used to run the events and hold the related intellectual property, particularly in light of the Parties' collaboration surrounding the International Wine Expo and the later Vinitaly USA events.

The Panel then stated that what may have been a good faith registration could not retroactively be converted into a bad faith registration: termination of the existing Agreement could not have an effect on the initial intentions of the Respondent when registering the disputed Domain Name beforehand.  The Panel found that, given these circumstances, the Complainant had not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent had registered the disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and the Panel therefore considered that the question of bad faith use was moot.  The Panel ultimately concluded that the third element was not satisfied, and the Complaint was therefore denied.

The decision illustrates that Panels generally issue a UDRP decision on the merits, even in the event of overlapping court proceedings, where the relative expediency of the UDRP versus the court system is seen as a benefit to the parties.  Panel reluctance to terminate a UDRP case on this basis often also takes account of the potential for a court action to address causes of action separate from those being addressed in the UDRP proceeding.  In this particular case, although there was an ongoing trade mark and contractual dispute for the court to deal with, the issue surrounding the registration of the disputed Domain Name in bad faith under the UDRP was relatively straightforward and resulted in denial, thus leaving the court to resolve the wider issues as it saw fit. Once again this illustrates the fact that UDRP Panels will generally not use a concurrent court case as a reason to dismiss a UDRP complaint on procedural grounds, but will instead examine all the issues and make a decision on the merits if this is considered to be the right course of action for the parties.

The decision is available here.

In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP or the Policy) before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a three-member Panel denied the transfer of the disputed domain names, finding that the Respondent had established clear rights and legitimate interests based, inter alia, on its longstanding corporate name, earlier trade mark registrations, and official industry mandate, and that there was no evidence of bad-faith targeting of the Complainant's trade marks.

The Complainant was an individual entrepreneur domiciled in Switzerland who was active in the online sale of Swiss wines on an international level. He owned trade mark rights for SWISS WINE & design in multiple jurisdictions, including a Swiss mark registered in 2019. The Complainant also owned numerous domain names consisting of his SWISS WINE trade mark with various country code top-level domains, such as swisswine.fr, swisswine.in and swisswine.kr, through which he operated his online sales business.

The Respondent was Swiss Wine Promotion AG, a Swiss entity created on 7 August 2006, initially established as an association under the name "Association Swiss Wine Promotion" before being converted into a limited company and renamed in 2017. Its corporate purpose was to promote Swiss wine, and in particular its sales both in Switzerland and abroad. In 2021, the Respondent entered into an agreement with the umbrella organisation for the Swiss wine industry, under which the Respondent was expressly designated as the sole body responsible for promoting Swiss wines. The Respondent owned Swiss trade marks for SWISS WINE & design since 2016.

Two domain names were at issue in this dispute. The Domain Name swisswine.com was originally registered in 2004 and acquired by the Respondent on 13 December 2023. In January 2025, the Respondent transitioned its online presence to this domain name, having previously operated through the domain name swisswine.ch, which it had owned since 2014. The other Domain Name swisswineweek.com was registered by the Respondent on 30 June 2016 and was used to redirect to its website at the domain name swisswineweek.ch.

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 limb, the Complainant argued that the Domain Names were confusingly similar to his trade marks. The Respondent held the view that the Complainant did not own exclusive rights to the terms "Swiss Wine" because such terms were generic and descriptive when used in relation to Swiss wine, and there could be no likelihood of confusion between signs sharing only elements devoid of distinctive character.

The Panel accepted that the Complainant had established trade mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. It found that the Domain Name swisswine.com was identical to the Complainant's trade marks, and that the addition of the term "week" in the Domain Name swisswineweek.com did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The first requirement was therefore established.

Turning to the second limb, the Complainant contended that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, arguing amongst other things that the Respondent's transition to the Domain Name swisswine.com in January 2025 proved a lack of established legitimate interest prior to this recent activation. The Respondent argued that its name had included "Swiss Wine" since 2006, its official role for the promotion of Swiss wine was sufficient to establish a legitimate interest, and it owned trade mark registrations obtained well before the Complainant's trade marks. The Respondent further asserted that it had been using its domain name swisswine.ch for years before it finalised the transition to the Domain Name swisswine.com.

The Panel found that the Respondent had been commonly known by a name corresponding to the Domain Names, having been named "Association Swiss Wine" from 2006 and "Swiss Wine Promotion AG" from 2017. Furthermore, the Domain Names reproduced the word elements of the Respondent's trade marks registered in 2016, well before the Complainant obtained his trade mark registrations. The Panel also found that, before notice of the dispute, the Respondent had used the Domain Names (or domain names comprising the same strings, particularly swisswine.ch and swisswineweek.ch) in connection with a bona fide offering of services, as evidenced by the substantial documentation submitted by the Respondent. The second requirement was therefore not established.

Since the three UDRP requirements are conjunctive, the Complaint failed. Nevertheless, and for the sake of completeness, the Panel continued to assess the third requirement.

As far as the third limb was concerned, the Complainant asserted that the Respondent was aware of his existence before acquiring the Domain Name swisswine.com in 2023, relying on comments that he posted on the Respondent's social media account in 2019 and 2020. The Complainant also argued that the activation of the Domain Name swisswine.com, long after his own trade marks were registered, constituted use in bad faith, and that the Respondent's expansion into markets where the Complainant operated (e.g., India and Korea) demonstrated a calculated attempt to exploit his global reputation.

The Respondent disputed that it acted in bad faith, arguing that its use of the Domain Names was consistent with its purpose and field of activities, that the transition aimed to improve visibility and accessibility, and that it was not aware of the Complainant's trade marks when registering or acquiring the Domain Names. Furthermore, since the Respondent started its activity before the Complainant, it could not have aimed to disrupt the Complainant's business.

The Panel found that the Domain Name swisswineweek.com was registered in 2016, three years before the Complainant registered its trade marks, and accordingly it was obvious that this registration could not have targeted the Complainant or its trade marks. As for the Domain Name swisswine.com, acquired on 13 December 2023, the Panel found that the Complainant had not provided convincing evidence that the Respondent was aware of his existence or trade marks before that date.  Even if the Respondent had seen the Complainant's comments on its social media posts, this did not mean the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trade marks, and even if it were, this did not establish bad faith because the Respondent also owned trade mark rights at that time. The Panel further noted that the Respondent's purpose was to promote Swiss wine and, as such, indirectly promoted the Complainant's activities, and that the Complainant's positive comments on the Respondent's social media posts confirmed that the Complainant did not consider the Respondent's use of "Swiss Wine" to be in bad faith at the time. Noting that the Domain Name swisswine.com was being used in a largely identical manner to the corresponding domain name swisswine.ch, the Panel found that the Respondent did not register this Domain Name in bad faith, irrespective of its acquisition date after the registration of the Complainant's  trade marks. The third element was therefore not established, and the Complaint was denied.

It is worth noting that the Panel also considered the Respondent's request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, but declined to make such a finding, noting that the Complainant owned trade mark rights and that at least one of the disputed domain names was acquired and used after the registration of the Complainant's trade marks. Accordingly, the Panel did not consider that the Complainant acted in bad faith or must have known that its Complaint could not succeed.

This decision highlights that brand owners cannot rely on trade mark registrations alone - particularly where the mark is descriptive - to secure transfer of a domain name under the UDRP. It underscores the decisive weight given to a respondent's prior rights, longstanding use, and legitimate role within an industry.  More broadly, it serves as a reminder that the UDRP is not designed to resolve disputes between parties with competing legitimate interests, and that brand owners should adopt a proactive domain name strategy early and undertake a thorough assessment before taking action under the UDRP.

The decision is available here.