See many other testimonials from clients about our domain names disputes and cybersquatting service.
Domain Name and Cybersquatting Lawyers
We have been heavily involved in domain name dispute and other legal issues for some 20 years.
Domain name panellist
Our principal, Adam Taylor, is a panellist with leading domain name arbitration bodies.
For example, since 2004, he has been a member of the WIPO’s Domain Name Panel. For WIPO, Adam arbitrates domain name disputes under the UDRP for “gTLDs” such as .com. Please see his WIPO professional profile. If you visit the WIPO domain dispute search page, you’ll find a list of over 200 domain name cases on which he has adjudicated.
Since it began in 2001, Adam has also been a panellist (“Independent Expert”) under Nominet UK’s Dispute Resolution Service. This covers .uk domain names. To see the more than 100 .uk decisions which he has issued. Visit the Nominet DRS decisions search tool. Select Search Type Expert. Then search Adam Taylor
Every year, Adam attends the annual WIPO panellists conference in Geneva and the Nominet experts meetings in Oxford / London. This enables him to keep abreast of latest developments in the world of domain name disputes and cybersquatting. Sometimes he makes presentations at these meetings.
Domain name lawyers
Adlex Solicitors have also acted as lawyers for parties (large and small) in hundreds of domain name arbitration cases. We have represented both complainants and respondents. Visit the WIPO domain dispute search page for examples of such cases.
What’s our objective as domain name lawyers, when acting for trade mark owners? Simply to recover the domain name as quickly, simply and cost-effectively as possible. And of course without the need to incur the costs of domain name recovery proceedings. But, sometimes, such cases are unavoidable. If so, our long-standing experience is crucial. We have a very good idea of what it takes to succeed and how to avoid pitfalls.
We have access to a range of investigative tools. These can help to uncover patterns of misconduct, e.g., domain name and website archive records. Such evidence is often the difference between winning and losing. For example, a respondent once claimed that it registered a domain name because it was descriptive. And not because it was also our client’s name. However, we uncovered another domain name connected with that respondent. This mirrored another competitor in the same industry. The panellist cited that domain as the key factor evidencing bad faith. It can be difficult for lawyers not specialist in the area to know when / how / where to find that critical extra evidence.
Structuring pre-action correspondence correctly is also important. What registrants say – or don’t say – in response often supports the case.
What’s our objecting when acting as solicitors for registrants / respondents? Simply to defend the case as robustly and cost-effectively as possible. We will always recommend attempting to achieve settlement where appropriate.
Need legal assistance?
Contact us for a free initial legal opinion!