Cybersquatting as a Type of Trademark Infringement and its Impact on Fair Competition
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26512/lstr.v18i2.59972Palabras clave:
Domain Disputes. Legal Protection. Trademark. Jurisdiction. National Model.Resumen
[Purpose] The aim of the study was to critically analyse cybersquatting as a legal and economic anomaly of the digital market.
[Methodology/approach/design] The methodology of the work was based on a combination of the comparative-legal method, detailed analysis of legal acts, international policies and the generalisation of key precedents of judicial and arbitration practice
[Findings] During the study it was established that cybersquatting encompassed various unfair practices, including typosquatting, name-jacking and abuses by registrars. Key protection instruments were analysed: the administrative Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy and the judicial American Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. In particular, the American approach was based on proving “bad faith intent” under nine judicial factors, whereas the international administrative procedure required the complainant to prove three cumulative criteria to satisfy the complaint. As a result of the comparative analysis of the legal models of the United States of America, Germany, France and Albania, four distinct approaches to regulation were identified: judicial with financial sanctions, hybrid with domain blocking, hybrid with alternative dispute resolution and a model of direct implementation of international standards. It was proved that this phenomenon created artificial barriers to market entry, especially for small and medium-sized businesses, undermined trust in e-commerce, as well as caused significant direct (costs of domain redemption, legal support) and indirect (loss of traffic, reputational damage) economic losses.
[Practical implications] The practical significance of the work lay in the fact that its results could be used to improve national legislation in the field of intellectual property, to develop more effective corporate strategies for the protection of digital assets, as well as serve as methodological material for the training of lawyers and arbitrators specialising in the resolution of domain disputes.
[Originality/value] The study's scholarly contribution lies in its systematic comparative analysis that identifies four distinct regulatory models across jurisdictions (the strict judicial model of the USA, Germany's hybrid administrative-blocking approach, France's specialized ADR system, and Albania's direct implementation of international standards), while demonstrating how cybersquatting functions as both a legal anomaly exploiting regulatory gaps and an economic distortion that disproportionately affects small and medium-sized enterprises through the creation of artificial market barriers and "cyber-inequality."
Descargas
Citas
Ahammad, S.H., Kale, S.D., Upadhye, G.D., Pande, S.D., Babu, E.V., Dhumane, A.V., & Bahadur, D.K.J. (2022). Phishing URL detection using machine learning methods. Advances in Engineering Software, 173, 103288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2022.103288
Albania constitution. (2025). https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2016)064-e
Almarzooqi, A., Mahmoud, J., Alzaabi, B., Ghebremichael, A., & Aldwairi, M. (2022). Detecting malicious domains using statistical internationalized domain name features in top level domains. In 14th Annual Undergraduate Research Conference on Applied Computing (URC), Dubai, United Arab Emirates (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/URC58160.2022.10054226.
Arkabaev, N., Rahimov, E., Abdullaev, A., Padmanaban, H., & Salmanov, V. (2025). Modelling and analysis of optimization algorithms. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 9(1), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.22437/jiituj.v9i1.38410
Arnott, J.A. (2014). Navigating cybersquatting enforcement in the expanding internet infrastructure. UIC law review: Intellectual property law, 13(2), 324-340.
BBC News. (2016). Michael Jordan wins trademark case in China’s top court. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38246196
Binhammad, M., Alqaydi, S., Othman, A., & Abuljadayel, L.H. (2024). The role of AI in cyber security: Safeguarding digital identity. Journal of Information Security, 15(02), 245-278. https://doi.org/10.4236/jis.2024.152015
Buletsa, S.B., & Tegza, A.V. (2022). Cybersquatting as a violation of intellectual property rights. Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law, 67, 59-63. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2021.67.11
Bush, S., DeLorenzo, M., Tieu, P., & Rajendran, J. (2025). Free and fair hardware: A pathway to copyright infringement-free verilog generation using LLMs. In 62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), San Francisco, CA, USA (pp. 1-7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/DAC63849.2025.11132658.
Chaisse, J., & Friedmann, D. (2024). Law of the digital domain: Trademarks, domain names, and the AI frontier. IDEA: The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property, 64(2), 399-455.
Congress.gov. (1995). Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. (1995). https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/1295
Congress.gov. (2025a). Fourteenth Amendment. Constitution of the United States. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
Congress.gov. (2025b). Fifth Amendment. Constitution of the United States. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/
Cornell Law School. (1914). Clayton Antitrust Act. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clayton_antitrust_act
Cornell Law School. (2008). Lanham Act. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act
De Paula Castro, C.F., Silva, D.A.A., Souto, G.A., & De Medeiros Albrecht, N.F.M. (2022). Domain names and intellectual property: Reflections on dispute resolution from the perspective of Law and Economics. GV Law Journal, 18(1), e2208. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202208
Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. (2023). Act on the protection of trade marks and other signs (Trade Mark Act – MarkenG). Federal Office of Justice. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_markeng/
Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. (2025a). Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Federal Office of Justice. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. (2025b). German Civil Code. Federal Office of Justice. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/
Fedotova, I., Shersheniuk, O., Prokopenko, M., Britchenko, I., & Vazov, R. (2021). Management of a viable enterprise on the basis of the approach to management of a «living» organization and the concept of viable systems. In Problems and Prospects of Development of the Road Transport Complex: Financing, Management, Innovation, Quality, Safety - Integrated Approach (pp. 63-80). PC TECHNOLOGY CENTER. https://doi.org/10.15587/978-617-7319-45-9.CH5
Feng, S. (2025). Fair use of trademarks in Chinese law: A daunting defence to trademark infringement. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 15(2), 196-218. https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2025.02.03
Hakiki, N., & Sanusi, S. (2023). Settlement of disputes over domain names ownership and cybersquatting in Indonesia and Singapore. Student Journal of International Law, 3(1), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.24815/sjil.v3i1.24872
Hari, S.S., Porkodi, S., Saranya, R., & Vijayakumar, N. (2024). Intelligent model to improve the efficacy of healthcare content marketing by auto-tagging and exploring the veracity of content using opinion mining. International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, 15(2), 240-260. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEMR.2024.136978
Huertas-García, Á., Martín, A., Huertas-Tato, J., & Camacho, D. (2023). Countering malicious content moderation evasion in online social networks: Simulation and detection of word camouflage. Applied Soft Computing, 145, 110552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110552
Imayani, I., Marbun, M., & Ananto, R.W. (2024). Legal protection for registered trademark holders against trademark infringement. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, VIII(I), 638-650. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.801049
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. (1999). Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. Contracted Parties. https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-policies/uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy/uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy-01-01-2020-en
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. (2025a). Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). New Generic Top Level Domains 2012 Program. https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. (2025b). Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS). https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services/rights-protection-mechanisms-and-dispute-resolution-procedures/urs
Issayeva, A., Niyazbekova, S., Semenov, A., Kerimkhulle, S., & Sayimova, M. (2024). Digital technologies and the integration of a green economy: legal peculiarities and electronic transactions. Reliability Theory and Applications, 19(6), 1088-1096. https://doi.org/10.24412/1932-2321-2024-681-1088-1096
Jon, W., & Park, S. (2025). Comparative analysis of trademark protection in the metaverse and registration of virtual goods and NFTs. Computer Law & Security Review, 57, 106137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106137
Kerimkhulle, S., Turtkarayeva, G., Mussaibekov, R., Ospanova, N., Kuttykozhayeva, S., & Adalbek, A. (2025). Using Markov Chain Model to Forecasting of the Agricultural Industry Development. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 1489, 148-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-96798-6_14
Kotukov, O., Karamyshev, D., Kotukova, T., Chernoivanenko, A., & Serenok, A. (2025). Can digital transparency tools systematically reduce corruption in government? Evidence from Estonia, Ukraine and Brazil. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 103(10), 4256-4257. https://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol103No10/18Vol103No10.pdf
Laketić, J. (2024). Trademarks on the blockchain: NFT domains and collisions. Michigan Technology Law Review, 30(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.36645/mtlr.30.2.trademarks
Lasisi, M., & Tembe, U. (2025). Digitization and Intellectual Property Right. In D. Baker and L. Ellis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Libraries, Librarianship, and Information Science (pp. 140-146). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95689-5.00237-6
Limongelli, R., & Sposini, L. (2025). The (virtual) battle for intellectual property rights in the metaverse: The case of copyright, trademarks and the NFT technology. Metaverse, 6(1), 3056. https://doi.org/10.54517/m3056
Ma, K., He, N., Huang, J., Zhang, B., Wu, P., & Wang, H. (2025). Cybersquatting in Web3: The Case of NFT. In 2025 IEEE 10th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), Venice, Italy (pp. 549-564). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSP63326.2025.00038.
Moura, G. C., Müller, M., Davids, M., Wullink, M., & Hesselman, C. (2017). Domain names abuse and tlds: from monetization towards mitigation. In 2017 IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Network and Service Management (IM) (pp. 1077-1082). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/INM.2017.7987441.
Mukhopadhyay, S., Mukherjee, J., Das, D., Chaudhuri, A.D., Sarkar, S., Chaudhuri, T.D., & Paul, K. (2025). Learning fuzzy decision trees for predicting outcomes of legal cases relating to intellectual property rights. Applied Soft Computing, 176, 113179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113179
National Archives. (1890). Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Milestone Documents. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act
Omarova, A.B., Taitorina, B.A., Yermekov, A.T., Doszhanov, B., Buribayev, Y.A., & Khamzina, Z.A. (2017). Application of international rules ensuring social rights of families and children in Kazakhstan. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 8(1), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v8.1(23).17
Rajendran, B., & Palaniappan, G. (2022). A universal domain name resolution service-need and challenges-study on blockchain based naming services. In 2022 IEEE Region 10 Symposium (TENSYMP) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/tensymp54529.2022.9864361
Ramsey, L. (2020). Using failure to function doctrine to protect free speech and competition in trademark law. Iowa Law Review, 104, 70-103.
Singh, J. (2025). Domain name dispute in the age of social media and e-commerce. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, 5(1), 634.
Smailov, N., Kadyrova, R., Abdulina, K., Uralova, F., Kubanova, N., & Sabibolda, A. (2025). Application of facial recognition technologies for enhancing control in information security systems. Informatyka, Automatyka, Pomiary w Gospodarce i Ochronie Srodowiska, 15(3), 55-58. https://doi.org/10.35784/iapgos.7073
Šutova, M., & Vlaškovic, K. (2022). European Court of Justice on the use of a previous trademark reputation in terms of infringement. In XVIII Majsko savetovanje (pp. 495–504). https://doi.org/10.46793/XVIIIMajsko.495S
TechCrunch. (2008) GoDaddy uses standard tactics to warehouse domains. https://techcrunch.com/2008/12/03/godaddy-uses-standard-tactics-to-warehouse-domains/
The Public Service for the Dissemination of Law. (2025). Intellectual Property Code. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000006069414/
Tomer, A., Daksh, A., Gautam, J. K., Prajapati, P., Tomer, A., & Singh, R. Enforcing Trademark Rights in the Digital Age: International Complications. In 2024 International Conference on Communication, Computer Sciences and Engineering (IC3SE) (pp. 1933-1939). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3SE62002.2024.10593334.
U.S. Government Publishing Office. (1999). Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. (ACPA). Senate Report 106-140. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-106srpt140/html/CRPT-106srpt140.htm
Uderbayeva, B. (2024). Legal aspects of the security of the Caspian region in light of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In Eurasian Legal Systems in a World in Transition: Economic prosperity or disparity, and the return of politics in international law (pp. 267-278). Peter Lang AG.
University of Oslo. (1957). Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Faculty of Law. https://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/09/9-01/tfeu_cons.html
Vihikan, W.O., Mistica, M., Levy, I., Christie, A., & Baldwin, T. (2021). Automatic resolution of domain name disputes using machine learning. In Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2021 (pp. 228-238). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Wang, M., Zang, X., Cao, J., Zhang, B., & Li, S. (2023). PhishHunter: Detecting camouflaged IDN-based phishing attacks via Siamese neural network. Computers & Security, 138, 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2023.103668
Wibowo, S.H., Irawan, J.D., Wahyuddin, & Winardi, B. (2022). Cybercrime in the digital era.
World Economic Forum. (2025). Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Cybersecurity_Outlook_2025.pdf
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2021). Law No. 9947 On Industrial Property, Albania. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21588
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2025). Initial report of the WIPO-ICA UDRP review project team. https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/wipoicareportapril2025.pdf
Yale Law School. (1789). Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789. Lillian Goldman Law Library. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
Zhetpisbayev, B.A., Baisalova, G.T., Shadiyev, K.K., Khamzin, A.S., Buribayev, Y.A., & Khamzina, Z.A. (2017). Legal support of the process of Kazakhstan accession to the OECD: Potential for improving quality of individual’s labour rights regulation. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 8(7), 2302-2307. https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v8.7(29).31
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Law, State and Telecommunications Review
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Al enviar este documento a la Revista de Derecho, Estado y Telecomunicaciones,
declaro que estoy aceptando los términos de Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
