In my last article, I unearthed my old law dissertation and reflected on how domain names and trade marks have (and haven’t) evolved over the last thirty years.
It’s been interesting to see how many of my predictions still hold water (and equally sobering to remember I wrote them in a world of dial-up modems and AltaVista). One particular theme that refuses to go away is misleading domains—and the persistent power of first-come, first-served.
Back then, I wrote:
“With domain name registration being essentially unregulated, except through post-registration litigation, users can be misled by similar domain names. This has a negative effect for both the consumer and the provider of the goods or services, as consumers are never sure whether the site they are looking at is a bona fide site or not.”
A fair point, in hindsight.
Although mechanisms like the UDRP and Nominet’s DRS have since been established— and I now get to weigh in on these cases as a DRS Expert —the core issue persists.
The system continues to favour the opportunist. It remains quick and easy to register a misleading domain, yet expensive and time-consuming for brand owners to respond. This imbalance leaves consumers uncertain, undermines trust, and places the cost of protection firmly on the shoulders of the rights holder.
The result is a familiar cycle: confusing domain names, cautious consumers, and brand owners left managing the fallout. The reputational impact may be subtle, but it’s real—and persistent.
This isn’t just a theoretical concern confined to law journals. It’s a daily, practical challenge for organisations trying to protect their online presence. The steady stream of cybersquatting and domain misuse only underlines the need for a focused and well-supported approach to brand protection.
So yes—misleading domains are still with us, and they’ve been causing headaches for three decades now.