Domain Name News: April 2025

• Domain name industry news
  • No mid-life crisis for symbolics.com
  • 2024 study on .FR activity
  • EURid celebrates its 19th anniversary
• Domain name recuperation news

• No bad faith registration: Panel declines transfer in reseller domain name dispute
• UDRP Complainant bet off more than it could chew

For earlier Anchovy News publications, please visit our Domain Names practice page. Learn more about Anchovy® - Global Domain Name and Internet Governance here.

Domain name industry news 

No mid-life crisis for symbolics.com

On 15 March 2025, the first ever officially registered domain name, symbolics.com, turned 40.  The website associated with the domain name now features a ‘museum of the Internet’.

The domain name symbolics.com was registered on 15 March 1985 by a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based firm called Symbolics Inc.  This company was a spinoff from a MIT AI Lab specialised in the development of “Lisp machines”, which were the first general-purpose computers (or ‘workstations’), that operated using the list processing (Lisp) programming language.

The company Symbolics Inc.’s name may have been derived from the term “symbolic artificial intelligence”, which was the predominant AI paradigm from the 1950s to the 1990s pursuant to which computers were trained by giving them rules and symbols (e.g.: "If it’s raining, take an umbrella" becomes: IF raining = true, THEN take_umbrella = true).  This differs from modern AI, which is based on machine learning gleaned from the processing of vast amounts of data.

Registering a domain name back in 1985, six years before the World Wide Web had even been launched, was a very different experience to the procedure today.  At that time, requests had to be submitted by fax or by mail and approved manually by the Stanford Research Institute operating under the Defense Data Network contract.  Symbolics Inc. would have certainly had to wait before it had confirmation of the registration, in contrast with today’s practically instant registrations.

In spite of the challenges, the second domain name ever registered, bbn.com, was secured just over a month after symbolics.com by Raytheon BBN, an American research and development company, also based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that helped develop ARPANET, the nascent Internet.  Other domain names secured in 1985 included think.com, mcc.com and dec.com, all registered by companies that had access to ARPA (the Advanced Research Projects Agency, the creator of ARPANET).

In 1986, a further 54 domain names were registered by companies including Xerox, HP, IBM, Intel, and ATT and the full list of the first 100 .COM domain names that have been continuously registered can be found here. 

In August 2009, the company Symbolics Inc. was still operating, but was facing difficulties, and the symbolics.com domain name was acquired by Aron Meystedt, founder of Napkin.com.  Symbolics Inc. moved its website to www.symbolics-dks.com after the sale of the domain name and the website to which symbolics.com now resolves relates primarily to Meyerstedt’s business activities, but also hosts an Internet Museum in the form of an annotated timeline that documents everything from the serious (for example, the development of email comprising the @ symbol by Ray Tomlinson in 1972 and the invention of Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) by Tim Berners-Lee in 1990) to the silly (Keyboard Cat and the Dancing Banana). 

Aron Meyerstedt has stated of his custodianship of the domain name:

“I feel very honored to own the name. People feel very strongly about Internet history and this domain name, which carries a bit of expectations on how it should be used. I feel the same way -- it's a piece of Internet history, and marks the beginning of the Internet revolution.”

Back to the top

2024 study on .FR activity

AFNIC, the French domain name Registry which operates the .FR country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD), as well as .RE (Reunion Island), .PM (Saint-Pierre and Miquelon), .TF (French Southern and Antarctic Lands), .WF (Wallis and Futuna) and .YT (Mayotte), recently published its annual report on .FR activity, which shows overall steady growth for 2024.

According to the report, there was a total of 4,216,786 registered .FR domain names as of 31 December 2024, which represents a 2% increase in .FR registrations for 2024.  Although the growth is less remarkable than in 2023 (+3.4%), this is still higher than the global domain name growth, which is estimated at 1.2% according to the latest Domain Name Industry Brief (DNIB) (see the March edition of Anchovy News for statistics on the global domain name market).  This also contrasts with the negative performance of .COM over 2024 (with 156.3 million domain names at the end of Q4 2024 according to DNIB, compared to 159.6 million in Q3 2024, which represents a 2% decrease).

Another noticeable fact is the new record in new domain name registrations, with a total of 802,202 new .FR domain names in 2024, breaking the record of 801,427 of 2023.  According to AFNIC, “the good level of create operations proves that the acceleration of the digital transformation has become a permanent factor rather than a phenomenon.”

The report however shows that the domain name renewal rate for .FR has slightly decreased, going from 83.4% at the end of 2023 to 82.6% in 2024 and states that “the increase in the number of delete operations, reflects a higher volatility of creations, which are renewed less frequently than usual after the first year”, which could be partially explained by the economic context and “the significant increase in business failures”.

Nonetheless, the report stresses the growth of .FR within the domain name market in France as it gained 0.2 of a percentage point (pp) in market share in 2024, whereas .COM continued to decrease and lost 0.2 pp.  And indeed, over the past five years, .COM has lost 1.7pp, while .FR gained 2.8pp and reached 40.44% of the French market share at the end of 2024, an all-time high for the French ccTLD, showing its solidity in its market and the increasing preference shown by French users to use their national ccTLD for their online presence.

At the time of writing, there are approximately 4,241,400 domain names under .FR.  According to the latest DNIB, .FR is the 8^th largest ccTLD worldwide in terms of volume of domain name registrations (the same position as in 2023) behind .CN (China, with 19.7 million domain names as of the end of Q4 2024), .DE (Germany, with 17.7 million) and .UK (the United Kingdom, with 10.3 million), to name the top three.

For more information on the registration or recuperation of .FR domain names, please contact David Taylor and Jane Seager.

EURid celebrates its 19th anniversary

EURid, the Registry responsible for running the .EU Top Level Domain (TLD), recently posted a publication to celebrate its 19th anniversary and highlight its achievements.

EURid was incorporated under Belgian law in April 2003 and, shortly thereafter, was appointed by the European Commission to run the .EU domain name Registry following a tender process.  The Sunrise Period for .EU opened in December 2005, followed by the Landrush Period on 7 April 2006, when some one million .EU registrations were recorded on that day alone.

Throughout its nearly 20 years of existence, .EU has been promoted by EURid as the domain name extension of choice for European citizens, businesses and institutions.  Anyone can register any .EU domain name as long as they are a citizen or resident of (or an organisation established in) a European Union Member State, Iceland, Liechtenstein, or Norway.  There are currently approximately 3.7 million .EU registered domain names, with registrants based in Germany, the Netherlands and France in the lead.

EURid sees “security and trust” as central elements of .EU.  Important initiatives include the Abuse Prevention and Early Warning System (APEWS), launched in 2019, which was designed to identify and block domain names that can potentially be used in an abusive manner.  If the APEWS identifies a domain name as being potentially linked to abuse, it is immediately suspended and its status shows as “Server Hold”, meaning that any service connected to it, such as a website or email, will not function.  The registrant of the domain name then needs to verify the registration data in order for the domain name to be reactivated.  EURid believes that APEWS as well as DNSSEC and its Lock Services have increased the security of .EU and in turn “strengthened user confidence”.  EURid also continues to collaborate with institutions such as Europol and EUIPO (the EU Intellectual Property Office) in order to combat cybercrime and protect intellectual property online.

EURid has also made “inclusivity” a priority and, since 2021, this has resulted in citizens of the EU / the EEA (European Economic Area) being able to register a .EU domain name regardless of their place of residence.  Indeed when .EU first launched, the eligibility requirement for individuals was based on their address, which prevented European individuals living outside of the EU/ the EEA from registering domain names under .EU.  In addition, EURid has supported linguistic and cultural diversity by managing and promoting the Cyrillic (.ею) and Greek (.ευ) extensions.  This enables the relevant users to register domain names in their native script and, for EURid, this is “an important step towards a more inclusive and multilingual internet.”

For more information on the registration or recuperation of .EU domain names, please contact David Taylor or Jane Seager.

Back to the top

Domain name recuperation news

No bad faith registration: Panel declines transfer in reseller domain name dispute

In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the UDRP or the Policy) before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Panel denied the transfer of a disputed domain name, finding that the Complainant had failed to prove bad faith registration, as required under the Policy.

The Complainant, Modibodi Pty Ltd, was an Australian company providing leakproof apparel, including underwear, swimwear, and activewear, under the MODIBODI trade mark.

The Respondent was an individual based in the United Arab Emirates who appeared to be associated with the Complainant’s former reseller in the Middle East.

The disputed domain name, modibodime.com, was registered on 3 February 2022.  At the time of filing the Complaint, the domain name resolved to a website featuring the Complainant's logo and products and claiming to be the Complainant’s official Middle East distributor.

To be successful in a complaint under the UDRP, a complainant must satisfy the following three requirements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:

1. 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
2. the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

With respect to the first limb, the Complainant contended that it held registered trade mark rights for MODIBODI and that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to its trade mark, incorporating it in full with the addition of the geographically descriptive acronym 'me' for 'Middle East'.  The Respondent did not dispute this similarity.  The Panel therefore found that the domain name was confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant had rights and held that the first requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) was satisfied.

Regarding the second limb, the Panel chose not to make a determination on this point in light of its findings under the third limb.

As far as the third limb was concerned, the Complainant acknowledged that it had concluded a reseller agreement with the operator of the website, but noted that the Respondent was not a party to this agreement, and in any case it had since been terminated.  It also argued that there had been a subsequent change in ownership of the domain name.  The Respondent did not formally respond to the Complaint, but did send an email using the email address of the former reseller. 

After thoroughly investigating the alleged change in ownership, the Panel concluded that the chain of control had not been broken and that the domain name had likely been registered on behalf of the reseller in anticipation of the conclusion of the reseller agreement.  There was no evidence that the Respondent had registered the domain name with the intention of targeting the Complainant's trade mark or disrupting its business.  The Panel emphasised that under the UDRP, bad faith must be present both at the time of registration and during use.  A subsequent deterioration of the commercial relationship, while potentially giving rise to contractual or legal claims, did not in itself demonstrate bad faith registration under the Policy.

In the absence of evidence of bad faith registration, the Panel concluded that the Complainant had failed to establish the third requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii), and therefore denied the Complaint.

This decision reinforces the principle that complainants under the UDRP must satisfy all three elements of the Policy, including demonstrating bad faith registration.  Where a domain name was originally registered as part of a good faith commercial arrangement, the UDRP will not serve as a remedy for disputes arising from later disagreements or contractual fallouts.  The decision also underlines how Panels will undertake a rigorous assessment of the facts before making their decision in accordance with their general powers under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, in this particular case using a combination of Procedural Orders and research using the Internet Archive and a Virtual Private Network (VPN).

The full decision is available here

Back to the top

UDRP Complainant bet off more than it could chew

In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Panel denied the transfer of the disputed domain name 1xperience.com (the disputed Domain Name) on the basis that the Complainant failed to demonstrate a lack of legitimate interests or bad faith by the Respondent.  The Panel further found that the Complaint constituted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

The Complainant was Navasard Limited, a company registered in Cyprus and licensed in the Netherlands, operating in the online betting sector. It owned European Union trade marks for the word 1XBET and the 1X logo, registered in 2015 and 2022 respectively.  It offered its services through websites such as www.1xbet.com, which were not accessible in the United States.

The Respondent was Alveni, based in the United States. It registered the Domain Name 1xperience.com in 2018, which resolved to an active website offering luxury and VIP experiences. Internet searches carried out by the Panel indicated that the Respondent operated a website at www.alveni.com that stated that it was founded in 2003 and "focuses on self‑service, interactive kiosks & digital signage solutions".  The Respondent asserted that it did not attempt to impersonate or mislead customers into associating with 1XBET or any other brand, and that the "1X" element in the disputed Domain Name was generic.

To be successful in a complaint under the UDRP, a complainant must satisfy the following three requirements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:

1. 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
2. the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and
3. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In relation to the first limb, the Panel noted that the issue of confusing similarity was finely balanced, before accepting on balance that the disputed Domain Name was confusingly similar to the Complainant's 1X trade mark.  While the Domain Name formed a composite term likely to be read as "one experience" by Internet users, it incorporated the "1X" element at the beginning and so the entirety of the Complainant's 1X trade mark was reproduced within the disputed Domain Name.  As a result, and given the relatively low threshold applied for this element, the Panel found that the Complainant had satisfied the first requirement and that the disputed Domain Name was confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant had rights.

In relation to the second limb, the Panel noted that the Complainant did not make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  Hence, the burden of proof did not shift to the Respondent.  The Panel also noted that surprisingly, the Complainant did not address the existence of the Respondent's active website at "www.1xperience.com," which had been online since 2018 according to the Wayback Machine.  The Panel noted that the website consistently featured content relating to luxury services and showed no clear connection to the Respondent’s business, yet found that the prominence of the number "1" in the Respondent's logo appeared to be a reference to Formula 1 motor cars or racing. In the absence of any substantive challenge by the Complainant, the Panel found that the Respondent had used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of services.

Despite its finding that the second element was not satisfied, the Panel went on to consider the third element.  In relation to bad faith registration, the Panel found no evidence that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant or its trade marks at the time of registration.  The Complainant's services were inaccessible from the United States because of regulatory restrictions and there was no evidence that the Complainant's business would have been well‑known in the United States in 2018. Moreover, the Panel noted that the disputed Domain Name was actively used by the Respondent from the outset and did not evoke the Complainant’s marks in a way that suggested bad faith.  Thus, the Panel noted that the passive holding doctrine, which the Complainant sought to rely on, was misapplied.  The Panel also found that it was "inconceivable" that Internet users looking for the Complainant's online gambling stores would search the term "1xperience" and so the Respondent was not using its website at the disputed Domain Name to target gambling-related traffic, mislead consumers or in any way take unfair advantage of the Complainant's trade mark rights.

The Panel also considered the issue of RDNH. The Panel noted that the Complainant, while unrepresented, had previously filed a substantial number of UDRP complaints and was therefore familiar with the procedure.  The Panel observed that the Complaint did not reference the Respondent’s longstanding website, despite it having been operated by the Respondent for at least six years.  In addition, after being notified of the Respondent’s identity and location in the United States, where the Complainant’s online betting services were not accessible, the Complainant made no attempt to amend its arguments or address this development.  In light of these factors, the Panel concluded that the Complaint had no reasonable chance of success and constituted an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

This decision highlights the importance of properly investigating a respondent's business activity and addressing the actual use of a domain name in a UDRP complaint.  Complainants who fail to consider such factors risk not only the denial of their complaint, but also a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

The decision is available here.

Back to the top

Authored by the Anchovy News team.

Anchovy News editorial team:

• Laëtitia Arrault
• Sean Kelly
• Ying Lou
• Cindy Mikul
• Eliza Parr
• Thomas Raudkivi
• Maria Rozylo
• Jane Seager
• David Taylor
• Tony Vitali
• Grace Wilshaw

Anchovy® - Global Domain Name and Internet Governance

Hogan Lovells offers a unique, comprehensive and centralised Paris-based online brand protection service called Anchovy® for global domain name strategy, portfolio management and global enforcement.  We are the only law firm to be an ICANN-accredited registrar and we are accredited with a number of country-specific Registries worldwide.

We also specialise in all aspects of ICANN’s new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) process and we are an agent for the Trademark Clearinghouse.  As the global Domain Name System undergoes an unprecedented expansion, brand owners must revise their online protection strategies and we are ideally placed to guide them.

We are also frequently brought in to advise on cybersecurity, data protection and on a whole range of technology-related issues.

For more information on our services, please contact David Taylor or Jane Seager.

Authored by the Anchovy News team.