A domain may seem like something small, a mere web address. But in practice, they directly affect a company's online identity. When a company builds its digital identity, the domain name ceases to be a simple technical element. It is part of their brand, their reputation and, often, the first contact with customers, suppliers or users. Therefore, when a third party registers a domain identical or very similar to someone else's trademark, the problem is not limited to a formal issue. It can affect web traffic, sales, consumer confidence, and even the security of the business itself. This phenomenon, known as cybersquatting, is not new. However, it remains fully in force. In fact, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) administered 6.282 cases relating to domain names in 2025, the highest number since it began providing this service 25 years ago. What is cybersquatting and why does it affect brands? Cybersquatting generally consists of registering a domain name that reproduces, imitates, or improperly approximates another person's brand. In many cases, the objective is speculative: to later sell the domain to the legitimate owner of the trademark. In others, the risk is even greater: redirecting traffic, capturing data, impersonating the company, or taking advantage of its reputation. The very nature of the domain registration system allows, unlike with trademarks, registration without a prior examination to analyze possible conflicts with prior rights. If the domain is available, you can register it. This explains why small variations can have significant consequences. Adding a letter, changing an extension, introducing a hyphen, or using a similar spelling may be enough to create a domain that is technically different but commercially very close to the original sign. For a company, the damage can occur on several levels: loss of visits, confusion among customers, reputational damage, exposure to fraud, or interference in marketing campaigns. Domain names and brands: distinct assets, connected risks. It is important to distinguish between two ideas. A domain name is not, in itself, a brand. Its main function is to identify an address on the Internet. A trademark, on the other hand, identifies the business origin of products or services and grants its owner an exclusive right within certain limits. However, in practice, both assets are closely connected. A strong brand usually needs a consistent digital presence. And a poorly protected digital presence can become a weak point for the brand strategy. Therefore, domain management should not be approached as a purely IT or administrative issue. It is part of the protection of the company's intangible assets. Just as you check the availability of a brand before launching it on the market, it's also important to analyze which domains should be registered, which extensions are relevant, and which variations could pose a risk. The UDRP: an out-of-court way to recover domains To respond to this type of conflict, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, known as UDRP, was created. This is an out-of-court procedure that allows trademark holders to claim the transfer or cancellation of domains registered in bad faith. The procedure is usually faster and more efficient than going directly to court. Furthermore, it allows disputes to be resolved regardless of the location of the parties. WIPO's new accelerated service: a response to the time factor. In this context, the introduction of an accelerated service within the UDRP is understood. The possibility of obtaining a decision within a maximum of 30 days, in certain cases, responds to a very specific need: to reduce the time during which a potentially infringing domain remains active. This is not about replacing the standard procedure, which will still be sufficient in many cases, but about offering an alternative for those cases where speed is especially relevant. For example, when the domain is causing actual harm or when there is a clear risk to a company's online identity. In these scenarios, every day counts. When might it make sense to use the accelerated route? The accelerated route requires certain conditions such as the absence of procedural incidents, agile response from the parties and effective collaboration from the registrar. Therefore, we are not dealing with an automatic mechanism, but with an option designed for situations in which certain conditions are met. Furthermore, this route involves an additional cost. This makes it necessary to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the urgency justifies resorting to the accelerated service or whether the ordinary procedure is sufficient. Protecting your brand online requires anticipation and speed. The evolution of the UDRP and the incorporation of an accelerated route reflect an adaptation of the system to the current reality. The digital environment is faster, more exposed, and more complex than it was 25 years ago. Conflict resolution mechanisms must respond to that same logic. Cybersquatting persists because registering a domain remains easy and cheap, while the value of a brand and its online presence continues to grow. In that balance, instruments such as the UDRP remain essential for rights holders. At ELZABURU we help innovative companies to protect, manage and enhance the value of their intangible assets, supporting them in the protection of their brands and domain names through strategic advice that ranges from registration and portfolio management to monitoring and defending their rights in any jurisdiction.   Luis Beneyto, Partner in the Trademarks area at ELZABURU Frequently Asked Questions about Cybersquatting and Domain Names What is Cybersquatting? Cybersquatting is the registration of a domain name that reproduces or imitates someone else's brand, usually for speculative purposes, to divert traffic or to take advantage of the reputation of that brand. Is a domain name the same as a brand? No. A domain identifies an address on the Internet, while a...Read more

Madrid, November 13, 2025 – ELZABURU, a firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has achieved excellent results in the Best Lawyers in Spain awards, a professional recognition based on the consensus opinion of leading lawyers regarding the professional capabilities of their colleagues within the same geographic area and legal practice. With 35 lawyers and technical experts referenced and a total of 43 mentions, ELZABURU consolidates its position as the industrial and intellectual property firm with the most recognized professionals in this edition, thus reinforcing its leading position in the Spanish market. Regarding the individuals referenced in this year's edition, these are the ELZABURU professionals who appear in the ranking: Intellectual Property Law: Colm Ahern, Agustín Alguacil, Mónica Amores, Enrique Armijo, Cristina Arroyo, Luis Baz, Luis Beneyto, Catherine Bonzom, Ignacio Diez de Rivera Elzaburu, Alfonso Diez de Rivera Elzaburu, Cristina Espín, Mercedes García, Irene Gascón, Fernando Ilardia, Mabel Klimt, Xavier Lamíquiz, Miguel Ángel Medina, Carlos Morán, Tránsito Ruiz, Francisco J. Sáez, José Ignacio San Martín, Ruth Sánchez, Ana Sanz, Pedro Saturio, Rosa Torrecillas, Cristina Velasco and Manolo Mínguez. Litigation: Enrique Armijo, Alba Mª López, and Carlos Morán; Information Technology: Ruth Benito; Privacy & Data Protection: Ruth Benito; Technology Law: Ruth Benito; Communications Law: Mabel Klimt; Entertainment Law: Mabel Klimt; Competition: Carlos Morán. Regarding the Ones to Watch distinction, which recognizes lawyers in the early stages of their careers who have already demonstrated outstanding excellence in their legal practice, the recipients were: María Cadarso and Alberto Gallo in Litigation; and Inés de Casas, Sara Navarro, Paloma Querol, and, again, Alberto Gallo, in Intellectual Property. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, thorough, rational, and transparent survey process designed to obtain meaningful and substantive assessments of the quality of legal services. According to this organization, “the quality of a peer-review survey is directly related to the quality of the voters.”