In September and October 2024, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) announced the launch of domain name dispute resolution services for ‘.ad’ and ‘.cv’, adding two new country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) to their list. Cape Verde and Andorra are two small nations, located in Africa and Europe respectively.
This announcement is preceded by recent registration changes for both ccTLDs, which aim to open the extensions on a more global scale and follow the steps of other ccTLDs that have been repurposed, making them more attractive to domain investors and end-users.
The ‘.cv’ ccTLD can be repurposed as an acronym for the term “curriculum vitae”, a popular term to designate a job’s applicant document listing its professional journey. In 2023, the Cape Verde regulator, Agência Reguladora Multissetorial da Economia (ARME), awarded US-based corporation OlaCV a five-year registry contract, with the aim of giving ‘.cv’ more exposure and making it global.
Prior to this partnership, only individuals operating in Cape Verde could register domain names using the ‘.cv’ ccTLD.
More international usage of this extension could mean it would become a lucrative asset for the country in the future, similar to popular ccTLDs such as ‘.tv’ (Tuvalu) and ‘.ai’ (Anguilla).
The ‘.ad’ extension, on the other hand, can act as an abbreviation for “advertisement”, demonstrating the significant potential for use in reference to advertising which could appeal to registrants outside of Andorra.
From the 22nd of October 2024, anyone can now register a ‘.ad’ domain name on a “first-come, first-served basis”. This means no need for documentation and to prove any specific right or priority to a domain name. Applicants also no longer need to wait; domains are now assigned automatically. Throughout 2024, and before lifting all eligibility requirements, the Registry underwent several transition phases, such as giving domain registration priority to Andorran public institutions and owners of registered Andorran trademarks.
The decision to open the ‘.ad’ extension offers new opportunities for registrants interested in utilising the suffix for advertisement purposes, promotional websites, or marketing campaigns. This is likely to have an effect on the number of registrations. Moreover, the fact that the ‘.ads’ gTLD extension, owned by Google Registry, has not yet been released has further increased the anticipation surrounding the deregulation of the Andorran ccTLD.
In addition to those registration changes, both extensions have now adopted a domain dispute resolution policy, which provides a good resolution mechanism for brand owners who may be infringed upon in the ‘.cv’ and ‘.ad’ spaces.
As of October 2024, OlaCV has designated WIPO as the sole provider for dispute resolution services involving ‘.cv’ domain names. They also decided to adopt the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) as their policy. In line with this, the UDRP rules and standard fees apply, as well as WIPO supplemental rules. The addition of the ‘.cv’ extension to WIPO’s repertoire is good news for brand owners, as the UDRP provides a dependable conflict resolution framework and this contributes to the harmonisation of dispute proceedings for ccTLDs across the world.
In contrast, Andorra Telecom has chosen to adopt a variation of the UDRP as their policy but also elected WIPO as the Arbitration Centre responsible for managing ‘.ad’ domain dispute resolution services (also known as adDRP).
The adDRP resembles the UDRP but with some key changes, outlined below:
Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Relevant Identifier
Firstly, a Complainant must assert that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a “Relevant Identifier” in which a Complainant has rights. Establishing rights to a “Relevant Identifier” allows Complainants to rely on a broader range of intellectual property rights than the UDRP – for example:
While the adDRP is broader in terms of asserting a right, one important limitation is that it does not allow a Complainant to establish unregistered rights unless the unregistered mark has been validated through Andorran court proceedings.
Bad Faith Registration or Use
The second element focuses on showing the Respondent’s bad faith. Under the adDRP, a Complainant can either show that the domain has been registered or subsequently used in bad faith. The new Policy differs from the UDRP, which requires a Complainant to prove both registration and use in bad faith.
Another point that differs from the UDRP relates to one of the bad faith circumstances listed below:
“Circumstances indicating that [the Respondent] has registered or [the Respondent] has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to another person for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.”
The adDRP has decided touse the term ‘another person’ as opposed to the UDRP that uses the wording ‘complainant or competitor’. By doing so, the adDRP explicitly includes general offers for sale as evidence of bad faith.
The Registry website provides further clarification on the matter. They state that it is strictly prohibited to register any ‘.ad’ domain name for the purpose of domain trading for sale, resale or transfer. This is a key difference to the UDRP, where registering a domain name for subsequent resale would not by itself support a finding of bad faith. As such, the adDRP appears to apply a stricter view on ‘domaining’ (business of buying and selling domain names).
Rights or Legitimate Interests:
The final variance between the UDRP and the adDRP is the evidential bar required to prove that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Unlike the UDRP, where the Complainant must submit proof that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interest, the adDRP places the burden on the Respondent to prove it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. This imposes a lower threshold for Complainants when initiating proceedings involving ‘.ad’ domain names.
Procedurally, the adDRP is very similar to the UDRP. The first distinction to note is that if the Respondent is located in Andorra, the language of proceeding shall be Catalan. The second is that the adDRP panel can only consist of a single member.
In summary, the new dispute resolution policies for ‘.cv’ and ‘.ad’ ccTLDs offer both opportunities and limitations. Adopting the UDRP is a positive development for ‘.cv’, providing an established and globally recognised framework for resolving disputes. This consistency makes it easier for brand owners to protect their trademarks across different jurisdictions and aligns ‘.cv’ with other internationally popular ccTLDs. The adDRP for ‘.ad’ offers broader protections by recognising a wider range of intellectual property rights and easing the evidential burden on Complainants.
Nonetheless, the adDRP’s limitations on unregistered rights could make it difficult for brand owners to protect their interests effectively in the ‘.ad’ extension and this highlights the importance for brand owners to formalise their intellectual property to take full advantage of these protections.
Francesca Mauro
Legal Assistant
We can customise a solution to fit your business needs.
+44 (0) 1908 200022
+1 703 574 5313