THE PROBLEM
Disinformation networks register domain names that are the same as, or confusingly similar to, legitimate media outlets.
The contents of the legitimate media outlet’s website are then also copied and hosted at that domain name. For example, leparisien.re was set up and a copy of the leparisien.fr was hosted at that address.
This allows the disinformation network to post fake articles that look like they belong to the legitimate news outlet and spread this disinformation via social media.
THE SOLUTION FOR MEDIA OUTLETS
Step 1
Check that ALL the following three criteria are clearly fulfilled by the domain name:
- The domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the registered trademark;
- The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (the targeted newspaper might be “The Mirror”, but a mirror shop might legitimately have an interest in domain names containing the word mirror;
- The domain name has been registered and is being used in “bad faith” (for example, if it is used for a website that copies another).
Collect evidence for all of these points such as trademark documentation, screenshots, etc.
Step 2
Check if the domain name is a “generic” (gTLD) or “country code” (ccTLD) domain name.
- A ccTLD has two letters after the dot, such as .be, .fr, and so on.
- All other internet domains are gTLDs.
Step 2a – ccTLDs
This is somewhat complicated, as these are adapted to national circumstances and languages and, therefore, vary a lot. A database of ccTLDs and their dispute resolution procedures is available here.
Most of them use a standard complaints procedure, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) or a variant of UDRP. An example of a variant is that whereas UDRP requires proof that the registration and use of the domain name was in bad faith, the Australian rules require only one of these to be demonstrated.
The UDRP and UDRP-variant procedures are designed to be clear, predictable and user-friendly. This procedure takes a maximum of 60 days.
The list of UDRP dispute resolution providers approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is available here.
Exceptions:
- .pw also supports URS (see below) and .us also supports a variant of URS.
- Some ccTLDs have no dispute resolution policy, meaning national courts offer the only recourse.
Example 1:
French newspaper Le Parisien was impersonated by leparisien.re, which was registered on 1 December 2023. The .re registry is run by the French registry provider AFNIC.
Le Parisien launched a case, using the French UDRP-variant on 5 December 2023 using AFNIC’s online tool, providing ten supporting documents. The case was decided in Le Parisien’s favour on 30 January 2024, with the transfer of the domain to Le Parisien 15 days later.
Example 2:
German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung was impersonated by sueddeutsche.me, registered on 18 August 2022. The .me registry is run by .ME registry in Montenegro.
Süddeutsche Zeitung launched a case, using the standard UDRP procedure and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre on 27 September 2022. The case was decided in Süddeutsche’s favour on 11 November 2022, including an order for the transfer of the domain to Süddeutsche.
Step 2B – gTLDs
UDRP
If the bad-faith domain name is a gTLD, the option to use the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) is always available.
This procedure normally takes a maximum of 60 days and it is possible to choose the preferred arbitration panel. The full list of gTLDs is here. The procedure is quite straightforward – one arbitration panel’s guide is here.
URS
If it is a gTLD set up after June 2013, or set up before that date but has chosen to opt in, the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure can be used. This is a fast-track complement for UDRP for very clear-cut cases, which seems to apply to most doppelganger cases.
The procedure normally takes a maximum of 21 days and the complainant’s preferred URS panel can be chosen. It is possible to use URS on all gTLDs except .com, .net, .org, .int, .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .asia, .post, .mail and .tel.
OTHER AVENUES FOR COMPLAINT OR SELF-DEFENCE
Another avenue to make a complaint is by reporting the abusive domain name use to the registrar. However, there are over two thousand of them, with a wide variety of acceptable use policies. The registrar for gTLDs can be identified by putting the domain into the domain field in the Netbeacon reporting tool and clicking “continue”. The name of the registrar will appear immediately underneath.
The biggest by far is GoDaddy – registering about 12% of domain names worldwide – which has a clear and user-friendly reporting tool available at GoDaddy’s Support Centre.
If the domain abuse involves phishing, malware, spam or botnets, Netbeacon offers a reporting tool that automatically sends a well-formatted report to the most appropriate address.
Finally, various commercial services exist that proactively block risky domain names and undertake UDRP and URS complaints on behalf of trademark holders.
Notice & takedown
Outside the realm of domain name disputes, doppelganger domains often also copy the copyrighted content of legitimate media websites. This opens the possibility of contacting (sending a notice to) the company that hosts the doppelganger website, to request deletion (takedown) of the infringing content.
There are myriad specialised companies that offer to do this on the impersonated media’s behalf. However, the media company can do this itself by:
- Checking who hosts the site using any of the many websites that allow you to check this;
- Looking up the abuse e-mail address of the hosting provider;
- Filling out a standard DMCA notice form, many of which are freely available online (this is designed for the US but provides all necessary information for other jurisdictions, such as the EU);
- Sending the filled-in form to the abuse e-mail address.
This approach can be effective, depending on the jurisdiction where the hosting provider is based, the responsiveness of the hosting provider and whether or not the entity behind the doppelganger site is motivated enough to simply host the same content in another jurisdiction, under the same doppelganger domain.
Disclaimer
There is much debate around the speed, proportionality and effectiveness of the tools described above – depending on the commentator, they are too fast or too slow, too lenient or too strict or biased on one side or the other. Nothing above is or should be understood as anything other than a neutral description of what is available.
This publication was prepared with the support of the European External Action Service (EEAS).
