Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Blockchain technology has revolutionized numerous industries, including finance, supply chain management and digital identity verification. One of its latest frontiers relates to the domain name system (DNS). Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces. This article explores the issues associated with trademark protection in blockchain domain names and examines new steps and policies that blockchain domain registrars should implement to safeguard brand owners.
|Traditional DNS operates under a hierarchical structure managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This centralized authority oversees domain name registrations and resolves disputes through established policies such as the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). Developed more than 20 years ago, the UDRP was ICANN's first consensus policy and was intended to address cybersquatting in the DNS. Cybersquatting involves the registration of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks with the intent of registering and using those names in bad faith.
The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) was another ICANN policy development that provided crucial rights protection for the new generic top-level domain (new gTLD) program. The TMCH serves as a centralized database of verified trademarks connected to every new gTLD that launches. The TMCH authenticates rights information and supports both Sunrise registration — priority access for rights holders to request domain names associated with their trademarks — and the Trademark Claims service, which notifies rights holders after registration, allowing immediate action if an infringing domain is registered.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.