Recent Posts
- Crunch Whois privacy talks kick off
- Another failing gTLD not paying its “onerous” dues
- .CLUB announces three years of price increases
- How new gTLD auctions could kill gaming for good
- .amazon domain isn’t a slam dunk after all
- Chile opens .cl to all ICANN registrars
- “Please send women!” ICANN board urges
- NamesCon names con speakers
- Dark horse NameSilo doubles size in 2018
- UK tells .eu registrants to lawyer up as no-deal Brexit looms
- Radix now has China approval for whole TLD stable
- The most-read stories of 2018
- Another bundle of joy for XYZ as Johnson & Johnson throws out the .baby
- Now even parked domains will have GDPR notices
- ICANN budget predicts small new gTLD recovery and slowing legacy growth
- Verisign says Afilias tried to “rig” $135 million .web auction
- Exclusive gang of 10 to work on making ICANN the Whois gatekeeper
- Governments blast ICANN over Amazon gTLDs
- No more free transfers in Denmark
- ICANN outs two more deadbeat new gTLDs
- .eu domains to be sold to non-residents
- DNS inventor says .luxe first innovation in a decade
- New gTLDs continue growth trend, but can it last?
- No .web until 2021 after Afilias files ICANN appeal
- Nevett lands at PIR
- ICANN attendance soars but “females” stay away
- Amazon countries fighting back against .amazon gTLD
- Exclusive: Tiny island sues to take control of lucrative .nu
- Belgium to crack down on fraud domains
- .cloud gets the China blessing
- Donuts backs away from .spa fight
- First chance to have your say on the future of Whois
- Uniregistry working on bulk trademark blocking service
- ICANN urged to reject .com price increases
- Nominet takes down 32,000 domains for IP infringement
- Hebrew .com off to a slow start
- Incel hate site jumps to Iceland after doMEn suspends .me domain
- ICANN probing Donuts and Tucows over anti-Jewish web site
- Bad.monster? Two more gTLDs have been acquired
- First non-brand gTLD to go dark
- Two controversial new gTLDs launching in January
- Afilias bought .io for $70 million
- Uniregistry calls for domain Bill of Rights as Schilling says Gab.com was not booted
- Wagner takes dig at Verisign as GoDaddy reports $310 million domain revenue
- Will ICANN take a bigger slice of the .com pie, or will .domainers get URS?
- Trump gives Verisign almost $1 billion in free money
- Kirikos lawyers up after ICANN etiquette fight
- This is how AppDetex works
- Amazon offered $5 million of free Kindles for .amazon gTLD
- US not happy with Donuts hiring Atallah
Yes, .co domains are subject to the UDRP
I’ve been getting a fair bit of search traffic over the last few days from people evidently wondering whether .co domain names are subject to the same UDRP rules as .com, so I thought I’d answer the question directly.
Yes, they are.
For avoidance of doubt, I’ve just talked to .CO Internet’s director of marketing, Lori Anne Wardi, who had just talked to the registry’s policy people.
She told me that .co domains are subject to the exact same ICANN UDRP as .com.
If you’re a .co registrant, you’re bound to the policy the same as you are in .com. If you’re a trademark holder, you file a complaint in the same way.
The only difference at the moment is that .CO Internet has contracted with only one UDRP provider, WIPO, but Wardi said that more providers may be signed up in future.
[…] letter points out, as I have previously, that .co is subject to the UDRP on the same terms as other TLDs including .com. The outcome of a […]