Recent Posts
- After ICANN nod, MMX buys .xxx
- Donuts buys back .fan, ignores plural .fans
- Domainers could lose their names as .au loophole closes
- In GDPR case, ICANN ready to fight Tucows to the bitter end
- Three-letter .net leads as NamesCon charity auction raises €4,150 for Kenyan school
- Atallah encourages domainers to get involved in ICANN
- US asks if it should take back control over ICANN
- Christians rail against GoDaddy’s six-color gay rights flag
- Can’t get enough GDPR? Come to my NamesCon panel
- Court denies ICANN’s GDPR injunction against Tucows
- Million-euro Tucows GDPR lawsuit may not be ICANN’s last
- How all 33 European ccTLDs are handling GDPR
- After outcry, ICANNWiki to get ICANN funding next year
- ICANN slashes new gTLD income forecast AGAIN
- Sedo’s cunning GDPR workaround
- ICANN board talking GDPR “litigation”
- Failure to launch: 10 years-old gTLDs that are still dormant
- EnCirca partners with PandoraBots to push .bot names to brands
- Donuts freezes .place gTLD ahead of new geofencing rules
- Registrars want six-month stay on new Whois policy
- Lauded domainer arrested over $2.4 million “extortion”
- Domainers not welcome in this Whois database
- ICANN approves messy, unfinished Whois policy
- Three reasons ICANN could swing the GDPR ban hammer on day one
- New gTLD registries get $6 million refund
- Cute abruptly quits PIR
- No, I don’t get what’s going on with GDPR either
- Whois working group imploding in GDPR’s wake
- Have your say on single-character .com domains
- NamesCon dumps the Trop, eyeing beaches for 2020
- CentralNic now managing failing .fan and .fans
- CIRA has a record year for regs
- MMX rejected three takeover bids before buying .xxx
- ICANN flips off governments over Whois privacy
- 101domain founders suing Afilias over unpaid $1 million after $15.5 million acquisition
- MMX could announce acquisition this week
- Google’s .app gTLD beats .porn to biggest sunrise yet
- Van Gelder remembered in GNSO resolution
- $55 billion bank not paying its $6,250 ICANN fees
- ICANN cancels registrar audit as GDPR headaches loom
- Iceland breaks ranks on Whois, will publish emails
- auDA wins brief reprieve from boardroom battle
- .com adds 5.5 million names, renewals back over 70%
- Muslim world still thinks .islam isn’t kosher
- Drop-catcher drops almost all remaining registrars
- Another failing new gTLD stopped paying its dues
- ICANN found a zero-day hole in Adobe Connect
- Nominet to charge brands for no-name Whois access
- auDA may sue to delay boardroom bloodbath
- I just bought a new gTLD registry’s domain for $10
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 […]