Recent Posts
- “UDRP-proof” .feedback gTLD loses first UDRP
- CIRA becomes first new gTLD back-end since 2012
- People are forgetting .com exists — ICANN survey
- Famous Four VP goes solo, claims $400,000 sale
- Watch: Hollywood actors trash Trump, promote .vote
- Could ICANN reject Verisign’s $135m .web bid?
- Chinese investor pumps $7 million into M+M as .vip pushes firm into profit
- Barcelona picked for ICANN 63
- Destroy ICANN! Destroy ICANN with missiles!
- Uniregistry to release 10 million domains on October 4
- .blog gets 600 applications halfway through sunrise
- Verisign data shows new gTLDs drive almost three quarters of Q2 growth
- Customers revolt as GoDaddy buys WordPress tools outfit
- First dot-brand gTLD to go generic after TLS deal
- Correction: what NTIA said about .com pricing
- Relaunch and slashed prices for .whoswho after terrible sales
- US claims option to delay IANA transition as Cruz launches free speech doomsday clock
- .trust gTLD might be for sale as NCC closes domain business
- Tata ponders “buy a school” strategy to release .tata from limbo
- .hotel losers gang up to threaten ICANN with legal bills
- Are .mail, .home and .corp safe to launch? Applicants think so
- Dot Registry backs .africa loser, batters on the ICANN lawsuit floodgates
- West.cn targets Engrish domainers with new .xyz site
- Spurned applicant crowd-funding to fight ICANN for .gay gTLD
- Confused by new gTLDs? Allow this Nominet infographic to make your brain explode
- Registries rebel against ICANN’s Whois upgrade decree
- NamesCon confirms three more shows after being acquired
- Afilias set to get .hotel despite hacking claims
- “Dave” becomes first .blog blogger
- Registrar CEO faces terrorism charges
- Industry lays into Verisign over .com deal renewal
- ICANN lawyers slam “fire him” story “blogger”
- Next new gTLD round could start sooner than expected
- Centuries-old companies both fail community gTLD test
- Afilias buys three gTLDs from Starting Dot
- Donuts rolls the dice with $22.5 million .web lawsuit
- IRP panel crucifies ICANN for lack of transparency
- L’Oreal shows cards on former “closed generic” gTLDs
- Verisign confirms it did fund $135 million .web bid
- Ombudsman trashes ICANN’s rejection of .gay “community”
- Verisign likely $135 million winner of .web gTLD
- Verisign announces .net price increase
- .web could already be a record-breaker as auction enters day two
- M+M billings quadruple on China .vip surge
- “Ditch .com!” government to tell Indians
- Donuts denied! .web auction to go ahead today
- Donuts .web claims “discredited”, ICANN tells court
- Donuts files $10 million lawsuit to stop .web auction
- Domain-hopping torrent site seized, founder arrested
- .web auction to go ahead after ICANN denies Donuts/Radix appeal
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 […]