Recent Posts
- Chutzpah alert! DotKids wants ICANN handout to fight gTLD auction
- Afilias gets Guinness record for .au migration
- KSK vote was NOT unanimous
- ICANN turns 20 today (or maybe not)
- Van der Laan to leave ICANN board
- Set buttocks to clench! ICANN approves risky KSK rollover
- Mediators hired as Whois reformers butt heads
- US scraps fucking stupid “seven dirty words” ban
- Beginning of the end for DomainTools? Court orders it to scrub Whois records
- PIR chief: registries should stop stressing about volume
- .CLUB sees spam double after China promotion
- Com Laude acquires Scottish rival
- CentralNic acquired yet another company
- Empty Whois a threat to the US elections?
- Donuts gets bought by former ICANN CEO’s firm
- .tel’s second-biggest registrar gets canned
- Whois privacy did NOT increase spam volumes
- Afilias finally admits it’s American
- Could a new US law make GDPR irrelevant?
- No more free ride for ICANN Fellows?
- Afilias sues India to block $12 million Neustar back-end deal
- More consolidation? Endurance said to be up for sale
- ICANN faces critical choice as security experts warn against key rollover
- .CLUB revenue not all that
- Microsoft seizes “Russian election hacking” domains
- New gTLDs rebound in Q2
- .CLUB revenue reportedly $7.2 million
- How a single Whois complaint got this registrar shitcanned
- 38th dot-brand bows out after acquisition
- ICANN CTO: no reason to delay KSK rollover
- DomainTools tracks its one billionth domain
- ICANN closes GoDaddy Whois probe
- Allstate dumps a dot-brand
- I was wrong, Famous Four bosses WERE kicked out
- No Verfügungsanspruch for ICANN in GDPR lawsuit
- Famous Four is DEAD! New registry promises spam crackdown
- auDA car crash continues as director quits over foreign members
- New ICANN director named
- My brain explodes trying to understand MMX’s new blockchain deal for .luxe
- Fight over Whois access starts early
- Blacknight calls for Ireland to slash domain prices
- Chaotic scenes as ‘Grumpies’ lose auDA board fight
- These 33 people will decide the future of Whois
- Wix.com obtains ICANN accreditation — bad news for Web.com?
- Two companies “capture” auDA
- Facebook clashes with registrars after massive private data request
- Baidu gets Chinese approval for .baidu
- ICANN rejected Israel as meeting venue due to threat from Gaza and Iran
- ICANN’s GDPR lawsuit bounced up to appeals court
- Neustar swaps out CEO, PIR looking for new CEO
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 […]