GOING DIGITALHOW TO MANAGE YOUR BRAND

ON THE INTERNET

Author: Dominic SpellerDominic is the senior account manager for CPA’s Domain Name Services. He has been with the companyfor over five years and played an integral part in the launch of CPA’s domains offering in 2001. He is nowresponsible for the department’s day-to-day operation and future strategy, working closely with clients fromin-house IP departments and outside counsel.

Contributors: Alex Wade, Matthew Packer, Emma Jones

© 2007 Computer Patent Annuities Limited, www.cpaglobal.com. All rights reserved

Disclaimer: All information, materials and opinions are provided for general information purposes only andon the understanding that none of the content constitutes legal or other professional advice. Any viewsprovided by third party contributors do not necessarily reflect those of CPA.

2

INTRODUCTIONIntroduction p3

The online brand p4

The threat of piracy p6

Managing brand reputation p8

The Internet has radically transformed IP strategies. Today, acompany trading without an impressive online presence isanalogous to a writer without a word processor. According tothe figures released by the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB)in May 2007, there are now 30.9m people online in the UKalone (66% of the population). The percentage is evenhigher in the US with 69.5% of the population (210.5m)registered as regular Internet users, according to InternetWorld Stats (IWS).

This may seem obvious, but in the early twenty-first century,the way in which businesses market their brands andmanage their presence on the Internet is continuing toevolve. Arguably, nowhere else in the commercial world arecutting-edge legal solutions more relevant. This paper bringstogether thoughts and opinions from key figures in the legalprofession to set out expert advice on how to manage andmonitor rapidly-developing digital content.

CONTENT

3

In the Web 2.0 generation, many of today’s biggest namesrely almost entirely on the Internet for exposure. YouTubeand Myspace are excellent examples of sites that havecapitalised on the reach of the Internet, while companiessuch as Amazon, lastminute and Google are all successful,revenue-generating businesses that trade solely online.Where a company’s entire brand survival is indelibly linkedto the Internet, it’s important that this brand be wellconstructed – and properly protected.

According to US Internet media company iXL, successfulonline brands need to be ‘memorable and distinctive,relevant to their customers, useful and useable, efficient,and consistent with their implied service promise.’ But inorder to maintain success online, brands need to beprotected from both a technical and legal perspective.Without the combination of these, any business reliant onthe Internet could easily be subjected to difficulties.

Certainly, once the creative and technical teams havedesigned an online brand commensurate with iXL’s criteria,legal advice is essential to ensure that a business managesits online presence for best effect. It’s also advisable toresearch what websites and domain names are already inoperation, pre-brand development. Carrying out somerelatively easy and inexpensive domain name checks oftensaves time and may even avoid disappointment at a laterstage of a business’s development. But where should acompany start?

The domain nameGoogle’s technical definition of a domain name – ‘the wordsequences users enter in their address bar of an Internetnavigator to visit a specific website’ – somewhat belies itscore importance. Without a domain name, there is noonline brand. Many international companies know thismuch; Nominet, the UK registry for .uk domain names,currently manages over six million .uk domain namesalone, and while top-level domains such as .com, .org and.net have never struggled for popularity, there has also beena marked rise in the number of registrations of so-called‘country code’ domains, such as .IE (Ireland), .MX (Mexico)and .BZ (Belize).

In the UK, two of the seven available second-leveldomains operated by Nominet are restricted to registeredcompanies. Prospective registrants are restricted to onename per applicant, with the name allowed determined by aset of rules that replicates that used by Companies House.Nichola Evans, a partner specialising in commerciallitigation with nationwide law firm Ricksons, explains thesystem: ‘There are two principal tests for .ltd.uk and plc.uksecond-level domain names. The registrant for a .ltd.ukdomain name must be a limited company properlyincorporated under the Companies Act 1985; likewise, apublic limited company applying for a .plc.uk domain name.The name chosen must relate to the company name, and, ifavailable, a company appoints an agent – usually a specialistweb hosting service – to register the domain name.’Similarly, in the US, the plc.com domain name is limited topublic companies, following rules laid out by ICANN. Byway of contrast, the .co.uk and .com domain is in practiceavailable to all.

In addition, as of 7 December 2005, .eu domain namesbecame available. To qualify for .eu registration, applicantsmust be able to demonstrate a valid connection with acountry in the European Community. This can be shown incircumstances where the organisation has a registeredoffice, central administration or principal place of businesswithin the EU, or, so far as an individual is concerned, ifthat person is a resident within the EU.

More recently, a new domain name for the asia region(.asia) has been established, with the first registrations dueto start in October 2007. The first ‘sunrise’ period ofregistration will be available to legal entities in the DotAsiacommunity (for example, natural persons, corporations orcompanies, government bodies and so on) and to trademarkowners with rights in the territory. Such a domain nameprovides corporations with one easy means for blanketcoverage across the entire Pan-Asia and Asia Pacific region.But if the acquisition of domains of various kinds showsno sign of abating, what do we know of the best practiceunderlying the process?

‘The first step is to check the availability of a domainname,’ says Evans. ‘How this is determined depends on

4

THE ONLINE BRAND

the choice of domain name itself. A useful starting point isto visit the CORE website, www.corenic.net. CORE, aninternational association of registrars, was set up in 1997and offers members a way of checking the availability ofdomains and then, if possible, registering them.’ Evansexplains that the CORE site searches the followingdomains: .com, .net, .org, .info, .us, .cn, .tw, .coop, .biz and.name. As Evans puts it: ‘CORE enables the creation ofdomains with the preceding suffixes, as well as theirmodification, transfer and renewal.’ Third-party domainspecialists, such as CPA, also provide availability searchesacross all gTLDs and ccTLDs. via online extranets.

Should I register generic or country-code domains?A company needs to decide whether to adopt a top-leveldomain or a second-level domain. Albeit that top-level,generic (i.e. non-country code) top-level domains (knownas gTLDs) have largely proved more popular, there is acompelling case for country-code domain names (knownas ccTLDs), as David Engel, a specialist in media andInternet litigation with Addleshaw Goddard, explains: ‘A gTLD may have been taken by legitimate third-partyregistrant, in which case a business owner or companymay be confronted simply by the unavailability of itsequivalent gTLD. That being the case, there is a basiclogistical reason for seeking a ccTLD, but marketingissues might also make a ccTLD more appealing. Forexample, a large multinational may have distinct nationalfranchises. It may wish its online brand to be targeted tothe relevant local market, so in Germany it will beGlobalbrand.de, in Spain Globalbrand.es, and so on. Or acompany may be associated predominantly with onecountry, in which case it may be sensible for the brandingas a whole, including the domain name, to focus on thecountry of origin.’ ccTLDs are also widely used for specificlanguage websites.

Ultimately, the decision should be made according to thecompany’s wider business strategy, but it’s important forthe corporate marketing and legal teams to work togetherfrom the onset. After all, it makes little sense to invest inbranding, if that impact is going to be diluted bycomplications with domain registrations.

GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS

gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains): a top-level

domain used (at least in theory) by a particular class

of organisation; for example .com for commercial

organisations.

ccTLDs (country code Top Level Domains): A standard

two-letter abbreviation for the name of a country. It is

used with domain names with locations outside the

US. For example, ".bz" refers to the Belize.

net (.net): The top level domain designated for entities

and computers that represent part of the Internet's

infrastructure. Originally intended for use by Network

Information Centers (NICs), Network Operations

Centers (NOCs), administrative computers (such as a

name server) and network node computers.

org (.org): The top level domain designated for

miscellaneous entities that do not fit under any of the

other top level domains. Typically used for non-profit

organisations.

Registry: A registry is responsible for delegating

Internet addresses such as Internet Protocol (IP)

numbers and domain names, and keeping a record of

those addresses and the information associated with

their delegation.

5

Even at the outset, when a domain name is being chosen,the question of enforcement needs to be considered. It isvital that rights holders can adequately protect theirbrands, whether from cybersquatters, cybersmearing,piracy or phishing, all of which are increasingly embeddedin the lawyers’ lexicon. As Geoff Steward, IP partner withlaw firm Macfarlanes, says: ‘A rights owner may not feelthat the gTLD dispute resolution procedures are adequate,and may consider that litigation in a chosen ccTLDjurisdiction will be more effective.’ However, litigation isnot the only solution in cases of piracy, and companies needto become increasingly clever in the way in which theyselect and retain their chosen domain names.

Part of this is driven by the fast-moving nature of theInternet. Only a few years ago, ‘cybersquatter,’ was arelatively new term to the law. Now the courts are fullyaware of the dubious methodology of the cybersquatter – thecynical and opportunistic registrant of a domain namewhose sole intention is to extort money from its rightfulowner for its transfer. In its early form, the cybersquatterwill offer to sell the name at an inflated price, or willthreaten to divert users to a damaging ‘alternative’ site,either one that is offensive such as a pornographic site or tosites that compete with the legitimate rights holder. Thesedays, cybersquatting has become a far more complicated andchallenging threat to domain names; the rise of domaintasting provides a pertinent example. Exploiting a loopholein the process of registering a domain name, cybersquattersare able to ‘sit’ on a domain name for three days to testtraffic to a site before they register it, or release it.

New threats have also emerged, bringing with them newchallenges. The practice of domaining, once considered to bea form of cyber piracy, is now being recognised as alegitimate business model that brand owners can themselveslearn from. Domainers are individuals whose profession isthe accumulation and dealing of generic internet domainnames. Although controversially compared tocybersquatters, domainers claim to differentiate andlegitimise themselves by avoiding trademarked names andpotentially contentious domain names, and refraining fromtyposquatting. They consider their conduct in buying,

selling, and developing domain names to be in the samespirit as real estate investing. Domainers generate revenuevia domain parking, through the resale of domain namesand by developing domain names into fully functioningwebsites. The question for brand owners is therefore: if adomainer has registered a generic name in your field and isreceiving enough hits to justify its up keep or sale, whyhaven’t you registered that name to direct traffic to yourown website? By understanding the approach of domainers,brand owners should be able to assess their own domainname registration and SEO strategies.

Prevention better than cureIn cases where a cybersquatter has infringed yourtrademark rights by registering a domain name in badfaith (or, simply, without being aware that the domainname infringes an existing trademark), domestic courtsprovide the opportunity for claims to be heard. However,well-informed brand owners can avoid the expensenecessary in cases of litigation. CPA recommends a four-pronged approach to fighting online infringement:investigate, action cease and desist, attempt recovery and, ifall else fails, via a Domain Name Resolution Policy (DRP).

In order to fight infringement, it’s imperative for acompany to track its brands online and record any history ofviolation. Monitoring domain name registrations across allgeneric Top-level Domains (gTLDs) and available country-code Top-level Domains (ccTLDs) will allow you to highlightany registrations that are identical or confusingly similar toyour trademark-protected brands and services, providingyou with the information needed to pursue infringementaction quickly and effectively. Building an in-depth reportabout the registrant will also help inform and support yourretrieval strategy. Companies, such as CPA, offer thisservice, as it’s important to collect evidence before sending aC&D, as the infringer could quite simply remove their page.

Issuing a cease and desist letter is important for tworeasons. Firstly, it provides the alleged infringer with theopportunity to back down without unnecessary work andexpense. If the infringing company has mistakenlyregistered the name or is appropriately scared by the threat

6

THE THREAT OF PIRACY

of litigation, it will often return the rights on receipt of theletter. Secondly, if the company registered the name in badfaith, it will often demand a hefty fee for its return. Such aresponse indicates that the registration was made in badfaith and will support your claim should you be forced topursue the infringer to the DRP stage.

The next step is to attempt recovery: ‘Of course, cease anddesist letters don’t always provoke a timely response;however, before spending the $5,000 involved in the DRPprocess, companies should first consider organising ananonymous recovery instead. In such attempts at recovery,domain name specialists can ‘anonymously’ approach theregistrant on your behalf and negotiate a fee for the returnof the URL. This route guarantees the return of the domainname and is particularly useful for companies who don’t yethave trademark rights in place to support their claims forownership in the DRP process.

If all else fails, the Internet Corporation of AssignedNames and Numbers (ICANN) provides what can often be acheap and effective means of redress – and one that is all themore likely to be successful with a history of infringementwatching and cease and desist attempts in place.

Ultimately, however, the best way to resolve a dispute isto avoid it in the first place. Those with a proactiveapproach to registering domains benefit from the best

chance of protecting their valuable brands frominfringement. However, to do this successfully, brandowners need to be aware of restrictions on domain nameregistrations and to keep on top of rule changes in thecountries where they register their brands. Many domainsexperts recommend that companies should buy all domainnames available that legitimately suit their name andbrand(s), at the same time as checking to see if otherbusinesses have got there first. However, blanketdefensive registration policies are fast becoming outmodedas a method of protecting all but the core brands of anycompany. This is partially due to improvements in theavailability, technology and service behind domain anddigital content monitoring offerings, coupled with agreater understanding and acceptance of domain names as legal IP rights.

Nevertheless, it is still wise to protect key brands throughdefensive registrations in key territories for your current orfuture business operations. However, in those territoriesdeemed less important for overall brand strategy, it makesmore sense to monitor domain name registrations forpotential infringement. Ultimately, most brand owners willagree that whatever the cost of their brand protectionstrategy, the overall value of the brand and its reputation isvastly greater.

7

WHICH DRP SHOULD I USE?

ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) protects registrationsin .biz, .com, .info, .name, .net and .org top-level domains; however, many territories havetheir own DRPs, for example, Nominet’s DRP in the UK (.uk) and EURid’s AlternativeDispute Resolution Policy (ADR) in Europe (.eu). US domain name dispute resolutions areoverseen by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), which in turn is governed by theICANN’s UDRP. In those territories that do not have a DRP in place, however, companieshave no choice but to pursue the alleged infringer in the courts. For more information, visit www.cpaglobal.com/domains or email domainnames@cpaglobal.com

Once a brand has been created, it’s advisable to implementwatching strategies to deal with attacks on a rights holder.As Steward says: ‘Making sure that a member of staff does agoogle search on the company name and key brand namesevery Monday morning could throw up examples ofcybersquatting or IP infringements.’ This process is oftenvery time consuming and you may not catch everything, sothe alternative would be to deploy the skills of a specialisttrademark watching company or agent. The danger of branddamage is something to be very aware of, with competitors,bored teenage hackers and gripe sites all able to damage agrowing brand in a variety of ways. Their activities may situneasily on the borderline of the right to freedom ofexpression – enshrined in law in many Western jurisdictions– but rights holders need not abandon hope. There are waysin which they can protect their online brands.

Gripe sitesGripe sites are those which are established with theexpress intention of criticising an institution, such as acompany, union, government body or politician. A well-known example is www.alitaliasucks.com, a site dedicatedto attacking Italy’s national airline for a catalogue ofalleged problems including lost baggage and the absence ofcompensation for flight delays and cancellations. Other‘sucks’ sites have been established, but Alitalia’s bid to fineand silence the creators of alitaliasucks.com – claimingviolation of statutory and common law trademark laws aswell as the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act –was rejected by the US courts, which found that thedefendant’s First Amendment right to free speech, alliedwith the non-commercial nature of criticism, foiledAlitalia’s claims.

Rajita Sharma, a partner specialising in IP law with ReedSmith, says that gripe sites can be difficult to combat: ‘Thelaw of defamation and trade libel may be used forderogatory contents of such sites. However, as the variousdecisions have shown, actions for trademark infringementare unlikely to succeed if the judge takes the view that theuse of the marks in the gripe sites is not in the course oftrade in relation to goods or services, or the use does nottake unfair advantage of or is not detrimental to thecharacter or repute of the trademark.’

Engel agrees: ‘The protection of rights and reputationonline is an increasing issue for many businesses, butdealing with reputation damage online is not quite asstraightforward as complaining to a newspaper about anunflattering article, action can and has been taken againstInternet infringers.’

For Sharma, brand owners would be well-advised to thinklaterally in order to deal with gripe sites. ‘Companies couldadopt strategies including registering variants of their trademarks and domain names which contain words such as‘sucks,’ ‘protest’ and ‘hate.’ They could ensure that theirhosting agreements with ISPs require removal of sites thatinfringe their trademarks or contain offensive material.They could also complain to the domain name registriessuch as Nominet and ICANN and seek removal of theoffending domain name.’

If a company does decide to take action and try to get awebsite shut down, they will need to compile evidence forthe case. Web-page-change watches can be placed on thesites so that the brand owner is made aware of any changesto the page. Sometimes, for example, if a gripe site hearsabout potential action, they may temporarily change thecontent of the site. This would mean that the evidence isthen no longer available for the courts. However, if the pageis being monitored, the pages are archived and the dates andtimes of any changes are recorded.

Organisations such as the International Chamber ofCommerce’s Counterfeiting Intelligence Bureau (CIB) andthe Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG) have been set upexpressly to fight the fraudsters. Both provide advice onbrand protection and management, and, indeed, on how todeal with yet another problem, ‘phishing.’ This occurswhen an e-mail is sent to a user falsely claiming to befrom an established, legitimate enterprise in an attempt toscam the user into surrendering private information thatwill be used for identity theft. Microsoft has been sobedeviled by the problem that it has launched its ‘GlobalPhishing Enforcement Initiative,’ which works inpartnership with law enforcement, governments andindustry to educate consumers, prosecute criminals anddevelop technology solutions to address phishing threats.

Meanwhile brand owners are increasingly turning tothird-party experts to assist them with online monitoring

8

MANAGING BRAND REPUTATION

of their brand names. With eight million new pages addedto the web every day, it is becoming nigh on impossible forbrand owners to be sure that mentions of their brand arelegally sound. And, once infringement has been found,content watching services will also provide rights ownerswith the necessary background evidence necessary to makea case. After all, it is all too easy for a cybersquatter toshut down the website and restart a new one elsewhere.Brand owners need the evidence to back their claim to stopsuch practices.

CybersmearingIf one option in counter-attacking a gripe site will be an actionfor defamation, this remedy could also be deployed in dealingwith another recent phenomenon, ‘cybersmearing’ or‘cyberstalking’. This occurs when one or more individualstarget a specific business for financial gain, often with theagenda being to exact revenge against their former employer.The classic methodology of the cyberstalker is the posting ofdefamatory material on Internet message boards and chatrooms. This can present a serious problem for brands, giventhe vast potential audience and the fact that the defamatoryposting can take on an online life of its own. However,sometimes commencing litigation will not be the best answer,as Caroline Kean, a libel lawyer with Wiggin LLP, explains:‘The problem with suing a cybersmearer for libel – assumingthat he or she can be found – is that the defendant may postaccounts of the pre-trial correspondence online. Often they aremotivated by ill-will and will relish being able to do this. Thiscan end up doing the brand more harm than good. The bestway of combating cybersmearing is to plan ahead – a companyshould review its in-house employment policies and do itsutmost to be a good listener so that, hopefully, grudges are notformed. Ensuring that employment agreements prohibit theposting of defamatory attacks may also help to create a cultureinimical to potential cybersmearers.’

If a company is sited in a cybersmearing campaign, often thebest policy is to be upfront and honest. We’ve seen two high-profile cases in recent years with two completely differentoutcomes: in the first, the brand owner came across negativecommentary on a blogging site and decided to pursue the caseto court to force the site owners to take down the postings. Inthe second case, the brand owner decided to answer the

9

DEFINITIONS

Cybersquatting: The registration of a domain namethat directly copies the identity or trademark of anestablished firm, product or public figure.

Cybersmearing: The practice of targeting a specificfirm or individual online with the intent ofcommitting commercial fraud. Typically conductedas a form of revenge by disgruntled formeremployees or associates.

Cyberstalking: A method of harassing an individualby email or on social networking sites to obtainpersonal information or make inappropriaterequests. Also used as an alternative name forcybersmearing.

Drop catching: The action of registering a domainat the point it is deleted at the registry.

Domain tasting: The practice of registering adomain name, examining traffic or other aspects ofthe domain and deleting it within a grace period forfull credit, if it does not meet success criteria.Typically automated.

Domainer: Someone who:1. Individually profits from domain names, throughthe buying, selling or monetisation of domainnames, and/or2. Is gainfully employed by an organisation withincome derived from work pertaining to domainrelated industry.

Gripe site: A website set up for the specific purposeof attacking an institution, product or individual.

Phishing: The practice of stinging web users forsensitive information, often financial, such as creditcard details, by imitating an established corporateor brand identity.

blogger’s comments on the blog site itself: expressingconcern about the service they felt they had received andoffering to resolve it for them and other users.Unsurprisingly, the second approach was much moreeffective from a PR point of view. Many companies havenow put together a blogging policy so that it is clear whatemployees should be saying about the company if theyindulge in blogging.

If gripe sites and cybersmearers pose problems that arearguably better solved by a combination of good businesspractice and astute PR than legal remedies, the law comesinto its own in dealing with the distribution of fake goodsvia the Internet. This is just as well, given the scale of theproblem: according to the Gieshen Consultancy DOPIPSecurity Counterfeit Intelligence Report (January 2006),more than 3,700 counterfeit and pirated intellectualproperty item seizures in 133 countries resulted in a totalloss of USD$1.54bn in 2005 alone. eBay itself has publiclysaid that approximately 0.1% of all of its listings wereconfirmed cases of fraud (not taking into accountunreported cases).

Is it such a big deal?Many consumers have an indulgent attitude to roguetraders, as if they somehow encapsulate a lost spirit ofentrepreneurialism. But according to Anthony Riem,partner with City law firm, PCB, which specialises incommercial fraud and asset recovery, it is about time wewoke up to the real cost of such fraud.

‘The demand for fake goods is incredible,’ says Riem,citing the seizure of goods worth £1.5m at the Wembleystreet market last year, ‘but people seem blind to theimplications of allowing counterfeit trade to continue.Based just upon the value of fake goods seized at Wembleymarket, the VAT payable on fake goods sold at the 1,200permanent markets in the UK would have been enough tobuild a school or hospital.’ The problem is compounded bythe Internet, says Riem, not only because of its globalreach but because the law tends to treat online auctionsites as conduits of information, analogous to BT, ratherthan the publisher which would, in most cases, be legallyliable for content. Beyond that, says Riem, ‘we shouldremember that organised and dangerous criminalsyndicates are behind online counterfeiting. They userevenue to finance other, more obviously unacceptableactivities such as drug running and terrorism.’

Riem is convinced that the most effective deterrent istaking away the proceeds of crime. ‘We are fortunate inthat domestic law has wide-ranging powers that enable

10

KEEP INFORMED

You can help protect your domain names by

keeping informed of the latest developments in

the industry. Useful resources include:

ICANN, Internet Corporation for Assigned

Names and Numbers: www.icann.org

IANA, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority:

www.iana.org

WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organisation:

www.wipo.int

ICANN web blog: www.lextext.com

ADNDRC, Asian Domain Name Resolution

Centre: www.adndrc.org

Nominet: www.nominet.org.uk

National Arbitration Forum: www.arbforum.com

Further reading:

www.ipreview.com/domains

www.cpaglobal.com/domains

11

action without notice to the criminal. We can obtain third-party disclosure orders, using civil procedure rules and theNorwich Pharmacal principle, to compel an ISP to disclosewho is posting material online, which are in turnaccompanied by so-called ‘gagging orders’ to prohibit theISP notifying anyone. Similar applications can be made tobanks to freeze assets. The overriding point to be made isthat the English courts cannot abide the idea of Londonbeing used as a centre of international financial crime, andso are very open to attempts to stop the fraudsters. Ourcourts are on the cutting edge of finding ways to combatonline counterfeiting.’

Similarly, in the US, a growing number of legal tools areavailable to firms and their clients to help combatcounterfeiting and Internet crime. Temporary restrainingorders (TROs), permanent and temporary injunctions, andorders of seizure and asset seizures can all help brandowners to enforce their rights.

A number of other mechanisms exist to deal with theproblem. eBay has implemented the Verified Rights Owner(VeRO) Program to allow brand owners to report listingsthat infringe their intellectual property rights. If a sellerappears to be offering infringing goods for sale, eBayremoves the listing from the site, notifies the seller of thelisting’s removal, refunds all fees associated with the listingand reviews the seller's account for possible suspension. IfeBay is not sure whether or not an item is infringing, thecompany refers the suspect listing to the rights owner forreview. Yahoo! also provides an Auction Abuse form thatenables users to report any listing that abuses its guidelinesand Terms of Service. Brand owners without their own in-house manpower can also use automated services.

But as Jeremy Phillips, IP consultant at Olswang pointsout, legal remedies in the virtual setting of the Internet arenot always that simple. ‘Even if you do find your target,where can you sue them? The Internet is the proverbialglobal village, but courts only exist in real locations –countries,’ he points out. ‘Old fashioned terrestrial law hasits own web of rules that decide which country’s courts youcan sue in, with separate rules governing arbitration ofdomain name disputes by WIPO, Nominet and othernational registrars. And, even if you know who your e-quarry is and you’ve found somewhere to sue, you need toassess the likely results of your enforcement action. If yourinfringer has no assets to speak of, you can forget aboutwinning damages and getting back costs.’

Ultimately, it’s all about retaining control of your brandin the virtual world, and that necessitates a step change in

the way in which users view the Internet. Educating thepublic of the cost of online fraud is, according to mostexperts, essential. So, too, as Jeremy puts it, ‘intelligenceand effective deterrents.’ In a world which has changedimmeasurably thanks to the advent of the Internet, andwhich is set for yet more accelerated evolution, ‘education,intelligence and effective deterrents’ would seem a sensibleformula for brand owners looking to manage and protecttheir digital content. So, too, an ability to think laterally –and a readiness to utilise legal remedies when necessary.

Established in 1969, by attorneys and with over 38 years of legal experience and 40,000 clients, CPA is a leading legal servicesprovider. Our services are designed to enable clients to increase capacity, manage risk, and reduce costs – without compromisingquality. CPA is a multi-shore company with offices in 7 countries and a network of associates in every Intellectual Property jurisdiction.For further information about CPA visit www.cpaglobal.com

CPA HEAD OFFICE:

CPA House, 11-15 Seaton Place,

St Helier, Jersey JE1 1BL,

Channel Islands

Tel +44 (0) 1534 888711

Fax +44 (0) 1534 888747

www.cpaglobal.com

REGIONAL OFFICES:

UK: Tel +44 (0) 1784 224 559

Germany: Tel +49 (0) 89 4567850

USA: Tel +1 (703) 739 2234

Australia: Tel +61 (0) 2 9993 3010

TMDS: Tel +44 (0) 20 7549 0660

CPA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS:

UK: Tel +44 (0) 20 7549 0666

France: Tel +33 (0) 1 30 15 66 66

Germany: Tel +49 (0) 89 4567850

USA: Tel +1 (703) 739 2234

Canada: Tel +1 (613) 233 0519

Australia: Tel +61 (0) 2 9993 3000

ABOUT CPA

12