The rapid digitalization of the economy and the active development of e-commerce have significantly transformed the role of domain names for modern businesses. Whereas previously a domain name primarily performed a technical addressing function, today it has become a full-fledged element of commercial identity, a tool for communication with consumers, and, at the same time, an object of legal protection.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), between 2013 and 2023 the share of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the retail sector that accept online orders nearly doubled—from 23% to 43%—while 67% of such companies already operate their own websites. In the wholesale sector, this figure is even higher, with 85% of SMEs maintaining their own websites.1 A similar trend is observed by Eurostat: in 2024, 24% of EU enterprises engaged in e-sales, compared to 17% in 2014, while the share of turnover generated through e-sales increased from 14% to 19%.2
At the same time, the domain name space continues to expand. According to Verisign, as of the end of Q4 2025, there were 386.9 million registered domain names worldwide across all top-level domains.3 Under such conditions, a domain name no longer serves merely a technical addressing function but also acts as a digital identifier of a business, a communication channel with consumers, and an entry point to a brand’s goods and services.
As the importance of domain names increases, so does the number of disputes associated with them. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in 2024, 6,168 cases were initiated based on complaints from rights holders from 133 countries under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) and national ccTLD mechanisms. In 2025, WIPO administered 6,282 cases, marking the highest number since the introduction of this mechanism.4; 5
In light of the above, domain name disputes should no longer be viewed merely as technical issues of address space administration. In many cases, a domain name functions as a tool of commercial brand identification, while its unlawful use serves as a means of diverting consumer traffic, imitating the official presence of a rights holder, distributing counterfeit or illegally imported goods, and offering fictitious services, including sham maintenance services. Accordingly, a domain name dispute is not simply a narrow technical conflict, but one of the practical manifestations of trademark infringement in the digital environment.
Under these circumstances, effective protection requires not a single universal solution, but a strategically designed combination of legal instruments: from prompt pre-trial measures to judicial protection, specialized administrative procedures before WIPO, and, in certain cases, criminal law mechanisms. The proper choice of strategy ultimately determines whether a rights holder will merely record an infringement post factum or will be able to effectively restore control over the digital presence of its brand.
A key feature of domain name disputes in Ukraine is that the legal regime of the .UA domain and, for example, com.ua or in.ua differs not only from a technical standpoint, but also from a legal perspective. This distinction largely determines both the level of risk for the rights holder and the choice of an appropriate protection mechanism.
For private second-level domain names in the .UA zone, a preliminary filter applies, linked to the existence of trademark rights. By contrast, no such filter exists for public second-level domains within which third-level domains are registered.6; 7
The regulations governing the registration of private second-level domain names in the .UA domain expressly provide that delegation of such domain names is only possible if the respective domain name, or its second-level component, corresponds in spelling to a mark in respect of which the registrant holds rights for use in Ukraine. At the same time, these regulations apply not only to marks registered under a Ukrainian certificate, but also to designations that enjoy legal protection in Ukraine based on international registration.
Certain practical aspects relevant to brand owners are also addressed. In particular, where a mark contains a protected verbal element, delegation may be based on that verbal component. In addition, for Cyrillic designations, the possibility of Latin transliteration is envisaged.6
For this reason, second-level domains in the .UA zone are comparatively better protected against the simplest forms of cybersquatting. Under this model, it is not sufficient for an infringer merely to file an application earlier than the rights holder; the applicant must also undergo verification by confirming rights to the relevant mark. While this does not eliminate all possible disputes, it significantly raises the barrier for bad-faith registrations.
Accordingly, a substantial portion of issues in the .UA domain arise not at the stage of initial delegation, but rather during subsequent use of the domain name, changes in the registrant, or disputes concerning rights to the trademark itself.
A different situation exists in public second-level domains such as com.ua, in.ua, net.ua, org.ua, as well as geographic domains such as kyiv.ua, lviv.ua, and odesa.ua. Publicly available explanations from Hostmaster explicitly state that such domains are available to all without restrictions. The Public Domain Regulations further indicate that, under this model, the key elements for registration are the data relating to the domain name itself and the registrant as a contact entity; prior verification of trademark rights is not envisaged as a mandatory prerequisite for registration.7; 8
This distinction makes public domains the most vulnerable to abusive practices. While the .UA zone incorporates a certain protective mechanism at the delegation stage, in domains such as brand.com.ua or brand.in.ua, rights holders often become aware of a problem only after the website has already become operational. At that point, such websites may be used to sell counterfeit or illegally imported goods, imitate official service centers of the relevant brand, or otherwise mislead consumers.
In other words, the .UA domain is characterized by a preventive model, whereas public domains operate under a post factum response model.
An additional practical difficulty arises in situations where trademark rights are transferred to a new owner, but control over the domain name remains with the previous registrant or is not technically synchronized with the transfer of rights. The .UA regulations provide for the possibility of amending domain name information, including the trademark number and the registrant. However, the new trademark and the new contact entity must comply with the requirements of the regulations, and such compliance is verified by the current domain name registrar.6 This means that even where the transfer of trademark rights is legally undisputed, control over the domain does not automatically transfer as a technical consequence of such transfer. This issue is particularly evident in complex cases involving enforcement against trademarks, forced sale of assets, corporate restructuring, or bankruptcy.
Accordingly, for a rights holder in domain name disputes, it is essential first to determine which domain model is involved. In private second-level domains in the .UA zone, the core logic of the dispute is typically linked to rights in the trademark itself, the validity of registration, and the procedure for re-delegation. In public domains, the focus shifts to cessation of infringement, documentation of bad-faith use of the designation, and prompt response through courts, hosting providers, registrars, or other enforcement mechanisms.
It is precisely with this distinction in mind that any legal strategy in a domain name dispute should be developed.service experiences directly with the brand itself, leading to reputational damage in addition to financial loss.
Particular attention in domain name disputes should be given to a model of infringement where a domain is used not for the direct sale of goods, but to create the impression of an official service center, warranty service provider, authorized repair facility, or another form of post-sale brand support.
The practical risk of this model lies in the fact that it combines several elements of infringement simultaneously: unauthorized use of a trademark, misleading consumers as to affiliation with the rights holder, and reputational harm resulting from the association of substandard or fictitious services with the respective brand.
From a legal perspective, such cases are more complex than conventional cybersquatting. In standard domain disputes, the key issue is typically whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. However, in cases involving a fictitious service center, it is also necessary to assess whether the overall presentation creates the impression of an official presence of the manufacturer or its authorized service partner.
Indicators of such misleading conduct may include:
This type of infringement also causes a distinct form of harm. In cases involving counterfeit goods, negative consumer experiences are usually attributed to the seller. By contrast, in the case of a pseudo-service center, consumers tend to associate poor repair quality, refusal of warranty service, use of non-original spare parts, or charges for non-existent services directly with the brand itself.
As a result, the damage extends beyond financial loss and directly affects the business reputation of the rights holder, which is an independent factor when determining the appropriate legal remedy and enforcement strategy.
Notably, disputes involving the use of the BOSCH designation clearly illustrate the sensitivity of this model. In such cases, the issue is not limited to the use of a trademark in a domain name, but extends to how the website positions itself—as an official retailer, a service center, a warranty support provider, or a repair platform for the relevant brand. In other words, the combination of the domain name, website content, and the nature of services provided creates a likelihood of confusion that goes far beyond a purely technical domain dispute.12; 16
For rights holders, disputes involving fictitious service centers require not only documenting the domain name and trademark use, but also capturing representations regarding warranty, official status, service provision, and repair. These elements are critical to demonstrate that the infringement involves not merely trademark use, but also consumer deception as to the origin of services and the status of the service provider.
Accordingly, a fictitious service center should be treated as a distinct and more harmful form of infringement, which affects not only trademark rights but also consumer trust in the brand as a source of quality goods and services. In such cases, appropriate remedies may include cessation of infringement, domain name transfer, blocking access to the resource, and, where applicable, compensation for reputational damage.
Despite the availability of pre-trial response mechanisms, judicial protection remains the primary tool in domain name disputes. Its key advantage lies in the ability to combine several remedies within a single proceeding, including: prohibition of the use of a designation, cessation of trademark infringement, re-delegation (transfer) of a domain name, recovery of damages, as well as the application of measures for securing evidence and interim relief. Such a combination of remedies makes it possible not only to establish the факт of infringement but also to effectively restore control over a brand’s digital presence.
A representative example in this context is case No. 757/19365/19-c. As follows from the case materials, the dispute concerned not only the use of Robert Bosch GmbH trademarks on the Internet, but also claims to cease such use in domain names and on the respective websites. By the decision of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv dated 14 December 2020, the claim of Robert Bosch GmbH for the protection of rights to trademarks for goods and services was upheld. At the same time, this case clearly demonstrates another feature of domain name disputes: even where the rights holder obtains a favorable judgment, the dispute rarely ends at the court of first instance. By the ruling of the Supreme Court dated 19 October 2022, the cassation appeal of Robert Bosch GmbH was partially upheld, the previous decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal was set aside, and the case was remitted for a new hearing before the appellate court. Subsequently, by the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated 27 February 2023, the judgment of the court of first instance in the contested part was upheld.13; 14
For domain disputes, such a procedural history is significant, as it demonstrates that judicial protection in this category of cases often addresses several objectives simultaneously: it establishes the boundaries of permissible use of a trademark in the digital environment, determines the appropriate remedy, and assesses whether a claim for re-delegation of a domain name may serve as an effective means of restoring the infringed right. In such disputes, proper formulation of claims is particularly important, as a mere prohibition of the use of a designation does not always eliminate the source of infringement if the domain name remains under the control of a person lacking rights to the relevant designation.
The significance of judicial protection is even more evident in case No. 910/1147/25. By the ruling of the Commercial Court of Kyiv dated 24 February 2025, interim measures were granted in proceedings initiated by Robert Bosch GmbH against Europa Tech Ukraine LLC and Internet Invest LLC. Subsequently, by the judgment dated 4 June 2025, the court fully satisfied the claim: it prohibited the use of the relevant trademarks for goods and services, ordered the re-delegation of the domain name ukraine-bosch.com in favor of Robert Bosch GmbH, and awarded UAH 150,000 in non-pecuniary (moral) damages against Internet Invest LLC.15; 16 This case clearly illustrates why the court remains the central mechanism of protection in domain name disputes. First, the court may combine a claim for cessation of infringement with a claim for domain transfer. Second, it is capable of assessing not only the fact of domain name use, but also the conduct of all involved parties—from the entity using the designation to the registrar, where its involvement is relevant to the continuation or termination of the infringement. Third, it is before the court that the issue of reputational consequences of unlawful use of a brand may be raised, particularly where consumers associate negative experiences not with a specific seller, but with the rights holder itself.15; 16
This approach is further confirmed by case No. 910/2948/24 upon the claim of Miele & Cie. KG. In that case, the court examined not only the use of the Miele designation in a domain name, but also the broader digital infrastructure of the infringement. The proceedings involved measures for securing evidence and interim relief, and the dispute covered several related domain names and involved digital intermediaries. This demonstrates that judicial protection often needs to be directed not only against the nominal domain name holder, but against the entire interconnected system of entities and services enabling the infringement.17; 18; 19 Equally important is the procedural aspect of this case, which once again confirms that in domain disputes, early procedural action is often critical to the effectiveness of the final decision.
Accordingly, in this category of disputes, decisive importance lies not only in the existence of trademark rights, but also in the rights holder’s ability to timely document the factual pattern of infringement. A distinctive feature of domain name disputes is the highly dynamic nature of digital traces: website content changes, contact details are modified, redirects are altered, references to warranties or services disappear, payment details are updated, and domain names may be re-registered. For this reason, the initial stage of evidence preservation often determines the prospects of the entire enforcement process.
The standard evidentiary framework in domain name disputes includes at least several key elements. First, documents confirming rights to the designation: a Ukrainian trademark certificate or an international registration valid in Ukraine, as well as the list of goods and services for which protection is granted. Second, documentation of the domain name itself and the content of the website: the domain name, date of access, page structure, use of the brand in the domain name, in page titles, descriptions of goods and services, meta tags, design elements, and references to warranties, servicing, or the official status of the resource. Third, evidence of commercial activity: pricing, purchase procedures, payment details, delivery methods, seller information, and warranty or repair terms. Fourth, information establishing the link between the domain, the website, and a specific individual or entity: WHOIS data, registrar information, hosting provider details, matching phone numbers, email addresses, service locations, banking details, marketplace profiles, etc.
From a procedural standpoint, such documentation is expressly recognized by law. The Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine and the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine explicitly classify websites, web pages, textual, multimedia and voice messages, metadata, databases, and other data in electronic form, including those stored on the Internet, as electronic evidence.9; 10 This means that the content of a web resource, its architecture, technical data, and digital traces of trademark use have not auxiliary, but full evidentiary value in domain disputes.
Special attention must be paid to the proper form of such evidence. It is essential to document the infringement in a manner that allows subsequent verification of the authenticity of the web page content, the date of its capture, the source of the information, and its connection to the specific domain name. Therefore, it is necessary to preserve not only the visual appearance of the page, but also the HTML code, redirect verification results, WHOIS data, advertisements on aggregators and marketplaces, as well as technical data relating to IP addresses, hosting, and other links between related resources. In the event of a dispute, this body of evidence makes it possible to demonstrate not only the existence of the website, but also the manner in which the brand is used to attract or mislead consumers.
Upon identifying a problematic domain, the rights holder should act consistently. First, it is advisable to document the website, the domain, advertisements, contact details, payment information, warranty representations, information about the seller or service center, as well as any redirects to other resources. Next, it is necessary to verify publicly available registration data of the domain name, hosting, and related web resources. Thereafter, targeted notices should be sent to the registrar, hosting provider, marketplace, or aggregator through which the website obtains traffic or conducts sales, requesting specific actions rather than submitting a general complaint—such as maintaining the domain status, providing identifying information, restricting access to content, or suspending the placement or promotion of the disputed offers.
In cases where the registrant is hidden, identification of the infringer is impossible out of court, or there is a risk of rapid loss of digital evidence, it is advisable to apply to the court for measures to secure evidence even before filing a claim. The Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine and the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine provide for such a possibility where there are grounds to believe that the relevant evidence may be lost or that its submission later will become impossible or significantly more difficult.9; 10 In domain disputes, this step is particularly important, as it allows for obtaining data regarding the registrant, website administrator, hosting, and other technical information, or for ensuring the inspection of digital evidence before it is altered or deleted.
Separate attention should also be given to the role of interim relief. In domain disputes, this is not an auxiliary but a systemic instrument, as the high mobility of a domain name as a digital asset means that, without prompt restrictions on changing the registrant, transferring the domain to another registrar, or taking other actions with respect to the domain, the future judgment on the merits may lose its effectiveness even before it is rendered. For this reason, procedural legislation allowing for interim measures both prior to filing a claim and at any stage of the proceedings is not merely formal, but of decisive practical importance in this category of disputes.
Thus, judicial protection in domain name disputes is fundamental not only because it is expressly provided by law. Its strength lies in the ability to combine substantive and procedural legal instruments within a single case, establish the fact of infringement, determine the appropriate remedy, ensure the preservation of evidence, prevent further changes to the status of the domain name, and, where justified, transfer the domain to the rights holder and compensate for the damage caused. This model makes it possible to effectively restore control over a brand in the digital environment.
In addition to litigation, domain disputes may be resolved through administrative proceedings before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. The practical advantage of this procedure lies in its ability to resolve domain name disputes in a standardized manner, under established rules, and within significantly shorter timeframes compared to traditional national court proceedings. At the same time, this mechanism does not constitute a full substitute for litigation, as it is limited exclusively to the domain name dispute itself and does not cover, in particular, claims for damages.17; 18; 19
It is important to note that the .UA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy applies not only to private second-level domain names in the .UA domain. The current version of the Policy expressly extends its application to a number of third-level domain names within the Ukrainian ccTLD .UA. Specifically, since December 19, 2019, it has applied to .COM.UA; since May 6, 2021, to certain geographic domains; since February 1, 2024, and November 1, 2024, to additional public domains; and as of February 15, 2025, in particular to .IN.UA, .NET.UA, .ORG.UA, and a significant number of other public and geographic domains. This means that, in the Ukrainian context, the WIPO procedure is relevant not only for classic second-level .UA domains but also for those zones where abusive practices most frequently occur in practice.18
By its structure, the .UA Policy represents a variation of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). To succeed, the complainant must establish three elements:
The official WIPO page for .UA emphasizes that, under this Policy, it is sufficient to prove either bad-faith registration or bad-faith use of the domain name, which constitutes one of the key distinctions from the classic UDRP.17
In many domain name disputes, the issue lies not so much in the circumstances of the initial registration as in the actual manner in which the domain is used. Domain names may be used to sell counterfeit goods, imitate an official store or service center, redirect users to another resource, or exploit a third party’s brand for commercial traffic diversion. In such cases, the .UA Policy is particularly convenient because it allows the dispute to be addressed strictly within the domain name framework, without the need to engage in complex, multi-party litigation involving additional claims. At the same time, in more complex cases—where the rights holder seeks not only to stop the use of the domain but also to recover damages or address a broader chain of infringement—recourse to the courts generally remains the more robust instrument.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(i) of the .UA Policy, the remedies available in administrative proceedings are limited to the cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the complainant. The Policy does not provide for the recovery of damages, compensation for non-pecuniary harm, or the imposition of other civil liabilities on the respondent.18 Accordingly, the WIPO procedure should be viewed as a tool for the prompt restoration of control over a domain name, rather than as a comprehensive substitute for judicial protection.
The WIPO .UA guidance expressly states that where a complainant seeks transfer of a domain name, it must satisfy the eligibility requirements for registration of second-level .UA domain names under paragraph 3.3 of the Rules governing private second-level domain name registration in the .UA domain.17; 6 If the complainant does not meet these requirements, the alternative remedy is cancellation of the domain name.17 This is practically significant, as an incorrect choice of remedy may weaken even a formally strong legal position.
Under the .UA Rules, the respondent has 20 days from the commencement of the administrative proceeding to submit a response and may request an additional automatic extension of 4 calendar days. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the administrative panel must render its decision within 14 days of its appointment. Furthermore, the .UA Rules expressly provide that no oral hearings shall be held—including by teleconference, videoconference, or web conference—unless the panel determines that such a hearing is exceptionally necessary for resolving the dispute.19 This procedural clarity and the strict timelines are precisely what make the WIPO procedure particularly attractive for relatively straightforward domain name disputes.
At the same time, the WIPO procedure preserves the possibility of judicial recourse. Paragraph 4(k) of the .UA Policy explicitly provides that the mandatory administrative proceeding does not prevent either party from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction, either before or after the administrative proceeding. Where the panel orders cancellation or transfer of the domain name, the registrar must wait 10 business days before implementing the decision. If, within that period, the registrar receives official confirmation that court proceedings have been initiated in Ukraine concerning the relevant domain name, the automatic implementation of the decision is suspended.18 This means that WIPO proceedings and court litigation are not mutually exclusive and may coexist within a broader brand protection strategy.
In conclusion, the WIPO procedure constitutes an effective specialized mechanism, but only within a clearly defined scope of cases. Its advantages include speed, procedural standardization, focus on the domain dispute itself, and the ability to obtain a decision on cancellation or transfer of a domain name without lengthy national proceedings. However, it is also characterized by a limited range of remedies, the absence of a damages recovery mechanism, and dependence on the clarity of the factual infringement model. Accordingly, for rights holders, the issue is typically not a choice between court litigation and WIPO, but rather the selection of the appropriate combination of tools depending on the structure of the specific dispute.
In domain name disputes, pre-trial enforcement should not be perceived as a secondary or merely formal stage. It constitutes a distinct legal instrument that enables the prompt containment of an infringement without initiating full-scale litigation, facilitates the formation of an evidentiary record for potential future proceedings, and allows identification of the party that actually controls the domain, its content, and the associated commercial activity within the digital chain. For this reason, the pre-trial phase should be structured as an independent brand protection strategy.
The primary addressee of such action is the domain name registrar. Its role is particularly significant where the dispute concerns not only unauthorized use of a trademark but also issues of effective control over the domain, including changes to the registrant, transfer of the domain name, preservation of its current status, or its re-delegation. Accordingly, any request addressed to the registrar must be highly specific, including clear identification of the domain name, substantiation of the claimant’s rights in the relevant designation, a detailed description of the infringement, and precise requests—such as disclosure of registrant information, preservation of the status quo, prevention of changes to registration data, or voluntary compliance with the rights holder’s demands. In practice, engagement with the registrar often either leads to a swift resolution or, alternatively, results in a documented refusal that may subsequently support judicial proceedings.
The second key addressee is the hosting provider or another intermediary service provider. The Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Commerce” provides that a hosting service provider shall not be liable for the content stored at the request of a recipient of hosting services, nor for damages resulting from the use of such services, provided that the provider lacks actual knowledge of illegal activity or circumstances indicating its illegality, and, upon obtaining such knowledge, acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information. At the same time, Article 17 of the Law establishes that an intermediary service provider may be held liable for transmitted or stored content, as well as for resulting damages, where the conditions for exemption from liability set out in Article 9 are not met.20
From a practical standpoint, this means that it is insufficient for a rights holder merely to express dissatisfaction. The objective is to move the provider from a state of formal unawareness to one of proper legal notice regarding a specific infringement. Accordingly, an effective notice to a hosting provider in a domain dispute must go beyond general complaints and include a structured submission containing evidence of trademark rights, a list of specific domains and URLs, a description of the infringing conduct, an explanation of the likelihood of confusion with the brand, documented captures of the relevant webpages, and, where available, court decisions or other official documents confirming the unlawful nature of the use.
The approaches adopted by international providers are illustrative in this regard. For example, Hetzner, in its Digital Services Act compliance framework, explicitly provides a dedicated form for reporting illegal content and states that content moderation and restriction are carried out in accordance with the “notice and take down” model under Article 6(1) of the Digital Services Act.21
Upon receiving notice or otherwise becoming aware of illegal content, the provider may notify the client, require immediate removal or explanation, set a response deadline, and, following review, even block the IP address through which the content is accessible.21 This approach is broadly consistent with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Article 16 of which requires hosting providers to implement mechanisms enabling any person or entity to report specific items of information considered illegal, ensuring that such mechanisms are easily accessible, user-friendly, and exclusively electronic.22
The third important addressee comprises marketplaces, price aggregators, and other commercial platforms that effectively generate consumer traffic to the disputed resource. Their role in domain disputes is often underestimated, although in practice such platforms frequently serve as the primary distribution channel for online stores operating under a third party’s brand. The advertising policies of Hotline provide a clear example. These rules require that product listings contain accurate information and correspond to the actual offer of the seller, and that the listing on the platform matches the content of the landing page to which it links. The rules further prohibit the placement of counterfeit goods and authorize the platform to request documentation confirming product authenticity. In cases of non-compliance, the platform may issue a warning, suspend publication of listings for up to 60 calendar days, or, in cases of repeated or systematic violations, terminate the contractual relationship unilaterally.23
This leads to an important practical conclusion: many platforms possess significantly broader enforcement tools than they are willing to acknowledge in communication with rights holders. Where a platform’s own policies allow it to verify the consistency between listings and landing pages, request proof of authenticity, suspend publication, and terminate agreements, a rights holder’s request to stop promoting a resource that imitates an official brand or offers potentially counterfeit goods falls well within the platform’s legal authority. Thus, the issue is not the absence of powers, but the willingness to exercise them.
From a practical perspective, the most effective pre-trial strategy in domain disputes is multi-channel. A single notice is rarely sufficient. Instead, coordinated action should be taken in at least three directions simultaneously: engagement with the registrar to secure the domain’s status and preserve registration data; communication with the hosting provider to disable access to unlawful content; and interaction with platforms or aggregators to cease promotion, listing, or traffic redirection to the disputed resource. Such a combined approach not only strengthens future legal claims but also increases the likelihood of curtailing the infringement before a court decision is obtained.
In conclusion, pre-trial enforcement is not an optional step. On the contrary, it often determines whether a rights holder can promptly contain an infringement, document the associated digital infrastructure, and place all intermediary actors—from registrar to platform—in a position where continued inaction can no longer be regarded as neutral. In modern domain disputes, it is not merely a preparatory phase for litigation, but a fully-fledged instrument of brand protection.
The criminal law mechanism in domain name disputes should not be regarded as a universal solution to any form of brand infringement on the Internet. It is appropriate where the domain constitutes only one element of a broader unlawful scheme involving, for example, the systematic sale of counterfeit goods, distribution of products of illicit origin, imitation of an official service center, use of a third party’s brand for large-scale commercial traffic diversion, or the commission of such acts by multiple persons acting in concert. In such circumstances, the dispute ceases to be purely civil or commercial in nature and acquires the characteristics of a criminal offense infringing intellectual property rights.
The statutory basis in this context is Article 229 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. This provision establishes liability for the unlawful use of a trademark (mark for goods and services), trade name, qualified indication of origin, or any other intentional infringement of rights to such objects, where it has caused material damage of a significant amount. Part 2 of this Article covers the same acts if committed repeatedly, by a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy, or where they have caused material damage on a large scale. Part 3 applies to acts committed by an official using their official position, by an organized group, or where the damage is particularly large. The note to Article 229 specifies that material damage is deemed significant if it exceeds twenty times the non-taxable minimum income of citizens, large if it exceeds two hundred times that amount, and particularly large if it exceeds one thousand times such minimum.24
This structure explains why the criminal track in domain disputes is both potentially powerful and procedurally complex. Unlike civil or commercial litigation, the initiation of criminal proceedings requires more than merely establishing unauthorized use of a trademark in a domain name or on a website. The basic qualification under Part 1 of Article 229 is material in nature—actual material damage and its amount must be demonstrated.24 Accordingly, in practice, it is critical not only to prove ownership of the trademark, but also to substantiate the financial losses caused by the unlawful use of the brand, such as loss of sales, diversion of customers, response costs, devaluation of legitimate product flows, or losses resulting from the sale of counterfeit goods or unauthorized services.
This requirement has direct procedural implications for the status of the injured party. The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine provides that a legal entity may be recognized as a victim in criminal proceedings if it has suffered pecuniary damage as a result of a criminal offense. Furthermore, the type and amount of damage are explicitly included among the facts subject to proof in criminal proceedings.25 Therefore, in cases under Article 229 of the Criminal Code, it is essential for the rights holder to develop a robust evidentiary framework demonstrating the financial consequences of the infringement.
This also determines the required content of a criminal complaint. In domain disputes, such a complaint must be significantly more detailed than a standard allegation of unlawful trademark use. It is advisable to include, from the outset, documents evidencing trademark rights, records of webpage content and website functionality, domain name data and related resources, proof of commercial activity conducted via the disputed resource, results of test purchases, payment details, delivery information, consumer complaints, and a substantiated calculation of damages. The quality of this initial submission often determines whether the criminal proceedings will have real prospects or remain merely formally registered.
Particular attention should also be paid to qualifying elements related to the involvement of multiple persons. Part 2 of Article 229 refers to acts committed “by a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy,” while Part 3 refers to an “organized group.” Under Article 28 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, an offense is deemed committed by prior conspiracy where two or more persons agreed in advance to act jointly, and by an organized group where three or more persons formed a stable association with a common plan and distribution of roles. In online schemes, this distinction is especially relevant. The mere existence of separate roles—such as domain registrant, website administrator, payment recipient, logistics operator, or technical executor—does not automatically establish a group or organized group. However, where evidence demonstrates coordinated conduct, functional distribution, repetition of the scheme, and a unified plan to exploit a third party’s brand, such qualification becomes legally justified.
Another practical aspect concerns jurisdiction over such cases. The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine assigns criminal offenses under Article 229 of the Criminal Code to the jurisdiction of detectives of the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine.25 Accordingly, filing a complaint with the Bureau of Economic Security is a procedurally sound step in cases involving systematic unlawful use of trademarks in domain names, websites, and related e-commerce channels, particularly where the infringement operates at a commercial scale, involves financial flows, coordinated actions, or requires prompt identification of associated persons and assets.
At the same time, the potential of criminal proceedings as a standalone remedy for restoring control over a domain name should not be overstated. Neither Article 229 of the Criminal Code nor the procedural mechanisms of the Criminal Procedure Code replace a court decision prohibiting trademark use or ordering the transfer (re-delegation) of a domain name. Instead, criminal proceedings serve a different function: identifying individuals behind the scheme, collecting evidence through investigative tools, initiating seizure of assets to preserve evidence or secure compensation, and exerting pressure on infringers where civil enforcement mechanisms prove ineffective. For this reason, the criminal law instrument in domain disputes should be viewed not as an alternative to litigation or WIPO proceedings, but as a complementary mechanism for cases involving systematic, large-scale, and socially harmful infringements.
In conclusion, recourse to criminal law mechanisms is justified primarily where unlawful use of a brand via a domain name is accompanied by proven financial damage, elements of repetition, coordinated group conduct, or an organized distribution scheme. In such cases, Article 229 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine may function not merely as a declaratory provision, but as a practical enforcement tool. However, its effectiveness depends directly on the thoroughness with which the rights holder substantiates damage, identifies the involved parties, and demonstrates the commercial structure of the infringement.
Despite the presence in Ukraine of several working tools for brand protection in domain disputes, the current model remains incomplete. For private second-level domain names in the .UA domain, a precautionary mechanism operates, since their delegation is associated with the presence of rights to the corresponding mark for goods and services. In contrast, in public domains, in particular in the segment of third-level domains, registration is much more open, and therefore these zones are most often used for imitation under well-known brands, the sale of counterfeit or illegally imported products, as well as for imitation of official stores and service centers.
The first obvious direction of improvement is the procedure for redelegation of a domain name in cases of transfer of rights to a trademark. In practice, the transfer of rights to a mark does not yet mean the automatic transfer of actual control over the corresponding domain. This problem is especially acute in cases of trademark enforcement, asset sales, corporate restructuring or other legal succession. That is why it is advisable to establish a clear procedure for the registrar in such situations: to determine the list of documents sufficient for changing the registrant, the response time, the procedure for temporarily maintaining the status quo and the consequences of an unjustified refusal to comply with the new rightholder’s request.
The next direction is to introduce clearer rules for responding to registrars and hosting providers after proper notification of the violation. The Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Commerce” already contains a general model according to which the provider of intermediary services is exempted from liability provided that there is no information about illegal activity and that it responds quickly after receiving such information.20 However, this model does not detail domain and content disputes to the extent that the right holder, registrar and hosting provider have a clear algorithm of actions that would provide what information the notification should contain, within what time limits the appeal should be considered, whether the intermediary is obliged to preserve the technical data and status of the domain until the dispute is resolved, as well as what consequences complete inaction after a properly substantiated notification will have, etc. Another direction is to regulate the role of digital platforms, marketplaces and price aggregators. In practice, they are often the ones who provide consumer traffic to the disputed resource, but at the same time they take the most cautious position and often require a preliminary court decision even in cases where the right holder provides a sufficient package of evidence of obvious infringement. At the same time, the European model, enshrined in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, is based on the need for accessible and effective electronic mechanisms for reporting illegal content and for responding appropriately to such notifications.22 That is why Ukrainian regulation requires a clearer “notice-and-action” model not only for hosting providers, but also for platforms that actually promote, host, or monetize the disputed resource.
The next area is the issue of increasing legal certainty for digital intermediaries themselves. Today, a significant part of their behavior in domain disputes is determined by internal rules, contractual models, or an overly broad understanding of their own neutrality. As a result, registrars, providers, or platforms that are technically capable of quickly limiting the violation or at least preventing its aggravation often take a wait-and-see attitude and shift the entire burden of response to the rightholder and the court. This model actually prolongs the existence of the violation and creates a favorable environment for the systematic use of public domains as a tool for consumer deception.
In addition, it should be noted that the current .UA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy already applies not only to private second-level domains .UA, but also to a number of public and geographic domains, including .com.ua, .in.ua, .net.ua, .org.ua and others. This is a positive step, but the administrative procedure in WIPO by itself does not solve all problems at the national level. It does not replace a clear mechanism for redelegation in the event of the transfer of rights to a trademark, rules for the prompt response of registrars, hosting providers and platforms to obvious illegal use of the brand.
The new Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Consumer Rights” No. 3153-IX should also be taken into account separately. Its provisions form a broader framework for consumer protection in the field of e-commerce. The law, in particular, provides for the e-Buyer Portal, an automated system of verified sellers, the obligation of e-commerce entities to register on this portal, the use of the designation “verified seller”, as well as the placement of such a designation on marketplaces, classifieds and price aggregators. The law also details the rules of distance contracts and mechanisms for considering consumer complaints.
At the same time, this Law has not yet entered into force, since according to the final provisions it enters into force one year from the date of publication, but not earlier than the date of termination or cancellation of martial law, except for separately specified provisions.
Thus, even after the entry into force of this Law, it will not replace the special mechanism for responding to domain violations, but may partially enhance the transparency of e-commerce and the identification of sellers.
Therefore, the key task of the future regulation is not to completely revise the existing domain model, but to regulate its most vulnerable points. First of all, we are talking about a clear procedure for redelegation of a domain name upon transfer of trademark rights, a clear “notice-and-action” mechanism for registrars, hosting providers and platforms; as well as determining the limits of liability of digital intermediaries in cases where, after due notice, they continue to actually support an obvious infringement of brand rights. Without these changes, the protection of the rights holder will continue to be mainly ex post facto, rather than preventive.
Domain name disputes have long since gone beyond the narrow technical issue of address space administration. In the digital economy, a domain name serves as a commercial brand identifier, a channel of communication with the consumer, and an access point to goods and services, and therefore its unauthorized use actually becomes a form of trademark infringement, a tool for intercepting customer traffic, and a way to mislead the consumer.
At the same time, Ukrainian domain disputes are not homogeneous. For private second-level domain names in the .UA domain, a model of prior control through trademark rights operates, which partially restrains the simplest forms of cybersquatting. On the other hand, in public domains, in particular .com.ua, .in.ua, .net.ua or .org.ua, the risk of abuse is much higher, since registration is not associated with a preliminary check of rights to the sign, and the protection of the right holder actually begins after the occurrence of the violation. That is why the first step in each such conflict should be the correct definition of the domain model, on which the choice of the protection tool also depends.
The basic mechanism in this category of cases remains judicial protection. Its strength lies not only in the ability to establish the fact of infringement, but also in the ability to combine several methods of protection within one case: prohibition of use of the sign, cessation of infringement, re-delegation of the domain name, provision of evidence, provision of a claim and, if there are grounds, compensation for damage. It is the court that allows working not only with a separate domain record, but with the entire infrastructure of the violation – the website, related resources, digital intermediaries and the commercial model of using the brand.
At the same time, the court is not the only tool. In cases of relatively pure domain name conflict, where the key issues are the rights to the sign, the lack of a legitimate interest of the defendant and the bad faith registration or use of the domain name, the administrative procedure at WIPO has significant practical value. Its advantages are speed, standardization and focus on the domain name dispute itself, but it does not replace judicial protection in cases where a wider set of claims is at stake, in particular compensation for damage or work with several involved entities.
Pre-trial response is no less important. In most cases, the right holder is dealing not with a single infringer, but with a whole chain of intermediaries: registrar, hosting provider, marketplace, price aggregator, payment infrastructure. Under such conditions, an effective strategy should be multi-channel, not only localizing the violation, but also fixing the digital infrastructure of the dispute, transferring intermediate participants from a state of formal ignorance to a state of proper notification and preparing an appropriate evidentiary base for further protection.
The criminal law instrument in this system is not the main one, but in certain cases it is justified. When the domain is used as an element of a systematic scheme for selling counterfeit goods, imitating an official service or large-scale illegal sales under someone else’s brand, and the violation is accompanied by material damage, repetition or group nature of the actions, Article 229 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine can become a practical mechanism of influence. At the same time, this instrument requires particularly careful proof of the damage, the subject composition and the commercial model of the violation.
Therefore, in disputes over domain names there is no universal remedy. Efficiency is not determined by the choice between a court, WIPO procedure, a claim procedure or criminal proceedings as such, but by the right combination of these mechanisms depending on the structure of a particular dispute. For the right holder, the decisive factors are the rapid detection of the infringement, the correct qualification of the domain model, working with all relevant participants in the digital chain and choosing a method of protection that not only detects the infringement but actually restores control over the brand in the digital environment.
References