In domain name disputes, the key challenge for a trademark owner lies not only in proving the fact of infringement, but also in ensuring that judicial protection operates faster than technical manipulations involving domain names.
Practice demonstrates that, in the absence of effective interim measures, an infringer may continue the unlawful use even while court proceedings are ongoing — by redirecting users to other websites, launching identical pages on subdomains, or otherwise modifying the domain configuration, while maintaining for consumers the same appearance and perception of an “official” brand website.
These issues are clearly illustrated in Case No. 910/2948/24, which is particularly indicative of how courts are beginning to treat interim measures not as a formal procedural tool, but as a genuine preventive mechanism for trademark protection.
Igor Derevianko, Partner at DEGA PARTNERS Attorneys Association, outlines key judicial approaches.
The claim was filed in connection with the use of the «Miele» trademarks in the domain names miele-shop.com.ua and miele.net.ua, on the respective websites, as well as in contextual advertising and on the price comparison platform Hotline.
The Court established that «the designations used in the domain names of the disputed websites and on the webpages thereof are similar to such an extent that they may be confused with the trademarks owned by the Company».
Importantly, the Court expressly recorded the absence of any authorization from the trademark owner or its official representative for such use, as well as the lack of information regarding the origin of the goods marketed under the relevant designation.
A pivotal development in this case was the ruling of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv dated 17 May 2024, which imposed interim measures by «prohibiting the registration of domain names and subdomains using the «Miele» trademark, including cases where the domain name consists of two parts — a domain and a subdomain — which visually form the word ‘miele’».
This wording goes beyond the traditional prohibition relating to a specific domain name. The Court expressly extended protection to potential future domains and subdomains that could be used to continue the infringement.
From a practical standpoint, such an approach is of fundamental importance. It demonstrates that the Court took into account typical technical methods used to circumvent judicial prohibitions in domain disputes, including:
In essence, this reflects a shift from the formal approach of “prohibiting a specific domain” to a broader strategy aimed at terminating the method of infringement itself. This significantly enhances the effectiveness of interim measures as a tool for protecting intellectual property rights.
As expected, the interim measures were challenged by the domain name registrar. However, by its ruling dated February 11, 2025, the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
From a practical perspective, this is particularly important, as the interim measures were not only imposed, but also successfully withstood appellate review, confirming their proportionality and admissibility, even in light of interference with domain name administration.
Special attention should be paid to the ruling dated 17 June 2024, by which the Court ordered the application of the registry statuses “clientUpdateProhibited” and “clientTransferProhibited” to the domain names.
This serves as an example of how a court decision can be properly integrated into the technical logic of the domain name system.
Rather than relying on a declaratory prohibition, the Court applied standard registry mechanisms that effectively prevent any modification or transfer of a domain name without breaching the court order.
By its decision dated 9 June 2025, the Court confirmed the infringement of intellectual property rights and ordered:
Notably, the reasoning of the decision was based exclusively on the facts of trademark use on the Internet, the similarity of the designations to the extent of confusion, and the absence of authorization from the trademark owner — without reference to the principle of exhaustion of rights.
Case No. 910/2948/24 demonstrates a gradual shift in judicial practice in domain name disputes — from a formalistic approach to one focused on the actual and effective cessation of infringement already at the stage of interim measures.
For trademark owners and their legal representatives, this means the ability not only to prevail on the merits, but also to effectively neutralize infringement at an early stage of proceedings.
Such an approach may become one of the key directions in the development of judicial protection of trademark rights in the digital environment — where enforcement is aimed not at formal responses to isolated manifestations of infringement, but at the real prevention of unjustified commercial benefit derived from the use of another party’s trademark, regardless of the technical forms through which such infringement is disguised.