Contracts & E-Commerce
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.30.09
Other sections of this issue:
Privacy & Data Protection | ISP-Liability & Media Law | Contracts & E-Commerce |
Electronic Communications & IT
Greedy domain name vendors, mainly based in China and Hong Kong, are responsible for one of the Internet’s latest money-making scams. If your name or company appears on a trade mark or a company record that can be found on the internet, you may be targeted.
Introduction
Chinese domain vendors buy lists with email addresses of executives of Western companies and look for trade marks. Then they try to get the name and email address of a senior representative of the targeted company. If they can not find any, they simply use the info@email or use a generic email that they find on a website to send their deceptive email to.
Working method
Pretending to be a domain name registrar, the swindlers write to trade mark owners to inform them that a third party is about to registrar a domain name in China that incorporates the trade mark owner's IP rights. Kindly they offer to registrar the domain name on behalf of the legitimate trade mark owner in exchange for an unspecified fee. By outlining short deadlines they force the worried trade mark owners to prompt into action.
How to respond to these deceptive letters?
Although there is no such a third party that is interested in registering a Chinese keyword in a Western company's name and no company trying to register the names, a number of unwary trade mark owners have fallen victim to the scam.
If you are ever targeted by these fraud, there is absolutely no rush to react. Please ignore their email or reply with a firm rebuttal using a one-liner, like:
"We will not be registering any domains through your services. Please note that the terms that you select are close to/match our trade marks. We protect our trade marks".
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
