Cybersquatting in Uzbekistan

The digitalization of the economy and the active development of e-commerce in Uzbekistan have inevitably increased the importance of domain names as a means of individualizing participants in civil turnover and their goods and services. The national top-level domain “.UZ”, administered by the Unified Integrator UZINFOCOM on the basis of an agreement with ICANN, has existed since 1995 and is governed by the special Regulation On the Procedure for Registration and Use of Domain Names in the “UZ” Domain (registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Uzbekistan under No. 1830).

At the same time, the growth in the number of registered domain names has been accompanied by an increased risk of so-called cybersquatting — the registration of domain names reproducing third parties’ trademarks, trade names, or other designations for the purpose of resale, blocking their use, or extracting commercial benefit from the reputation of the right holder. In Uzbekistan, this phenomenon has acquired practical relevance, as evidenced by expert publications and the analysis of court practice in domain name disputes.

However, current legislation does not contain a legal definition of cybersquatting, nor is a domain name recognized as an independent object of exclusive rights, which creates systemic difficulties in legal qualification and effective protection of rights.

Concept and Characteristics of Cybersquatting

In legal doctrine, cybersquatting is generally understood as the bad-faith registration and use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to another party’s means of individualization (most commonly a trademark), without an intention of bona fide use, but rather for the purpose of:

• reselling the domain name to the right holder at an inflated price;
• blocking the use of the designation by a competitor;
• generating income by diverting traffic (advertising, contextual ads, phishing, etc.).

The key characteristics of cybersquatting include:

1. the existence of a protected designation (a registered trademark, a well-known brand, or a trade name);
2. registration of the domain name by a third party that has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to that designation;
3. bad faith intent — speculative resale, parasitizing on reputation, creating a likelihood of confusion and misleading consumers;
4. actual or potential harm to the right holder (loss of traffic, damage to business reputation, inability to use the domain name, etc.).

In Uzbek judicial practice concerning domain disputes, decisive importance is attached to the registrant’s commercial interest and bad faith, as well as to the claimant’s legitimate legal interest (for example, ownership of a registered trademark or a recognized trade name).

Legal Nature of Domain Names under Uzbek Law

The Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, in the chapter on intellectual property (Articles 1031 et seq.), does not recognize domain names as independent objects of intellectual property.

In practice and legal doctrine, a domain name is described as:

• a technical identifier of an Internet resource assigned to a domain administrator as a result of registration;
• an intangible asset closely connected with the use of means of individualization, but not endowed with an “exclusive right” in the classical sense applicable to intellectual property objects such as trademarks or trade names.

Registration of a domain name in the “.UZ” zone does not create an exclusive civil-law right for the registrant. Instead, the registrant acquires only the right to use the domain name, to manage the content of the website, and — subject to compliance with registrar rules and Regulation No. 1830 — the right to transfer the domain name to another person.

Protection of a domain name as such is therefore indirect and is exercised through:

• rules governing the protection of exclusive rights to trademarks and trade names;
• provisions on unfair competition;
• general rules on the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation;
• special provisions of the Regulation on registration and use of domain names in the “UZ” domain.

This indirect nature of protection, combined with the absence of a clear legal status of domain names, creates legal uncertainty in the qualification of cybersquatting.

Regulatory Framework: Domains, Telecommunications, and Trademarks

Legal regulation of cybersquatting in Uzbekistan is fragmented and consists of several regulatory layers.

Telecommunications Legislation and Regulation No. 1830

Registration, administration, and use of domain names in the “.UZ” domain are governed by Article 8 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan On Telecommunications and by the Regulation On the Procedure for Registration and Use of Domain Names in the “UZ” Domain, approved by an order of the Director General of the Uzbek Agency for Communications and Informatization and registered with the Ministry of Justice on 23 June 2008 under No. 1830.

The Regulation:

• defines the status of the “.UZ” domain administrator (UZINFOCOM), registrars, and domain name administrators;
• establishes procedures for registration, renewal, re-registration, deactivation, and cancellation of domain names;
• contains general rules on inadmissible domain names and dispute resolution procedures.

At the same time, the Regulation does not provide a legal definition of cybersquatting, does not establish specific criteria for “bad-faith domain name registration,” and does not introduce a separate administrative or quasi-judicial dispute resolution procedure modeled on the UDRP.

Certain subordinate regulations and official explanations emphasize that current legislation does not contain a direct prohibition on the sale or resale of domain names, while restrictions introduced at the subordinate regulatory level are subject to debate as to their legality and compliance with statutory law.

Trademark Law and Means of Individualization

The Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin No. 267-II of 30 August 2001 establishes the exclusive right of the trademark owner to use a registered trademark and the right to prohibit third parties from using identical or confusingly similar designations in civil turnover without the right holder’s consent.

Although the law does not explicitly mention domain names, judicial practice and doctrine have developed the understanding that the use of a trademark-protected designation in a domain name may constitute a form of trademark use, including for the purposes of website identification, service promotion, and advertising.

Accordingly, where a registered trademark exists, the owner of a domain name reproducing that trademark may be held liable for infringement of exclusive rights, and the domain name may be deemed to have been used in violation of the trademark owner’s rights.

Judicial Practice on Cybersquatting in Uzbekistan

Published analytical materials on Uzbek court practice show that courts, similarly to foreign jurisdictions, treat the appropriation of trademarks in domain names as a legal conflict between the trademark owner and the domain name administrator.

Key trends in judicial practice include:

1. Priority of trademark rights. Where the claimant holds a registered trademark, courts tend to recognize the claimant’s preferential right to the corresponding domain name, particularly where the parties’ fields of activity coincide.
2. Assessment of bad faith. Court practice and expert reviews indicate that the decisive criterion is the bad faith of the respondent, including registration of a domain name without an apparent business interest, offering the domain for sale at an inflated price, or absence of genuine use.
3. Lack of a special domain dispute procedure. Disputes are generally resolved through ordinary civil litigation, which prolongs proceedings and increases procedural costs.
4. Indirect legal qualification. Court decisions are based on trademark law, unfair competition rules, and general principles of civil law in the absence of clearly articulated statutory criteria for cybersquatting.

As a result, courts effectively develop quasi-precedential approaches, compensating for gaps in normative regulation.

Key Problems and Regulatory Gaps

An analysis of current regulation and judicial practice reveals several key issues:

1. Absence of a legal definition of cybersquatting. Neither the Civil Code nor special laws (on trademarks, competition, or telecommunications) define cybersquatting or list its essential elements, which undermines uniform law enforcement.
2. Uncertain legal status of domain names. Domain names are neither recognized as independent IP objects nor clearly classified as another type of intangible asset, complicating the choice of legal protection mechanisms.
3. Fragmentary regulation under Regulation No. 1830. The Regulation focuses on procedural aspects of domain registration and use but lacks substantive rules on right holder protection, criteria for bad-faith registration, and mechanisms for early termination of domain delegation due to rights violations.
4. Absence of a specialized ADR procedure. Unlike international practice (e.g., UDRP administered by WIPO), Uzbekistan does not provide a mandatory or simplified alternative dispute resolution mechanism for domain disputes at the level of the “.UZ” domain administrator or a specialized arbitral body.
5. Controversial status of domain resale. Attempts to restrict the transferability of domain names through subordinate regulations lack a clear legislative basis and may be invalidated by courts.

Taken together, these factors create favorable conditions for cybersquatting and increase transaction costs for bona fide right holders.

Cybersquatting in Uzbekistan constitutes a significant and persistent problem arising at the intersection of intellectual property law, telecommunications regulation, and unfair competition. In the absence of a special law on domain names and a statutory definition of cybersquatting, courts are compelled to rely on general trademark and competition rules, developing case-by-case approaches.

The existing protection model is fragmented and reactive and does not ensure sufficient preventive or procedural efficiency. In this context, systematic improvement of legislation — from clarifying the legal status of domain names and recognizing cybersquatting as a form of unfair competition to introducing a specialized domain ADR procedure — appears to be a necessary condition for creating a stable and predictable legal environment for the development of Uzbekistan’s digital economy.