Unprecedented ‘Meta’ Domain Name Registrations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.02.21
Thursday’s announcement that Facebook is rebranding itself as ‘Meta’ resulted in an unprecedented number of new domain name registrations. Since Friday, we have identified over 48,000 new ‘meta’ domain names by way of the award-winning and bespoke brand protection and cybersecurity platform designed and engineered by Crowell & Moring senior counsel Alexander Urbelis.
Critically, a significant number of these newly-registered domains incorporate the names of companies and organizations, or well-known trademarks, e.g., meta-[company name].com or meta[trademark].com. Potentially used for phishing or misinformation, these domains may present cybersecurity issues, and may also constitute threats to brand strength. As a result, we recommend that companies preemptively register domains with the above syntax to prevent them from falling into the hands of cybersquatters or threat actors.
This unprecedented onslaught of domain name registrations also highlights the crossover and complementary nature of brand protection and cybersecurity efforts, giving companies the opportunity to strengthen their cybersecurity posture by protecting valuable trademark rights and prioritizing unauthorized domain registrations en masse.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
