UDRP Consolidation: A Strategic Tool To Streamline Cybersquatting Actions

As the number of trademark infringements increases online, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) offers a key mechanism to optimise the effectiveness of actions against cybersquatting, says Alissia Shchichka. 

With the growing number of online trademark infringements, rights holders are increasingly faced with cases involving multiple disputed domain names. In this environment, the protection and enforcement of trademark rights on the internet can require considerable operational efforts and financial resources. 

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) procedure offers a particularly useful mechanism for streamlining actions: the possibility to group several domain names into a single complaint. Consolidating proceedings in this way offers economic benefits, insofar as the cost of a consolidated procedure is significantly lower than that of initiating multiple separate procedures for each domain name. 

It also has obvious practical interest, as illustrated by a recent case involving the L'Oréal group (see below). In this case, involving more than 700 domain names, the panel admitted consolidation despite seemingly different registrants. 

The UDRP policy allows consolidation but... it's not universal 

Consolidation is expressly allowed under the UDRP, which applies to most generic top-level extensions (.com, .net, .org, etc.), as well as to certain country extensions that have adopted the policy. 

The main accredited centres – such as the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the National Arbitration Forum, the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre and the Czech Arbitration Court – apply this option in accordance with the UDRP Rules, in particular Rule 10(e), which allows for multiple domain names to be covered in a single complaint. 

However, this option is not universal: some national extensions are based on specific procedures that do not necessarily provide for a consolidation mechanism. 

The essential criteria: Common control and fairness 

Consolidation is based on two fundamental criteria identified by decision-making practice, in particular that of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): 

• The existence of common control between the domain names concerned; and
• The fairness and effectiveness of consolidation. 

It is important to emphasise that consolidation may be accepted even where the disputed domain names are registered in the names of different registrants (holders), provided that the available evidence, viewed as a whole, supports a finding that the domain names are subject to common control. 

The key notion of "common control" 

The notion of "common control" is at the heart of the analysis. It is based on an overall assessment of the facts, according to technical and behavioural indicators, such as use of identical DNS servers, common hosting, similarities in WHOIS data and uniformity of use (pay-per-click (PPC) pages, site structure, content). 

Taken in isolation, these elements may not be sufficient. But their combination often reveals the existence of an organised pattern of cybersquatting. 

How this applies in practice 

Previous decisions show that panels favour a global and detailed assessment of the facts, based on a set of concordant indicia, beyond the mere formal identity of the domain name holders. 

• In L'Oréal v. Hayden Wall et al., WIPO Case No. D2026-0199, the Panel accepted the consolidation of 705 domain names in a single proceeding. The domain names had been registered under many different names, but the Panel retained several converging clues: all the registrants were located in the United States, only 48 email addresses had been used to register the 705 domain names, some emails were associated with several registrant names, the domains had been registered with only two registrars, over a very short period of time, between 23 December 2025 and 15 January 2026, and each domain name incorporated the L'ORÉAL brand with terms related to employment or human resources. The Panel therefore considered that domain names were subject to common control and that consolidation was fair and effective.
  
  This dispute highlights the economic interest of consolidation, insofar as a single procedure involving 705 domain names generates significantly lower costs than those that would result from the introduction of hundreds of separate complaints. 
   
• In WIPO Case No. D2025-4809, consolidation was also allowed for 72 domain names incorporating the DEGUSSA trademark. The Panel found that the available evidence pointed to common control, relying on a combination of factors including the use of the same registrar and privacy service, a highly similar naming structure, closely grouped registration dates, and similar patterns of use. The Panel further noted that some of the disputed domain names were passively held, whereas others resolved to parking pages displaying PPC links.
  
  This decision provides a useful illustration of the fact that a finding of common control does not necessarily require identical use of the disputed domain names. A combination of indicia, including passive holding, PPC use, the timing of the registrations, and the uniform structure of the domain names may suffice to establish common control. 

However, recent case law also shows the limits of consolidation.

• In WIPO Case No. DIO2025-0042, the Panel refused to consolidate the three disputed domain names into a single proceeding. In this case, the Complainant requested the consolidation of three disputed domain names on the basis that they were subject to common control. The Panel, however, found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish such common control in a sufficiently reliable manner.
  
  While two of the disputed domain names shared certain common features, including the same contact details and registrar, the third domain name differed in several objective elements, including the identity of the registrant, the registrar, the content of the associated website, and the registration date. The evidence produced by the Complainant did not demonstrate a concrete link between all of the disputed domain names, and the objection raised by the second Respondent further underscored the lack of evidence of common control. The Panel therefore allowed consolidation with respect to only two of the disputed domain names and excluded the third, without prejudice to the Complainant's ability to file a separate complaint concerning that domain name.
   
  This decision illustrates that consolidation requires sufficiently persuasive evidence of common control, that consolidation may be admitted in part, and that a refusal to consolidate does not prevent a complainant from bringing a separate complaint against the excluded domain name.

A tool adapted to mass cybersquatting strategies 

In practice, consolidation is particularly relevant in cases involving typosquatting schemes (such as multiple trademark variants incorporating typographical errors or geographic terms), networks of monetised PPC parking pages, or impersonation schemes based on a series of similarly configured domain names. It makes it possible to understand the attack in its entirety and to highlight an organised pattern. 

A strategic tool that requires careful consideration

The use of consolidation should nevertheless be approached with caution. An overly broad request or one that is not supported by sufficient evidence may result in the denial of consolidation, whether in whole or in part. It is therefore advisable to identify coherent groups of domain names, carefully document the relevant technical and behavioural indicators, and develop a well-supported argument demonstrating common control.

It should also be borne in mind that the denial of a consolidation request does not preclude the subsequent filing of separate complaints against the domain names that were excluded from the consolidated proceeding.

Conclusion 

In a digital environment where trademark infringements tend to be structured, UDRP consolidation is a particularly effective lever for optimising the actions taken. It enables complainants to streamline enforcement efforts, reduce costs, improve procedural efficiency, and address large-scale infringements in a comprehensive manner