|
I recently shared at a conference how a seasoned brand and fraud expert from one of the world’s largest global financial institutions lamented a major attack where multiple fraudulent websites would pop up every single day. All attacks were launched from the same registrar and web hosting company, and no matter how much they reached out to these providers, they received the same reply: “we will pass on your request to the registrant or site owner,” and then nothing happened. The brand and fraud specialist felt like he was playing whack-a-mole—IT WAS NEVER ENDING—and he wondered why the registrar and web host were not getting in trouble for harboring the criminal, and why there was nothing he could do.
The answer could lie in the approach taken for online brand protection and whether a company is contributing to stopping the whack-a-mole game. Traditionally, most companies employ ongoing online brand monitoring, then enforce on it. But it doesn’t change the fact that this will never fundamentally change the game—the endless cycle of detection and enforcement.
In recent years, some brand owners have started doing things a little bit differently. They have started to cooperate directly with platforms, and some also conduct online-offline joint operations. While these are extremely good measures—we also encourage our clients to establish direct communication with the platforms—this may still be inadequate because the world is changing.
1. Proliferation of eCommerce during COVID-19
2. Deglobalisation and shifts in supply chains
3. Growing ideology conflict
There are numerous internet policies that are critical in determining the success of a brand protection manager.
Take the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), for example. It established that “online service providers” are not accountable for infringements using its service (if certain conditions are met, i.e., safe harbor). As a result, while many registrars claim that they have no access or control over the content, therefore, they’re not obliged to take action, many ISPs will simply reply that they have passed on the complaint message, as they are not held liable. However, some newer copyright regulations, such as the EU Digital Single Market copyright directive, and some new laws in China, may mitigate the issue of platforms not being held accountable.
Some internet policies have a global reach, such as the Rights Protection Mechanisms currently in revision at ICANN. Some policies are local in nature, such as the UK IP Protection Pilot Program that allows providers such as CSC to use a different method for infringement takedowns.
Some internet policies are not intended to be internet policies but can impact and change the landscape of how the online world works. For example, China’s Anti-Monopoly Rule may allow boutique eCommerce platforms to thrive in China, which in turn will change how you should conduct online brand protection.
It’s important the business community acts together to influence the development of these policies at various levels.
In conclusion, I have three recommendations for brand owners:
Sponsored byRadix
Sponsored byWhoisXML API
Sponsored byIPv4.Global
Sponsored byCSC
Sponsored byVerisign
Sponsored byDNIB.com
Sponsored byVerisign