Legal Conflict in the Digital Environment: An Analysis of Issues Arising from the Collision of Domain Name Rights and Trademark Rights in the Republic of Belarus

06.05.2026

In the era of the digital economy, a domain name has become more than just an "address" on the internet - it is a valuable intangible asset, a business showcase, and a tool for audience engagement. However, it is precisely the high commercial value of domain names that gives rise to acute legal conflicts, when the registration and use of a website address comes into contradiction with exclusive rights to means of individualization - trademarks and service marks.

In the Republic of Belarus, the problem of "domain disputes" is particularly pressing due to the absence of direct legislative recognition of a domain name as an independent object of law. This creates complex legal uncertainty, requiring an in-depth analysis of legislation, judicial practice, and doctrinal approaches.

1. The Legal Nature of a Domain Name: An Object of Law or a Tool of Access?

Before addressing the collision of rights, it is necessary to establish what a domain name represents from the perspective of the Belarusian legislator. An analysis of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter — the CC RB) reveals that a domain name is not expressly listed among the objects of intellectual property (Article 980 CC RB). Unlike a trademark, which constitutes a registered means of individualization, a domain name is merely an entry in a registry that ensures technical addressing on the Internet.

The collision of domain name rights with exclusive rights to trademarks and trade names has given rise to a new category of litigation, referred to in international law as domain name disputes, or domain disputes.

Since a domain name is not, in essence, a means of individualization as enumerated in legislation among others, its registration by an administrator does not in itself constitute an infringement of third-party rights. However, the use of a domain name for the promotion of goods or services that are identical or confusingly similar to a third party's brand protected by a trademark does constitute an infringement. As is rightly noted in the legal literature, the complexity lies in the need to determine the legal status of a domain name within Belarusian civil law and to regulate the legal framework governing its use in civil commerce.

 

2. Legislative Framework: Key Acts and Their Gaps

The primary "shield" for a rights holder in Belarus is the Law of the Republic of Belarus of 5 February 1993 "On Trademarks and Service Marks" (hereinafter — the Trademark Law).

The key criterion for establishing an infringement is confusing similarity, as well as the homogeneity or identity of the services rendered or the goods advertised and offered for sale. That is, if, for example, the domain example.by visually or phonetically coincides with the registered trademark Example, and the website for which that domain name is used offers homogeneous goods or services, the constituent elements of an infringement of exclusive rights are present.

However, a gap in the legislation is the absence of a specific provision addressing cybersquatting (the bad-faith registration of a domain name with the purpose of reselling it to the brand owner). For a long time, Belarusian courts and antimonopoly authorities were compelled to resort to "workarounds": classifying such conduct as an act of unfair competition under the Law of the Republic of Belarus of 12 December 2013 "On Countering Monopolistic Activity and Developing Competition," or applying the general provisions of the CC RB on the protection of exclusive rights.

 

3. Protection Mechanisms: Courts, MART, and Arbitration

Belarusian legislation and enforcement practice have developed three principal means of protecting infringed rights in cases involving the collision of domain names and trademarks.

3.1. Judicial Protection (Specialized Panel of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus)

The most significant disputes are heard by the Judicial Panel for Intellectual Property Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus. In the course of judicial proceedings, the claimant (trademark owner) must prove:

The identity or similarity of the domain name and the trademark.
The homogeneity of the goods/services for which the domain is used and for which the mark is registered.
The absence of any legitimate right or interest on the part of the respondent in using the designation in question.
Judicial practice has moved toward recognizing a domain name as a means of using a trademark. Consequently, an infringer may be ordered to cease use of the domain name and, in certain cases, to compensate for damages.

3.2. Antimonopoly Authority (MART)

The Ministry of Antimonopoly Regulation and Trade of the Republic of Belarus (MART) actively participates in domain disputes through the lens of combating unfair competition.

In this context, not only the fact of visual similarity is relevant, but also intent. If it is established that a person registered a domain confusingly similar to a well-known brand in order to "free-ride" on its reputation or to create a risk of confusion between competing undertakings in the eyes of consumers, MART issues a cease-and-desist order and imposes a fine.

It is also essential to establish the existence of a competitive relationship between the parties.

3.3. International UDRP Procedure

For domains in the .com, .net, and other international zones, Belarusian companies may utilize the UDRP procedure (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This is a fast and relatively cost-effective administrative mechanism that allows the transfer of a domain name to the claimant without recourse to a national court. A dedicated article on this mechanism is available on our website.
 

4. Protection Strategy and Risk Prevention

It is important to bear in mind that a domain name is an asset that should ideally be owned by a legal entity. Registering a company's domains in the name of employees is a risk that may result in the loss of a business asset.

Trademark registration is a fundamental necessity. Without a registered trademark, proving an infringement is often practically impossible or extremely difficult.
To prevent costly disputes and ensure effective protection of a business in Belarus, the following guidelines are recommended:

1. Priority of Trademark Registration. Registration of a trademark with the National Center of Intellectual Property should precede, or immediately follow, the launch of a major internet project. This will establish the legal basis for claims against cybersquatters.
2. Online Monitoring. It is necessary to regularly monitor the registration of domain names phonetically or visually similar to your brand — not only in the .by and .бел zones, but also in .com, .рф, .ru, and others — and to file the appropriate complaints or send cease-and-desist notices accordingly.
3. Evidence Preservation. Upon discovering an infringement, the fact of domain use must be promptly recorded by means of a notarial inspection of the web page (a notarial protocol of inspection of written evidence). At present, virtually all notaries provide this service and the process is straightforward. It is important, however, that this step be taken prior to sending a cease-and-desist notice, as upon receipt of such notice the infringer may temporarily alter the content of the website or delete it entirely, which would significantly complicate the evidentiary process should the dispute escalate.
4. Pre-Action Procedure. Belarusian legislation, as well as international UDRP practice, requires the mandatory submission of a pre-action notice to the infringer. Experience shows that the majority of domain disputes can be resolved in the client's favor at the negotiation and pre-trial settlement stage, without the need to bring the matter before a court.
5. IT Asset Audit. Legal entities should conduct an audit of the registered ownership of their critical domain names. All corporate domains must be owned by the company (as a legal entity), and not by individual employees. The same recommendation applies with respect to trademarks.
    

---

Conclusion

The collision of domain name rights and trademark rights in Belarus represents a classic conflict between technological progress (the Internet) and traditional intellectual property law. At present, Belarusian legislation — notwithstanding its existing gaps (namely, the absence of a domain name's status as an independent object of intellectual property) — provides sufficiently effective instruments for suppressing unfair competition and cybersquatting through the provisions of the Trademark Law and antimonopoly regulation.

Judicial and administrative practice likewise demonstrates the state's readiness to firmly suppress the act of free-riding on third-party brands.

However, the principal conclusion for business remains unchanged: legal protection on the Internet begins with properly formalized intellectual property in the offline world. Timely trademark registration and sound corporate "legal hygiene" (ownership of domain names by a legal entity) constitute the best safeguard against digital seizures and raider attacks in the address space of the internet.

---