While the internet is likely to increase the volume of defamatory remarks published, the cost of bringing a defamation action may prove a deterrent. And the fact there is uncertainty about the medium and the type of law under which to prosecute, could hinder litigation. There are also problems associated with pursuing the person who made the remark ­ how do you find them? ­ along with tackling the ISP or publisher, because the ISP can only be claimed against from the time it knows a remark is defamatory. If a company's trademark features in the URL of a grudge site, a company can seek redress through the relevant dispute resolution procedure or through the courts on the basis of its trademark rights. Decisions have been made based on the fairness of the domain name chosen, rather than the content of the site. It is suggested that if the name of the web site makes it apparent that it is a site where criticism will be found, then no order for transfer will be made (giving the domain name back to the company), for example ihate[companyname].com or [companyname]sucks.com. If, however, the domain name is one which would be expected by a substantial proportion of the public to point to the official site but is in fact a site where criticism is found, then the likelihood of an order for transfer is very high. If the URL does not include the trademark or it falls within the "I hate" type but the site contains defamatory or false information, the company may still have an alternative remedy for defamation or malicious falsehood. Leaving legal issues aside, commercially it may be preferable to resist taking action against grudge sites provided that they do not contain anything defamatory. Attacking such sites may just fuel the critics. Taking legal proceedings which fail may also tempt others into setting up similar sites. l Source: Shoosmiths {{COVER FEATURE }}