The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) provides a fast, low-cost mechanism for trademark owners to challenge abusive domain registrations. For .com domains, these cases are usually heard by WIPO or the National Arbitration Forum. Unlike court decisions, a panel’s ruling under UDRP is not the end of the road.
In some cases, Complainants bring forward extensive evidence of trademark rights and commercial use, only to see the panel deny the transfer. This can occur when the panelist weighs the Respondent’s claims too heavily or discounts clear evidence of brand use.
For example, a panel might dismiss proof of a brand’s commercial footprint, ignoring that the Respondent used the disputed domain solely to load it with SEO-driven phrases and then redirect traffic to its own site. Such activity is classic cybersquatting behavior, but if the panel overlooks it then the Complainant’s recourse lies outside of UDRP.
When a UDRP Complaint is denied, the Complainant can pursue legal action. For .com domains, jurisdiction is in the United States because VeriSign, the registry for .com, is based there. The legal route typically involves filing a lawsuit under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), which allows brand owners to sue for transfer or cancellation of a domain name, and in some cases, damages.
The process involves the following steps:
- UDRP decision issued: If the panel denies transfer, the registrar will keep the domain with the current registrant.
- 10-day waiting period: ICANN rules provide that registrars will not transfer or cancel the domain for 10 business days after a decision, giving time for the losing party to file a lawsuit.
- Court filing: If the Complainant files suit in federal court within that window, the registrar must lock the domain pending resolution of the case.
- Federal review: The court examines the dispute anew, not bound by the UDRP panel’s findings. Evidence ignored by the panel can be properly weighed by the judge.
In general, unlike UDRP, which is streamlined and sometimes cursory, federal court provides a more robust fact-finding process.
Judges are not limited by the narrow UDRP framework and can consider broader evidence of trademark rights, actual confusion, bad faith use, and damages. Where a Respondent’s traffic redirection schemes or typosquatting tactics are evident, courts have historically sided with Complainants and ordered the transfer of domains.
Respondents in UDRP cases that were won narrowly but wrongfully need worry that the Complainant might take the case to the courts.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.
