UDRP vs. Federal Lawsuit: Picking the Right Weapon for Domain Disputes
By Casey Scott McKay ·
Someone registered your brand as a domain, and you have two real choices: a UDRP complaint that can move the name in about sixty days for a four-figure fee, or a federal suit under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act that can take a year and pay you up to $100,000 per domain. This article explains why those two paths are not two speeds of the same road but two different legal systems, one contractual and one statutory, with different elements, different proof, different remedies, and different risks. It works through the single most outcome-determinative difference — the UDRP's conjunctive "registered and used in bad faith" against the ACPA's disjunctive "registers, traffics in, or uses" — and the opposite positions the two systems take on domain renewals. It covers the mutual-jurisdiction stipulation that every complainant signs and almost nobody reads, why a UDRP win binds no court and gets no deference, the in rem action that makes the Eastern District of Virginia a national domain court, and the reverse-hijacking exposure that runs the other way under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(iv). It closes with five recurring fact patterns, a decision framework, the questions the law has not settled, and a table of the authorities that decide most cases.
IP and Technology > Internet | Article | Published 15 January 2026 - Updated 21 May 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us
Summary. Someone registered your brand as a domain. You can file a UDRP complaint and have the name moved in roughly sixty days for a four-figure fee, or you can sue under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and, a year or more later, collect up to $100,000 per domain. These are not two speeds of one road. They are two legal systems — one contractual, one statutory — with different elements, different proof, different remedies, and different ways to lose. This article works through the differences that actually decide the choice: the UDRP's conjunctive bad-faith requirement against the ACPA's disjunctive one, the opposite treatment of renewals, the mutual-jurisdiction stipulation every complainant signs without reading, the fact that a UDRP win binds no court, the in rem action for registrants who cannot be found, and the reverse-hijacking exposure that runs back at you. It ends with five fact patterns, a decision framework, the unsettled questions, and a table of controlling authority.
Keywords: udrp · acpa · domain name disputes · cybersquatting · forum selection · wipo · mutual jurisdiction · in rem jurisdiction · reverse domain name hijacking · uniform rapid suspension · statutory damages · domain transfer · registrar lock · 15 usc 1125(d) · section 1114(2)(d)(v) · de novo review · passive holding · typosquatting · cctld dispute policies · domain name arbitration
This is premium Marksy content — the full document is available to subscribers.