UDRP Complaint Checklist

By Casey Scott McKay · 2026-01-15

A phased, filing-ready checklist for assembling and submitting a complaint under ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. It covers the threshold decision whether the UDRP is the right weapon at all, evidence preservation before the registrant can move, and the proof package for each of the three elements under Policy paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity, absence of rights or legitimate interests, and registration and use in bad faith. It walks the complaint field by field against UDRP Rule 3(b), from respondent identification behind a privacy proxy through the mutual jurisdiction election and the certification paragraph. It sets out provider choice, panel size, the WIPO fee schedule, word and page limits, and the annex schedule. It closes with the post-filing clocks, the ten-business-day window in which a losing respondent can freeze the transfer, and the reverse domain name hijacking exposure that punishes a weak complaint.

IP and Technology > Internet | Checklist | Published 15 January 2026 - Updated 23 July 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us

Summary. This is the evidence and elements package to assemble before you file a complaint under ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. It starts with the question most complainants skip — whether the UDRP is the right weapon at all — then moves through evidence preservation, standing, and the three elements of Policy paragraph 4(a). It builds the complaint field by field against UDRP Rule 3(b), covers provider choice, panel size, fees, word limits, and the annex schedule, and ends with the clocks that run after you file, including the ten-business-day window in which a losing respondent can stop the transfer by suing you. Use it top to bottom and nothing gets missed.

Keywords: udrp complaint · uniform domain name dispute resolution policy · cybersquatting · domain name transfer · wipo arbitration and mediation center · forum udrp · icann · bad faith registration · rights or legitimate interests · confusingly similar domain name · typosquatting · whois lookup · registrar lock · reverse domain name hijacking · acpa · mutual jurisdiction · domain name evidence · panel decision · uniform rapid suspension · online brand enforcement

What this checklist is for

The UDRP is a fast, paper-only administrative proceeding that ends in exactly one of two outcomes: the disputed domain name is transferred to you, cancelled, or you lose. There is no discovery, no hearing, no damages, no injunction, and no appeal. UDRP Policy ¶ 4(i). A complete case takes roughly two months from filing to implementation and costs $1,500 in provider fees for a single-member panel. That combination — cheap, fast, global, and narrow — is why trademark owners file thousands of these a year, and why so many of them are lost on facts the complainant could have fixed before filing.

Who should use it. Counsel or an in-house brand manager preparing a complaint against a cybersquatter, typosquatter, parked-page monetizer, or phishing registrant in a gTLD (.com, .net, .org, .shop, .app) or a ccTLD that has adopted the UDRP.

Who should not. Anyone whose real dispute is about content on a website rather than the domain string itself; anyone who needs money, an order against ongoing conduct, or relief against a competitor with a plausible claim to the name. Those cases belong in federal court under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). The trade-off is worked through in UDRP vs. Federal Lawsuit: Picking the Right Weapon for Domain Disputes and UDRP vs. Lawsuit: Recovering an Infringing Domain.

What you'll need before you start. A trademark registration certificate or a documented common-law rights file; current WHOIS output and a registrar identification; timestamped captures of the resolving site and its DNS/MX records; the complete correspondence file with the registrant; a chain-of-title packet if the mark was assigned; and about $1,500 in provider fees plus your time.

For narrative treatment of the same ground, work alongside Filing a UDRP Complaint to Recover a Domain; for the drafting shell, use the UDRP Complaint — Template.

| Phase | What it produces | Typical elapsed time | |---|---|---| | 1. Qualify the target | Go/no-go memo; forum election | 1-2 days | | 2. Freeze the record | Timestamped evidence file | Same day | | 3. Prove your rights | Standing exhibit set | 1-3 days | | 4. Element one | Confusing-similarity section | 2 hours | | 5. Element two | Prima facie no-rights section | 1 day | | 6. Element three | Bad-faith section, the hard one | 1-2 days | | 7. Provider, panel, jurisdiction | Elections locked in | 1 hour | | 8. Build the Rule 3(b) fields | Complaint body | 1 day | | 9. Annexes, fees, filing | Filed complaint + receipt | 1 day | | 10. Compliance and response window | Amended complaint if needed | ~25 days | | 11. Decision and implementation | Transferred domain | ~20 days |

The worked example used throughout. Halyard Coffee Roasters, Inc., a Providence roaster, owns U.S. Reg. No. 6,412,905 for HALYARD (Class 30, roasted coffee; Class 43, café services), registered 6 July 2021, first use in commerce 12 March 2016. On 4 February 2026 someone registered halyardcoffe.com — the company's own domain, halyardcoffee.com, minus one "e" — through Namecheap behind a privacy shield. The name resolves to a pay-per-click parking page with sponsored links for "coffee subscription box" and "espresso machines," plus a form quoting $7,500 to buy it. Halyard files with WIPO on 9 March 2026. This is an invented matter, but every number in it is the kind of number a real complaint needs.

Phase 1 — Qualify the target before you spend a dollar

[ ] Confirm the disputed name sits in a TLD covered by the UDRP.
- Why. The UDRP is mandatory for every gTLD and for the ccTLDs that have voluntarily adopted it; many ccTLDs have not. .uk runs Nominet's DRS, which asks a different two-part question (Rights plus Abusive Registration). .us runs the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy, whose bad-faith element is disjunctive — registered or used in bad faith — which is materially easier than the UDRP.
- Trap. Practitioners copy a UDRP brief into a usDRP filing and argue conjunctive bad faith they did not need to prove, or file a UDRP complaint against a .uk name and get it rejected at intake.
[ ] Decide whether transfer or cancellation actually solves your problem.
- Why. Those are the only two remedies. UDRP Policy ¶ 4(i). Almost always choose transfer: cancellation just returns the string to the pool, where the next squatter buys it for $12 and you pay $1,500 again.
[ ] Run the ACPA alternative before committing.
- Why. Federal court gets you an injunction reaching the whole course of conduct, statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d), and in rem jurisdiction over the name itself where the registrant is unreachable, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A). See Cybersquatting and the ACPA and 5 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 25A:49.
- Trap. A UDRP loss is published, permanent, and searchable. It will be Exhibit A in the squatter's answer if you later sue.
[ ] Score your own case honestly against the reverse-hijacking risk.
- Authority. UDRP Rule 15(e); WIPO Overview 3.1 § 4.16. A panel that finds you brought the complaint in bad faith will say so in a published decision, and 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) gives a stripped registrant an affirmative federal claim to get the name back.
[ ] Consider the Uniform Rapid Suspension System instead for a clear-cut, short-lived abuse.
- Why. URS costs a few hundred dollars and moves faster, but the standard is clear and convincing evidence and the only remedy is suspension for the balance of the registration term. No transfer. Use it to kill a live phishing site, then file a UDRP for the name.

Phase 2 — Freeze the record the same day

[ ] Pull and save WHOIS output for the disputed name, with the query timestamp visible.
- Trap. Post-GDPR, registrant identity is usually redacted. File anyway — the provider gets the underlying data from the registrar and passes it to you. ICANN Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, App. E § 1.2.
[ ] Capture the resolving page as a full-page PDF and as a screen recording, showing the URL bar, date, and time.
- Why. Parking pages are dynamic and geo-targeted. The sponsored links a Rhode Island lawyer sees are not the links a Geneva panelist will see three weeks later.
- Trap. A cropped screenshot with no URL and no timestamp is worth almost nothing. Halyard's paralegal captured halyardcoffe.com on 5 March 2026 at 09:14 EST from two IP addresses and logged both.
[ ] Capture the MX records, any nameserver history, and the Wayback Machine timeline.
- Why. Live MX records on a typosquatted domain are the signature of an email-interception scheme, which is among the strongest bad-faith facts available. Nameserver history shows a PPC feed being switched on.
[ ] Preserve the sale solicitation in native form.
- Why. An offer to sell above documented out-of-pocket costs is express bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) — the ground on which the very first UDRP case was decided. World Wrestling Fed'n Entm't, Inc. v. Bosman, WIPO Case No. D99-0001. Halyard's $7,500 quote against a $12 registration fee is that showing on a plate.
[ ] Search the registrant's other holdings and prior UDRP decisions.
- Why. A pattern of registrations blocking mark owners is independent bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Prior adverse decisions against the same alias are quotable.
[ ] Decide whether to send a demand letter first — and understand the cost.
- Why. A letter can end it for the price of a stamp, but it also invites "cyberflight": the registrant transfers the name to a new registrant or registrar before you file. Policy ¶ 8(a) freezes transfers only once a proceeding is pending. If the name is valuable and the registrant looks sophisticated, file first. See Sending an Effective Cease-and-Desist Letter and the Trademark Cease-and-Desist Letter — Template.
[ ] Log everything into a matter-level enforcement record.
- Why. Consistency across matters is what makes a policing narrative credible later. The Pre-Litigation Enforcement Checklist and Brand Enforcement Toolkit: Watching, Warning, and Escalating cover the housekeeping.

Phase 3 — Prove that you have rights in a mark

[ ] Pull the current status and title copy of every registration you will assert, plus the certificate.
- Authority. UDRP Rule 3(b)(viii) requires you to specify the marks and the goods or services. A national registration anywhere in the world satisfies standing; you do not need one in the respondent's country.
- Trap. Assert only live registrations. A cancelled or expired registration in the annex reads as carelessness and invites scrutiny of the rest of your exhibit set.
[ ] Add the incontestability declaration if you have one.
- Why. A recital that the registration is incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065 costs one sentence and quietly forecloses a validity argument.
[ ] If the mark was assigned, build the chain-of-title packet.
- Why. Panels accept an executed assignment, a secretary of state merger acknowledgment, a name-change certificate, or a signed declaration when the register has not caught up. Complaints with a title gap and no explanation get rejected.
- Related. Trademark Assignment Recordal Checklist and Trademarks in the Deal: Chain of Title, Security Interests, and the Anti-Assignment-in-Gross Rule.
[ ] If you have no registration, build the acquired-distinctiveness file instead.
- Why. Unregistered marks confer standing, but only on proof that the term functions as a source identifier — duration of use, sales, advertising spend, unsolicited media, consumer recognition. WIPO Overview 3.1 § 1.3.
- Trap. A pending intent-to-use application is not a trademark right. Panels say so routinely. See Intent-to-Use Applications: Claiming a Trademark Before You Sell a Thing.
- Related. Build the record with the Secondary Meaning Evidence Checklist: Building the Acquired Distinctiveness Record and the Common-Law Priority Evidence Checklist: Proving First Use and Market Penetration; the doctrine sits in Establishing and Proving Common-Law Trademark Rights.
[ ] Check whether your registration is a design-only or non-traditional mark.
- Trap. A domain name is a text string. A logo registration with no word claim, a color mark, or a sound mark gives you almost nothing to compare it to. If that is your portfolio, fix it before you enforce — see the Non-Traditional Trademark Application Checklist: Drawing, Description, and Evidence.
[ ] If the USPTO has refused the mark as descriptive, geographic, or a surname, pause.
- Why. A live Section 2 refusal is a ready-made respondent exhibit on your weakness. Clear it first using the Section 2 Refusal Response Checklist: Diagnosis, Evidence, and Filing.
[ ] State the first-use date and the goodwill narrative in dated, numerical terms.
- Example. "Halyard has sold roasted coffee under HALYARD continuously since 12 March 2016, through 41 wholesale accounts and two retail cafés, with $2.4 million in 2025 net sales and $310,000 in 2025 advertising spend."

Phase 4 — Element one: identical or confusingly similar

[ ] State the comparison as a side-by-side string test, not an infringement analysis.
- Authority. UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i); UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); WIPO Overview 3.1 § 1.7. The question is whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name. That is all.
- Trap. Do not brief the DuPont or Sleekcraft factors here. Save the market-confusion story for element three. If you want the full multifactor framework for a court case, it is in Trademark Infringement: Proving Likelihood of Confusion.
[ ] Disregard the TLD in the comparison, and say that you are doing so.
- Authority. WIPO Overview 3.1 § 1.11.1 — the TLD is a standard registration requirement.
- Trap. The exception matters. Where the TLD itself carries meaning — halyard.coffee, chanel.shop — panels will read the whole string, and it helps you.
[ ] Name the specific mechanism of similarity.
- Examples that work. Character omission (halyardcoffe), transposition (hlayard), keyboard-adjacency substitution, hyphen insertion or deletion, added geographic or descriptive terms (halyardcoffeeboston), homoglyph and internationalized-domain-name spoofs.
- Authority. WIPO Overview 3.1 § 1.8 (mark plus a descriptive or geographic term). Typosquatting cases go back to Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat'l Arb. Forum May 30, 2000) (hewlitpackard.com) and Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat'l Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (davemathewsband.com).
[ ] Quantify the typo where you can.
- Practice tip. "The disputed name differs from Complainant's registered mark by the deletion of a single character" is a sentence a panelist can copy into the decision. Give them sentences they can copy.

Phase 5 — Element two: no rights or legitimate interests

[ ] Plead the four standard negatives, each on information and belief where necessary.
- The respondent is not a licensee, distributor, or authorized reseller.
- The respondent is not commonly known by the name. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
- The respondent made no bona fide offering of goods or services before notice. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).
- The use is not legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
[ ] Understand that you only need a prima facie case.
- Authority. WIPO Overview 3.1 § 2.1; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Once you make the showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent. You cannot be required to prove a negative about someone whose identity is redacted.
[ ] Attack the parking page directly.
- Why. Monetizing a confusingly similar string with sponsored links to the complainant's own product category is neither a bona fide offering nor fair use. Say what the categories were, and attach the capture.
- Related. The economics of trading on someone else's brand in paid search are unpacked in the Keyword Advertising Compliance and Enforcement Checklist and Running a Keyword and Paid-Search Trademark Program.
[ ] Anticipate the reseller defense if the respondent sells genuine goods.
- Authority. Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, requires the respondent to actually offer the goods, sell only those goods, disclose its relationship accurately on the site, and not corner the market in domain names. Show which prong fails.
- Related. Descriptive and Nominative Fair Use and the Trademark Fair Use Audit Checklist.
[ ] Anticipate the criticism-site defense if the content is a complaint or parody.
- Trap. A genuine, noncommercial gripe site is the hardest UDRP target there is, and US courts are protective. Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005); Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005). If the site is real criticism, do not file. See the Expressive Use and Parody Risk Checklist and Rogers, Jack Daniel's, and the Trademark Parody Problem.
[ ] If the mark is a dictionary word, address the generic-use argument head-on.
- Why. A respondent using summit.com for a conference business has a real answer. A respondent using it for coffee links when you sell coffee does not. Distinctiveness strategy is in Choosing a Strong Trademark: The Distinctiveness Spectrum.

Phase 6 — Element three: registered and used in bad faith

[ ] Confirm the domain's creation date postdates your rights. Do this first, before drafting anything.
- Why. This is the single most common case-killer. Where the name was registered before the complainant's mark existed, the respondent generally cannot have targeted it, and the complaint fails. WIPO Overview 3.1 § 3.8.
- Trap. A renewal is not a fresh registration under the UDRP. US law diverges: compare GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011) (re-registration by the same holder is not a new "registration" under the ACPA) with Schmidheiny v. Weber, 319 F.3d 581 (3d Cir. 2003) (contra). Halyard is safe — HALYARD registered in 2021, halyardcoffe.com created 4 February 2026.
[ ] Match your facts to the four enumerated circumstances in Policy ¶ 4(b), by subparagraph.

| Policy ¶ 4(b) | The showing | The evidence that proves it | |---|---|---| | (i) | Registered primarily to sell to the mark owner or a competitor above out-of-pocket cost | Sale listing, broker email, price quote, prior sales history | | (ii) | Registered to block the owner, plus a pattern | Reverse-WHOIS portfolio, prior adverse UDRP decisions | | (iii) | Registered primarily to disrupt a competitor | Respondent's own competing business, redirect to a rival | | (iv) | Commercial gain from confusion as to source or affiliation | PPC page, click-through revenue model, copied trade dress |

[ ] Plead the unenumerated grounds too — the list is non-exhaustive.
- Passive holding, where the mark is well known, the registrant conceals identity, and no good-faith use is conceivable. Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; WIPO Overview 3.1 § 3.3.
- False or unreachable contact data in WHOIS.
- Phishing, malware distribution, or business-email-compromise infrastructure.
- A coined or arbitrary mark the respondent could not plausibly have invented independently.
[ ] Tie fame or reputation to the registrant's likely knowledge.
- Why. Bad faith is about targeting. Reputation evidence is how you prove the registrant knew. If your mark is genuinely famous, the fame record you would build for a dilution claim does double duty — see Trademark Dilution Claim Checklist: Proving Fame, Association, and Harm.
[ ] Do not overplead. Three well-evidenced grounds beat nine asserted ones.
- Practice tip. Halyard pleaded exactly two: ¶ 4(b)(i) (the $7,500 quote) and ¶ 4(b)(iv) (the coffee-category sponsored links), each with one exhibit. That is a winning complaint.

Phase 7 — Choose the provider, the panel, and the mutual jurisdiction

[ ] Pick among the ICANN-approved providers.
- Options. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center; Forum (formerly the National Arbitration Forum); the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre; the Czech Arbitration Court; the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution; the Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre. WIPO and Forum handle the overwhelming majority; WIPO decides on the order of 6,000 cases a year.
- Why it matters. Providers apply the same Policy but different supplemental rules, panelist rosters, and formatting requirements.
[ ] Read the chosen provider's supplemental rules this week, not from memory.
- Trap. Forum Supp. Rule 4(a) caps the complaint at 15 pages excluding annexes. WIPO Supplemental Rules ¶ 11(a) caps the Rule 3(b)(ix) grounds section at 5,000 words. Citing a superseded effective date in your opening paragraph draws a deficiency notice.
[ ] Elect a single-member or three-member panel.
- Why. One panelist costs $1,500 at WIPO; three costs $4,000, and you pay it all unless the respondent independently elects three, in which case the parties split. UDRP Rules ¶¶ 5, 6. Choose three only for a large portfolio of names, a genuinely close call, or a case you expect to be reviewed in court.
[ ] Specify the mutual jurisdiction.
- Authority. UDRP Rule 3(b)(xii). You must submit, for challenges to a transfer or cancellation order, to the courts at either the registrar's principal office or the respondent's WHOIS address.
- Practice tip. Where the respondent's address is redacted or obviously false, elect the registrar's location. Halyard elected the courts at Namecheap's principal office in Phoenix, Arizona.
[ ] Confirm the language of the proceeding.
- Authority. UDRP Rule 11(a) — the default is the language of the registration agreement. If that is Chinese, Turkish, or Russian and you want English, request it in the complaint with reasons: the site is in English, the respondent corresponded in English, the mark is a Latin-character string.
[ ] Check the consolidation rules if you have more than one name.
- Authority. UDRP Rule 3(c) permits one complaint against multiple domain names registered by the same holder. Against different nominal registrants you must show common control and that consolidation is fair and equitable.

Phase 8 — Build the complaint field by field against Rule 3(b)

[ ] Open with the request for decision and the exact instruments and effective dates. Rule 3(b)(i).
[ ] Give the complainant's full legal name and contact block, and the representative's. Rule 3(b)(ii)-(iii).
- Trap. Use the entity that owns the registration, not the operating affiliate. Mismatch is a standing fight you do not need.
[ ] Name the respondent exactly as WHOIS shows it — including "Redacted for Privacy" or the proxy service's own name. Rule 3(b)(v).
- Why. The provider will supply the underlying registrant and you will amend. Naming the proxy is correct, not sloppy, at filing.
[ ] State the disputed domain name without www. and identify the registrar. Rule 3(b)(vi)-(vii).
- Trap. Re-verify WHOIS on the morning you file. Domains move.
[ ] Set out the marks, registration numbers, classes, and goods or services. Rule 3(b)(viii).
[ ] Write the three grounds sections in Policy order. Rule 3(b)(ix)(1)-(3).
[ ] Specify the remedy — transfer, in almost every case. Rule 3(b)(x).
[ ] Disclose other proceedings involving the name, including prior UDRP cases. Rule 3(b)(xi).
- Why. A panel can suspend, terminate, or continue where litigation is pending. UDRP Rule 18(a). Concealment is worse than disclosure.
[ ] Include the mutual jurisdiction statement. Rule 3(b)(xii).
[ ] Include the waiver and certification paragraphs verbatim, then sign. Rule 3(b)(xiii).
- Trap. The certification states the complaint "is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass." That is the hook for a Rule 15(e) finding against you. Do not sign it on a case you would not want quoted back.

Phase 9 — Annexes, fees, and filing

[ ] Build a numbered schedule of evidence and file the annexes as a separate document. Rule 3(b)(xiv); Forum Supp. Rule 4(b)(i).
[ ] Include, at minimum: the Policy itself; each registration certificate with status and title; the WHOIS printout; the timestamped site capture; the sale solicitation; the chain-of-title documents.
[ ] Label every exhibit in the body the first time you cite it, and never cite an exhibit that is not in the schedule.
[ ] Pay the provider fee and keep the receipt.
- WIPO schedule. $1,500 for one to five domain names before a single panelist ($1,000 panelist / $500 WIPO); $2,000 for six to ten. Three panelists: $4,000 for one to five, $5,000 for six to ten. More than ten names is quoted case by case. Forum's fees are tiered similarly by name count and panel size — confirm the current schedule on the day you file.
- Trap. The Rule 4(a) three-day clock runs from receipt of the fee, not receipt of the complaint. A complaint sitting unpaid is a complaint that has not started.
[ ] Proofread against the checklist, not against your memory of the checklist. Confirm the domain string character by character.
[ ] File electronically, save the confirmation, and docket every downstream date the same hour.
- Related. Docketing Deadlines: Never Miss a Renewal applies the same discipline to portfolio dates.

Phase 10 — Compliance review, amendment, and the response window

[ ] Expect the registrar lock within two business days of the provider's verification request, before the registrant is told anything. UDRP Rules ¶¶ 1, 4 (2015 amendments).
[ ] Watch for the deficiency notice and cure within five calendar days. Rule 4(b).
- Trap. Miss it and the proceeding is deemed withdrawn. You can refile, but you pay again.
[ ] Amend to name the disclosed registrant and, if needed, revise the mutual jurisdiction election.
[ ] Do not file unsolicited supplemental submissions.
- Authority. UDRP Rule 12 — further statements come at the panel's request. Unsolicited filings are usually refused and always signal a complaint that should have been better the first time.
[ ] Evaluate any settlement overture on its merits, and remember the proceeding can be suspended for it. Rule 17.
[ ] If the respondent defaults, do not relax. The panel still decides on the merits of your papers. Rules 5, 14, 15(a).

Phase 11 — Decision, implementation, and what comes after

[ ] Read the decision the day it issues and calendar the ten-business-day window. UDRP Policy ¶ 4(k).
- Why. The registrar implements the transfer ten business days after the provider's notice unless it receives documentation that the losing respondent filed suit in the mutual jurisdiction. That filing freezes everything.
[ ] Confirm the transfer actually executed and that the name landed in your registrar account.
[ ] Set the name to renew automatically, lock it, and fold it into the portfolio inventory.
- Related. Annual Trademark Portfolio Review Checklist and Trademark Watch Services: What to Monitor.
[ ] If you lost, understand what the decision is and is not.
- Authority. A UDRP decision is not an arbitration award and carries no FAA deference. Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2003); Parisi v. Netlearning, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Va. 2001). A federal court reviews the underlying rights de novo under the Lanham Act. Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617, 624-26 (4th Cir. 2003). Losing at WIPO does not end the matter.
[ ] If you need money or a broader injunction, escalate to the ACPA.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i) sets out nine bad-faith factors; § 1125(d)(2) supplies in rem jurisdiction where the registrant cannot be reached, with venue where the registrar or registry sits — for .com, the Eastern District of Virginia. Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002); Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com, 310 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2002). Foundational ACPA cases: Sporty's Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman's Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000); Shields v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 2001); Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 238 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2001).
- Trap. There is no contributory cybersquatting claim against the registrar. Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., 737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013). See also 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(iv).
- Related. Moving for a TRO or Preliminary Injunction in a Trademark Case, the Preliminary Injunction Motion Checklist for Trademark Cases, and What a Trademark Win Is Worth.

Common Mistakes

Filing on a domain older than your mark. Every other element can be perfect. WIPO Overview 3.1 § 3.8 ends the case. Check the creation date first.

Confusing element one with an infringement analysis. Element one is a string comparison. Panels skim over-argued similarity sections and start looking for weakness elsewhere.

Asserting a design-only registration. There is nothing to compare. Fix the portfolio before you enforce.

Treating "registered and used" as "registered or used." The UDRP conjunction is real. The .us policy's is not. Know which one you are in.

Ignoring page and word limits. Forum Supp. Rule 4(a): 15 pages. WIPO Supplemental Rules ¶ 11(a): 5,000 words on the grounds. Deficiency notices for length are entirely self-inflicted.

Sending a demand letter to a sophisticated squatter. You have just told them to move the name.

Filing against a genuine criticism site or a compliant reseller. Lamparello and Oki Data exist. So does Rule 15(e).

Expecting money. No damages, no fees, no costs — not even your $1,500. If the harm is measurable, the case belongs in court. See the Trademark Monetary Recovery Checklist.

Expecting an appeal. There is none. Unlike a TTAB refusal, which you can carry up under the Ex Parte Appeal Checklist and Taking an Ex Parte Appeal, a UDRP loss is reviewable only by starting a lawsuit.

Missing the copyright claim sitting next to the trademark claim. Squatters clone site copy and photography. That is a separate cause of action with statutory damages attached — see the Copyright Infringement Complaint Checklist and Filing a Copyright Infringement Complaint in Federal Court. Where the clone is hosted rather than owned, a notice under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) may be faster than anything else on this page: DMCA Takedown Notice Checklist.

Deadlines at a Glance

| Step | Clock | Runs from | Authority | |---|---|---|---| | Registrar applies the Lock | 2 business days | Provider's verification request | UDRP Rules ¶¶ 1, 4 (2015 amendments) | | Provider forwards the complaint | 3 calendar days | Receipt of complainant's fee | UDRP Rule 4(a) | | Complainant cures deficiencies | 5 calendar days | Deficiency notice | UDRP Rule 4(b) | | Response due | 20 days | Commencement date | UDRP Rule 5(a) | | Automatic response extension | +4 calendar days | On respondent's request | UDRP Rule 5(b) | | Single-member panel appointed | 5 calendar days | Response received or period lapsed | UDRP Rule 6(b) | | Panel issues decision | 14 days | Panel appointment | UDRP Rule 15(b) | | Provider transmits decision | 3 calendar days | Receipt from panel | UDRP Rule 16(a) | | Registrar implements transfer | 10 business days | Provider's notice of decision | UDRP Policy ¶ 4(k) | | Transfer freeze on respondent | Duration of proceeding + 15 business days | Commencement | UDRP Policy ¶ 8(a) |

Halyard filed 9 March 2026, the provider commenced the proceeding 12 March, the respondent defaulted on 1 April, the panel was appointed 6 April and ordered transfer on 17 April, and halyardcoffe.com landed in Halyard's registrar account on 4 May 2026. Fifty-six days, $1,500, one paralegal, and one lawyer-day of drafting.