Partner
Registrants of domain names enter into contractual agreements with the issuer of the domain name (the “registrar”). Often, part of the contract stipulates that disputes will be resolved following the UDRP process.
Despite the potential benefits of having a uniform dispute resolution system for domain name issues, domestic courts are not required to adhere to decisions made under UDRP; this has been acknowledged by many Circuit Courts across the United States. Because the UDRP does not take trademark law of the country where the dispute is based into account, decisions made by the UDRP can end up being contradictory to domestic law and domestic courts do not need to adhere to its rulings.
Unfortunately for those that have fallen victim to domain theft, the UDRP is not an appropriate avenue for recourse. Similar to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) the UDRP is designed to address trademark issues, not theft. The UDRP specifically governs disputes between a registrant and a third party over the registration of a domain name. The elements to be met in proving a case under the UDRP are incredibly similar to what is found within the ACPA, including:
However, should you incorrectly lose your domain name under the UDRP, the ACPA provides for secondary recourse. Congress has given registrants an affirmative cause of action allowing them to recover domain names that were lost in UDRP proceedings. Under the ACPA, a registrant whose domain name was “suspended, disabled or transferred” can sue for a declaration that their actions were not in violation of the ACPA and request an injunction returning the domain name to them.
This speaks to the fact that Circuit Courts have held that they do not need to pay deference to UDRP decisions, let alone view them as binding.
For more information regarding domain name theft, what you can do if you have been a victim of it, and what the UDRP can do for you in regards to cybersquatting claims, contact Revision Legal’s Internet attorneys, specializing in Cybersquatting or general Internet matters, through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.
In May 2025, as part of a settlement of litigation involving college football, a new entity was created called the College Sports Commission (“CSC” or “Commission”). See news media reports here and here. Among many other purposes, the CSC will monitor and approve name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) agreements for college athletes. As the term […]
Read more about Fairness Factors For Your College NIL Agreement
Trademarks are words, designs, symbols, logos, and other things that are used/associated with goods or services that identify the specific commercial source of the goods/services. COCA-COLA, APPLE, and GUCCI are just a few famous examples. If COCA-COLA is on the bottle, consumers know what to expect from the beverage in the bottle. The same for […]
Read more about Is a “Fanciful” Trademark the Best Type of Trademark?
Getting an endorsement deal as a social media influencer may be a seminal event financially and for the progress of your career. However, the question always has to be asked whether your endorsement deal is fair. In other words, are you getting paid what you are worth? There are a number of factors that can […]
Read more about Is Your Social Media Influencer Endorsement Deal Fair?