Domain names are critical business assets—often worth more than the tangible property on a company’s balance sheet. Whether you are buying or selling a high-value domain, defending against a cybersquatting claim, or trying to reclaim a domain that is being held hostage, you need attorneys who understand both the law and the technology of the domain name system. Revision Legal’s domain name lawyers have handled everything from six-figure private domain transactions to contested UDRP proceedings before WIPO arbitration panels.
Domain name law is a specialized intersection of trademark law, contract law, and international arbitration. Our attorneys handle the full spectrum of domain name-related matters:
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is an arbitration mechanism administered by ICANN-accredited dispute resolution providers, including the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Forum (formerly the National Arbitration Forum), and others. A UDRP proceeding allows trademark owners to obtain transfer of a domain name without going to court if three elements are established: (1) the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights; (2) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain; and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. UDRP proceedings are faster and less expensive than federal litigation, with most decisions issued within 60 days.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), provides trademark owners with a cause of action in federal court against individuals who register, traffic in, or use a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive or famous trademark with a bad faith intent to profit. ACPA claims allow for statutory damages between $1,000 and $100,000 per domain name, as well as injunctive relief and attorney’s fees in exceptional cases. Our attorneys have litigated ACPA claims in federal courts across the country.
High-value domain transactions require careful due diligence and well-drafted purchase agreements. Our attorneys have facilitated six-figure domain name sales between private buyers and sellers, handling title searches, escrow arrangements, transfer documentation, and post-closing verification. For buyers, we conduct trademark searches to ensure the target domain does not create third-party liability. For sellers, we structure transactions to protect against clawbacks and ensure clean transfer of ownership.
If you receive a cease and desist letter alleging that your domain name infringes a third-party trademark, do not ignore it and do not respond without legal counsel. Our attorneys evaluate the strength of the opposing trademark claim, assess available defenses including fair use and nominative use, and draft responses that protect your rights without unnecessarily escalating the dispute.
Companies with large domain portfolios—whether accumulated through acquisition, brand protection strategy, or organic registration—benefit from periodic risk assessments. Our attorneys review registered domains for potential third-party trademark conflicts, identify domains that may create liability exposure, and advise on renewal and abandonment decisions.
Domains that lapse through inadvertent non-renewal can be registered by third parties almost immediately. Recovering a lapsed domain may require negotiation, UDRP proceedings, or ACPA litigation depending on how and why the domain was registered by the new holder. Acting quickly is critical—the longer a third party holds and uses a domain, the stronger their potential arguments for legitimate interest.
The Domain Name System (DNS) translates human-readable domain names into the IP addresses that computers use to communicate. ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) coordinates the global DNS and accredits domain registrars. Each top-level domain (TLD)—.com, .net, .org, and hundreds of others—has its own registry. Domain registrations are public records in the WHOIS database, though many registrants use privacy services to obscure their contact information.
The technical architecture of the DNS matters in domain disputes. IP ownership history, DNS propagation records, WHOIS data, and registrar transfer logs can all be relevant evidence in a UDRP proceeding or federal court litigation. Our attorneys understand this technical landscape and use it to build stronger cases.
Domain disputes and transactions involve technical complexity, tight procedural deadlines, and significant financial stakes. UDRP filings have strict deadlines for responding to complaints—typically 20 days from the date of notice—and procedural missteps can result in default findings. Federal litigation under ACPA requires mastery of both trademark law and civil procedure. High-value domain transactions require due diligence that goes beyond a simple WHOIS lookup.
Revision Legal’s domain name attorneys combine legal expertise with genuine technical fluency. We understand the DNS, the mechanics of domain transfers, and the strategic calculus of UDRP versus ACPA versus negotiation. If you are facing a domain dispute, contemplating a significant domain purchase or sale, or need a portfolio risk assessment, contact us today for a consultation.
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is the primary international mechanism for challenging domain names registered in bad faith. Administered by ICANN-accredited providers — most commonly WIPO and the Forum — UDRP proceedings are faster and far less expensive than federal litigation. A complainant must prove three elements: (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights; (2) the registrant has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain; and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly construed. Panels have found bad faith where a respondent registered a domain to sell it to the trademark owner, used it to divert consumers to a competing site, or registered it to prevent the mark owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain. Passive holding — registering a domain and doing nothing with it — can also constitute bad faith in certain circumstances, particularly where the registrant has no plausible legitimate use for the name.
UDRP decisions are ordinarily rendered within 60 days and can result in cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain. Respondents who lose have the right to file a federal court action within 10 days to stay the decision. The UDRP does not award monetary damages; for compensation, trademark owners must pursue claims under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), provides a federal cause of action against anyone who, with bad-faith intent to profit, registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive or famous mark. Courts assess bad faith intent using nine statutory factors, including whether the registrant has any trademark rights in the name, whether the domain consists of the registrant’s legal name, and whether the registrant has offered to sell the domain to the mark owner for above out-of-pocket costs.
Statutory damages under the ACPA range from $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just. In rem jurisdiction is available when the registrant’s identity cannot be determined or personal jurisdiction cannot be established, allowing the trademark owner to proceed directly against the domain name itself in the district where the registrar is located. Federal courts can also award attorney’s fees in exceptional cases.
Before acquiring a domain name in a business transaction or startup launch, a domain name lawyer should conduct comprehensive due diligence. This includes a WHOIS history search to identify prior registrants, a review of trademark databases for any confusingly similar marks that could expose the acquirer to a UDRP challenge, and an examination of any prior use of the domain that could create cybersquatting liability. For high-value domain acquisitions, counsel should also analyze whether the seller actually owns the domain free and clear or whether it was registered in a manner that clouds title.
Facebook agreed to pay $550 million to settle a class action lawsuit under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. Here’s what the case means for biometric data law.
Read more about Facebook’s $550M Illinois Biometric Settlement
Seizing an infringer’s domain name is one of the most effective ways to stop IP theft online. Here’s how courts order domain transfers and what rights holders need to show.
Read more about Seizing an Infringer’s Domain to Stop Infringement
Recent court decisions on what counts as an ‘autodialer’ under the TCPA suggest restrictions may be loosening. Here’s what businesses using automated texts need to know.
Read more about TCPA Autodialer Decisions: Are Restrictions Easing?