Recover Infringing Domain Names Through the UDRP and WIPO
When someone registers a domain name that copies your brand to sell fakes, run phishing emails, park ads, or demand a ransom, you do not usually need to sue. The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy lets a trademark owner recover the domain in an online proceeding, typically decided in about two months, or one month on WIPO's priority track.
A built-in dispute process for every generic domain
Everyone who registers a .com, .net, .org, or new generic top-level domain agrees, in the registration contract, to the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. That makes the policy binding on the domain holder wherever they are, and lets a trademark owner bring a complaint without suing in the holder's country.
Cases are decided on written submissions by independent panelists, usually trademark lawyers, appointed by an approved provider. WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Center handles most cases worldwide; the Forum, based in Minnesota, is the other major provider. There are no hearings, and the whole case is filed and decided online.
The remedy is limited to the domain itself: transfer to the trademark owner or cancellation. A panel cannot award damages, costs, or attorney's fees. Where money or a court order is needed, the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act is the alternative.
Typical cybersquatting we see
- Typos and look-alikes: miamibrandd.com, rnybrand.com
- Brand plus a word: mybrand-outlet.com, mybrandshop.net
- Phishing and fake payment sites using a brand's logo
- Counterfeit stores targeting U.S. or Latin American buyers
- Former distributors or agents who kept the brand's domain
- Holders offering to sell the domain to the brand for a high price
Three elements a complainant must prove
Under paragraph 4(a) of the policy, the complainant must prove all three. A strong complaint proves each one with evidence, not assertion, because the panel decides only on what is filed.
Identical or confusingly similar
The domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights. Panels compare the domain, ignoring the extension, with the mark. A registration anywhere in the world, or proven common-law rights, will do.
Evidence: registration certificates, or proof of use and recognition for unregistered marks.
No rights or legitimate interests
The holder has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The complainant makes a prima facie case; the burden then shifts to the holder to show a bona fide business use, that it is commonly known by the name, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Evidence: no license or authorization, and screenshots of how the domain is used.
Registered and used in bad faith
Both registration and use must be in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) lists examples: registering to sell the domain to the brand, blocking the brand, disrupting a competitor, or attracting users for profit by confusion. Passive holding of a well-known mark can also qualify.
Evidence: dated screenshots, sale offers, phishing emails, and the mark's reputation at registration.
Cybersquatting cases at WIPO, 2021 to 2025
Trademark owners filed more cases with WIPO in 2025 than in any year since the UDRP began. Most complaints come from the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, and .com remains the most-disputed extension.
Domain name cases filed with WIPO each year
UDRP and country-code cases combined. A case can cover more than one domain name.
View data table
| Year | WIPO cases | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 5,128 | +22% |
| 2022 | 5,764 | +12% |
| 2023 | 6,192 | +7% |
| 2024 | 6,168 | −0.4% |
| 2025 | 6,282 | +1.8% |
Most-disputed country-code domains at WIPO, 2025
Ranked by number of WIPO filings. Latin American extensions .co and .mx were both in the top six, and both grew in 2025.
- .coColombia
- .auAustralia
- .aiAnguilla
- .cnChina
- .ioBritish Indian Ocean Territory
- .mxMexico
- .ccCocos (Keeling) Islands
- .esSpain
- .nlNetherlands
- .seSweden
See URS and Country-Code Disputes for how each country-code domain is handled.
About these figures. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center annual caseload announcements for 2021 through 2025. 2025 ranking of country-code domains as published by WIPO in January 2026.
Five notable WIPO decisions for Florida-based complainants
Florida companies, from Miami cruise lines to a Lakeland supermarket chain, use the UDRP to recover domains registered abroad. These five WIPO decisions show what wins, and the one high-value case that did not.
| Case | Complainant | Domain | Respondent | Panel | Result | Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Royal Caribbean Cruises v. BoothWIPO D2019-1042 · July 17, 2019 | Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Miami | rcc.com | Domain investor, United Arab Emirates | Three members | Denied | A three-letter domain bought for its value as a short string was not shown to target the RCC mark. A clumsy sale approach by a broker did not prove bad faith at registration. |
| Publix Asset Management v. LinWIPO DCO2015-0033 · Nov. 24, 2015 | Publix Asset Management Co., Lakeland | publix.co | Individual, China | One | Transferred | The UDRP reached Colombia's .co domain. A fake customer-survey page pushing paid offers showed intent to profit from the PUBLIX mark. |
| Publix Asset Management v. RodriguesWIPO D2019-0658 · May 20, 2019 | Publix Asset Management Co., Lakeland | publixstockholderonline.com | Privacy service and an individual in Panama | One | Transferred | Adding descriptive words to a mark does not avoid confusing similarity. A privacy service did not shield the holder, who was named once disclosed. |
| Burger King Corp. v. Colorful LifeWIPO D2012-0370 · Apr. 14, 2012 | Burger King Corporation, Miami | bkcodes.com | Individual, United Kingdom | One | Transferred | A short-form mark (BK) was protected. A site helping users get around promotion codes to drive ad traffic was bad faith. |
| Hard Rock Café International v. WW ProcessingWIPO D2002-0021 · Apr. 2, 2002 | Hard Rock Café International (USA), Inc., Orlando | hardrockcasinos.com | Unknown entity, Saint Kitts and Nevis | One | Transferred | A domain used for a competing online casino was transferred after the holder defaulted. Default lets the panel accept the complaint's reasonable allegations. |
What the Florida decisions mean for a complaint
- Clear cases against overseas holders using a brand for profit are usually won on a single-panelist complaint.
- The UDRP reaches country-code domains such as .co, and privacy services do not prevent a decision.
- Short, generic, or acronym domains are different. Without evidence that the holder targeted your brand, even a major Miami company can lose before a three-member panel.
From complaint to transfer, step by step
The policy's deadlines are fixed, so a UDRP case moves at a predictable pace. Most of the work is done before filing.
- 1–2 weeksInvestigationOwnership records, screenshots, use history, and related domains held by the same person.
- Filing dayComplaint filedFiled online with WIPO, with the fee and evidence.
- 2 business daysRegistrar lockThe registrar locks the domain and confirms the holder's details.
- ≈1 weekCase beginsWIPO checks the complaint and notifies the holder.
- 20 daysResponse dueFour more days on request. Most holders do not respond.
- ≈2 weeksPanel decisionOne or three panelists decide on the written record.
- 10 business daysTransferCarried out unless the holder files suit in a qualifying court.
On WIPO's priority track, introduced in 2026 for single-panelist cases of up to five domains, WIPO commits to a decision within one month from start to finish. The fixed deadlines for the response and the 10-business-day transfer window still apply.
The UDRP and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, side by side
The UDRP is faster and cheaper. A federal lawsuit under the ACPA is slower and costlier, but it can award money and reach domains when the holder cannot be found.
| UDRPICANN policy · WIPO or the Forum | ACPA lawsuit15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) · federal court | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it is decided | Online, by an independent panel | U.S. federal district court |
| Typical time | About two months; one month on WIPO's priority track | Months to more than a year |
| Filing cost | $1,500 to $4,000 (WIPO, 1–5 domains) | $405 filing fee, plus far higher litigation costs |
| What must be shown | Confusing similarity, no legitimate interest, bad-faith registration and use | A distinctive or famous mark, confusing similarity, and a bad-faith intent to profit |
| Remedies | Transfer or cancellation only | Transfer, injunction, damages or statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 per domain, and fees in exceptional cases |
| Unknown or foreign holder | Proceeds on the registrar's records; default is common | An in rem case against the domain itself, where the registry or registrar is located |
| Effect of the result | Either side may still go to court | Binding judgment, subject to appeal |
| Best suited for | Most cybersquatting: one holder, clear bad faith, transfer is the goal | Serious harm, repeat offenders, many domains, or where money matters |
◆ marks rows where the two differ. The ACPA's in rem option matters for .com and .net, whose registry operator is located in Virginia.
WIPO fees for a UDRP complaint
WIPO's fees depend on the number of domains and panelists. The complainant pays them; the holder pays nothing unless it asks for a three-member panel, in which case the cost is shared.
Higher fees apply for six or more domain names. WIPO fees are in U.S. dollars and set by WIPO, which can change them. Forum fees differ.
Latin American and European brands
A foreign trademark registration is enough to file a UDRP complaint; a U.S. registration is not required. That makes the UDRP the most practical way for a brand from Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Spain, or France to recover a .com domain held by someone in another country.
The proceeding is usually in the language of the registration agreement, often English, though panels can allow another language. We prepare complaints in English and work with Spanish-speaking clients and their home-country counsel.
What we need to evaluate your case
- The domain name or names, and the registrar if you know it
- Your trademark registrations, with numbers and countries
- Screenshots of how the domain is being used, with dates
- Any emails, sale offers, or other contact with the holder
- When your brand began to be used and became known
Five most common mistakes in UDRP complaints
Panels deny complaints most often because the evidence was thin or the wrong case was brought, not because the domain was innocent.
Filing when the domain predates the trademark
Bad faith requires that the holder targeted your brand when it registered the domain. If the domain was registered before your mark existed or became known, the complaint usually fails, and can lead to a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
Bad-faith registration · RDNHCheck the domain's registration and transfer history against your mark's dates before filing.
Asserting bad faith without proving it
A complaint that says the holder "obviously" acted in bad faith, without dated screenshots, offers, or evidence of the mark's reputation, gives the panel nothing to rely on. Panels decide only on the record.
Evidence · ¶ 4(b)Capture and date the website, emails, and sale offers, and show how well known the mark was.
Using the UDRP for a trademark dispute
The UDRP is for clear cybersquatting. Disputes between two legitimate businesses, former partners, or a reseller selling genuine goods usually fall outside it and are better handled in court.
Scope of the policyChoose the forum before filing. Use the UDRP for abuse, and the ACPA or a contract claim for business disputes.
Contacting the holder the wrong way first
An offer to buy the domain can raise its price, alert the holder to move it, or later be cited as evidence that the brand treated it as a commercial matter.
Pre-filing contactDecide whether to send a demand, an anonymous purchase offer, or nothing before any contact.
Missing related domains, or the transfer window
Cybersquatters often hold several variations. Filing on one leaves the rest. After a win, the transfer can stall if the brand has no registrar account ready, or if the holder files suit within 10 business days.
Scope · ¶ 4(k)Search for every related domain, include them in one complaint, and prepare to receive the transfer.
Frequently asked questions
Do I need a U.S. trademark registration to file a UDRP complaint?
No. A registration in any country, or proof of unregistered trademark rights, can support a complaint.
How long does a UDRP case take?
About two months from filing to decision on the standard track. WIPO's priority service, available for single-panelist cases of up to five domains, targets a decision within one month.
Can I get damages or my legal fees back?
No. The UDRP can only transfer or cancel the domain. Damages, including statutory damages of up to $100,000 per domain, require a lawsuit under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
What if the holder hides behind a privacy service?
You can still file. After the complaint is filed, the registrar gives WIPO the holder's details, and the complaint can be amended to name them.
What happens if I win?
The registrar transfers the domain after 10 business days, unless the holder files a lawsuit in a qualifying court during that period.
Does the UDRP cover country-code domains such as .mx or .co?
Some country-code registries use the UDRP or their own version of it. See URS and Country-Code Disputes for the procedure that applies to each.
Should I just buy the domain instead?
Sometimes a low-cost purchase through an anonymous broker is cheaper and faster. Get advice first, because a purchase offer can affect a later complaint.
Send us the domain name
Tell us the domain, your trademark, and how the domain is being used. We will check the registration history and tell you whether a UDRP complaint, a demand letter, or a lawsuit fits best.
- Domain investigations and registration histories
- UDRP complaints with WIPO and the Forum
- Priority-track filings for urgent phishing and fraud
- ACPA lawsuits when transfer alone is not enough