Case study: suspend a .co domain through URS
A brand owner found its registered trademark in use as a .co domain – pointing to a commercial directory page that listed the owner's competitors. The demand was clear: either buy the name back at a price well above fair value, or watch customers land on a page designed to send them elsewhere. The question was which dispute route would move fastest.
This case turned on the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure – the remedy available for new gTLDs and for zones such as .co that operate under a URS-eligible registry. URS does not transfer ownership; it suspends the domain for the remainder of its registration term. The standard of proof is higher than the UDRP – clear and convincing evidence – but the timeline is shorter, making it the right instrument when speed matters more than permanent transfer.
Below is an anonymized account of the situation, the strategy, and the outcome, followed by a note on when a UDRP complaint would have been the better tool instead.
What was the situation?
The registrant had taken a .co string that reproduced the complainant's mark character-for-character. Nothing was added or removed. The domain resolved to a pay-per-click page monetizing the brand owner's own industry segment, complete with links to direct competitors. The registrant offered no public-facing business and had no apparent connection to the name. The brand owner held a registered trademark predating the registration by several years. In late 2025, after an unsolicited buy-back demand – asking a five-figure sum – the brand owner came to us.
Why .co? The registry for .co appointed WIPO as its dispute-resolution provider. That means both the UDRP and the URS are available paths, depending on the remedy the complainant needs and the evidence in hand. Here the brand owner's goal was immediate disruption of the infringing use, not a permanent ownership change, because a parallel domain-acquisition negotiation was already underway through a separate escrow channel.
What did the firm do?
We assessed the three cumulative conditions for URS: the domain was identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant held rights; the registrant had no legitimate interest; and the domain was registered and used in bad faith. All three were met on the face of the record. The pay-per-click use, the unsolicited buy-back offer, and the exact replication of a registered mark made the bad-faith showing straightforward. The harder question was whether the clear-and-convincing standard – URS's higher bar compared with the UDRP's preponderance standard – was satisfied on the evidence we had.
Our preparation focused on three items: a certified copy of the trademark registration predating the domain; a timestamped screenshot archive of the pay-per-click page, capturing both the landing page and the competitor links; and a documented record of the unsolicited buy-back approach, which panels treat as a Paragraph 4(b) indicator of registration with an intent to sell to the mark owner. We filed the URS complaint through WIPO in early 2026, selecting a single examiner.
If you have found your mark in a .co or other new-gTLD domain and need to assess whether URS or UDRP fits your facts, contact info@cognomenlaw.com for an initial read of the evidence.
What was the outcome?
The examiner found the standard met. The domain was suspended for the balance of its registration term. The pay-per-click page went dark within days of the decision. Because the brand owner's direct negotiation for acquisition was already in progress through escrow, the suspension gave the leverage needed: the registrant agreed to terms shortly afterward. No transfer order was required.
One practical note matters here. URS suspension is finite – it lasts only until the registration expires, not indefinitely. Had the negotiation failed, the brand owner would have needed to file a UDRP complaint to obtain a permanent transfer order. We flagged this risk at the outset and kept a UDRP draft ready in parallel.
URS or UDRP for a .co dispute: how to choose
The choice is not automatic. URS moves faster and costs less in official fees, but the remedy is suspension, not transfer, and the clear-and-convincing standard means the case for bad faith must be unmistakable on the record. If the evidence is strong and the goal is speed – for example, to stop a pay-per-click page diverting customers during a product launch – URS is the sharper instrument. If the goal is to own the domain permanently, or if the bad-faith showing requires inference and context rather than a single obvious indicator, a UDRP complaint is almost always the right path.
For .co specifically: WIPO is the designated provider, the same institution that handles the UDRP. The filing mechanics are familiar. The difference is in the standard of proof, the remedy, and the timeline. Our practice is to assess both routes at the outset and advise which fits the evidence rather than defaulting to the UDRP because it is more familiar.
To weigh URS against a UDRP complaint for your .co domain, email info@cognomenlaw.com.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions
What was the situation?
A brand owner's registered trademark was reproduced exactly in a .co domain pointing to a pay-per-click competitor directory. The registrant made an unsolicited five-figure buy-back demand. The brand owner needed to stop the infringing use quickly while parallel acquisition negotiations were underway through escrow.
What did the firm do?
COGNOMEN assessed both the URS and UDRP routes, confirmed the clear-and-convincing standard was met on the available evidence, assembled a trademark certificate, screenshot archive, and documented buy-back record, then filed a URS complaint through WIPO. A UDRP draft was kept ready in parallel in case the suspension proved insufficient.
What was the outcome?
The examiner granted suspension. The pay-per-click page went offline within days. With the domain suspended, the registrant agreed acquisition terms through the existing escrow channel. No UDRP transfer order was ultimately needed, though the option remained open had the negotiation failed before the suspension term expired.
Author: Cordelia Roe — UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery; domain transactions and brand protection. Meet the team.
Speak with Cognomen Law
For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter
This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.