FAQ: protect a brand in a new .app gTLD launch

When can I protect a brand in a new .app gTLD launch?

Brand protection begins before the registry opens to the public, through the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) sunrise period, and continues through general availability and beyond.

Most new gTLD launches follow a phased sequence. The sunrise period — typically running several weeks before general availability — allows trademark owners registered in the TMCH to defensively register matching strings or block them. Missing the sunrise is not fatal. If a third party registers a .app domain during general availability and uses it in a way that infringes your mark, the UDRP or URS remains available once the domain is active and the abuse is apparent.

Speed matters. The longer a cybersquatter holds a domain, the more evidence of active bad faith accumulates — which is useful for a UDRP, but the operational harm to your brand accumulates too. We advise brand owners to monitor WHOIS/RDDS data for new gTLD launches in advance, flag relevant strings the day general availability opens, and assess within the first week whether a TMCH claim was bypassed or ignored.

What if you missed the sunrise entirely? The UDRP and URS are not time-limited. A brand owner can file against a .app domain registered years ago if the three UDRP elements — or the URS clear-and-convincing standard — are met on the current facts.

Who can protect a brand in a new .app gTLD launch — which forum decides a .app dispute?

WIPO and the Forum are the principal providers for .app disputes; there is no separate .app arbitration body, and courts are rarely the first resort.

Google Registry has incorporated the UDRP and URS into .app's registration agreement by reference to ICANN's standard accredited-registrar requirements. That means any brand owner who satisfies Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP — a mark, confusing similarity, the registrant's lack of legitimate interest, and bad-faith registration and use — can bring a complaint before WIPO (filing fee from USD 1,500 for a single-member panel on one to five domains) or the Forum.

The URS, also available for .app as a new gTLD, is administered through WIPO and other approved providers. It is faster and cheaper, but the remedy is suspension for the life of the registration, not transfer. So who selects the forum? The complainant does. WIPO handles the majority of UDRP proceedings globally — roughly 97% of all UDRP cases are filed at either WIPO or the Forum — and in our practice WIPO is the default choice for .app matters where brand owners want a well-documented panel decision.

Courts play a limited role. Where arbitration cannot reach — for instance, where you need monetary damages or the registrant disputes the panel's authority — US anticybersquatting litigation or an action in another competent court is available, handled with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. That path is slower and substantially more expensive. For most .app disputes, the UDRP or URS is the efficient first step.

To assess which forum and which procedure fits your .app dispute, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

What is the difference between the URS and the UDRP for a .app domain?

The URS suspends a domain for the remainder of its registration term; the UDRP transfers it to you. The legal standard and the cost differ accordingly.

Both apply to .app. But they serve different purposes. The URS is designed for clear cases: the evidentiary standard is clear and convincing, higher than the UDRP's preponderance-based approach. In practice, URS panels look for a nearly open-and-shut infringement — an exact-match domain pointed at a page that exploits the mark, with no plausible legitimate use. If the facts are obvious, the URS is fast and less costly than a UDRP. If the registrant has constructed even a thin story of legitimate use, a UDRP is the appropriate vehicle because the three-element test, weighing evidence across both sides, is better suited to contested matters.

The remedy difference is critical. A URS suspension expires when the registration term ends. The registrant can renew the domain and get it back. A UDRP transfer, by contrast, puts the domain in your name, ends the dispute permanently, and prevents re-registration by the prior holder. For a brand owner who wants .app to remain in the brand's portfolio long term, the UDRP transfer is the right outcome.

Cost also differs. URS fees are lower than UDRP filing fees. Legal fees are broadly comparable on a per-matter basis, though a highly contested UDRP with a three-member panel request from the respondent — which splits the higher panel fee between the parties — may increase the total outlay.

Which path fits your situation? If the infringing use is identical, immediate, and undeniable, consider the URS for speed. If you want the domain or the facts require a fuller hearing, file under the UDRP. We regularly advise brand owners at exactly this fork.

What evidence decides the outcome of a .app brand-protection dispute?

The three UDRP elements — trademark rights, the registrant's lack of legitimate interest, and bad-faith registration and use — each require specific evidence; weakness in any one is fatal to the complaint.

The first element is usually the easiest: a registered trademark in the relevant class, issued before the .app domain was registered, establishes rights. Common-law or unregistered marks can qualify, but the burden of proof is heavier and panels scrutinize the evidence closely. The registration date matters — a trademark filed after the domain was registered does not automatically defeat the complaint, but the registrant's prior registration date is evidence panels weigh against bad faith.

The second element shifts the burden. The complainant must make a prima facie case that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests, and the registrant must then rebut it. Panels look for: whether the registrant is commonly known by the domain name; whether there is a bona fide commercial offering predating the complainant's notice of the dispute; or whether the use is legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Paragraph 4(c). A .app domain pointed at a parking page with pay-per-click links creates no such legitimate interest.

The third element — bad faith — is where most disputes turn. Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP sets out non-exhaustive circumstances: registering to sell the domain to the mark owner at a profit; disrupting a competitor; attracting users for commercial gain by creating confusion. For .app specifically, panels have noted that the zone carries a strong developer and app-product connotation, so a registrant pointing a brand's .app domain at a competing product, an App Store affiliate page, or a download portal for unrelated software is making a particularly clear bad-faith argument.

Documentary evidence — screenshots taken promptly, archived WHOIS data, prior correspondence from the registrant, any offer to sell — should be preserved immediately upon discovery. In our practice, the cases that fail most often do so not because the trademark right is absent but because the bad-faith evidence was assembled too late or too thinly.

What happens if the .app registrant does not respond?

A registrant default means the panel decides the case on the complaint alone, but a well-pleaded complaint still needs to satisfy all three UDRP elements — a default is not an automatic win.

The respondent has 20 days to file a response after the case formally commences. If that deadline passes with no filing, the proceeding moves directly to panel appointment. The panel is not obliged to rule in favor of the complainant simply because there is no response. It must still be satisfied that the complaint meets the standard. What the default does do is prevent the registrant from raising affirmative defenses — legitimate interest arguments, good-faith-registration claims, or attempts to reframe the evidence.

In practice, panels deciding uncontested cases often note the absence of any Paragraph 4(c) safe-harbor evidence from the respondent and draw reasonable inferences from the complainant's uncontroverted record. A complaint with strong bad-faith evidence, a clearly held registered mark, and no apparent legitimate-use story for the registrant is more likely to succeed on default. A weak or incomplete complaint is still at risk.

Default cases also move faster. Without a response period requiring review, the panel can be appointed promptly and often issues a decision on the earlier end of the two-month norm. That efficiency is one reason some brand owners act quickly on obviously abusive .app registrations rather than waiting.

Can a UDRP or URS decision on a .app domain be appealed or challenged?

UDRP decisions are not appealable within the UDRP itself, but either party may take the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction before or after the transfer is implemented.

The UDRP process ends with the panel's decision. If the complaint is granted, the registrar implements the transfer after a standard waiting period — typically ten business days — during which the registrant may file in court to block implementation. If the registrant does so and provides the registrar with evidence of a filed court action, the registrar typically suspends implementation pending the court's outcome.

For respondents facing a UDRP transfer order, the court route is the principal avenue to challenge the result. That means filing in a court with jurisdiction over the dispute — often the registrant's domicile or the registrar's home jurisdiction — and obtaining a stay. The mechanics depend on the jurisdiction, and local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction handles that step.

The URS has its own reconsideration mechanism: a party may seek a determination review before the same provider, on limited grounds. Appellate review of a URS decision is narrower than court recourse under the UDRP.

What about reverse domain name hijacking? If a complainant filed in bad faith — to deprive a legitimate registrant of a domain the complainant knew it could not properly claim — a panel may make an RDNH finding. That finding carries no monetary penalty, but it is publicly recorded and reputationally significant. Registrants who face abusive complaints can request an RDNH finding as part of their defense. We defend respondents in exactly these situations, across .app and other new gTLD zones.

What is the realistic next step if I discover a bad-faith .app registration today?

The immediate steps are to document the domain's current use, preserve WHOIS/RDDS data and any web archive screenshots, and assess whether the UDRP or URS standard is met on the current evidence.

Documentation is not optional — it is the case. A screenshot taken today showing the domain pointing at a competitor's App Store listing or a parking page with brand-related pay-per-click links is the foundation of the bad-faith element. WHOIS/RDDS data confirming the registration date relative to your trademark's priority date goes to element one. Any communication from the registrant offering to sell the domain at a premium goes directly to Paragraph 4(b).

Once the evidence picture is clear, the choice between the URS and the UDRP follows the framework set out above. Filing at WIPO on a .app single-domain matter means a filing fee of USD 1,500 for a single-member panel, plus legal fees at market rates. The decision arrives in roughly two months. That is the standard path for a brand owner who wants the domain transferred.

In a recent matter — a .app domain typosquat targeting a software brand, autumn 2025 — we assessed the three elements within days of the client's first contact, filed at WIPO within the week, and the registrant defaulted. The transfer order came roughly seven weeks after filing. Speed of documentation made the difference between a clean case and a contested one.

If the situation is less clear-cut — a registrant with a thin but plausible cover story, a mark registered after the domain — the analysis takes longer, and the strategy may shift. Email us early, when the evidence is fresh.