Assess my case

Step-by-step: prove bad faith registration of a .us domain

By Cordelia Roe, UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery ·

A brand owner searches for its own name on a registry lookup and finds a .us domain pointing at a competitor's landing page – or, worse, a site hawking counterfeit goods under the company's colors. The domain was registered after the trademark was established. The question is not whether something wrong happened. The question is how to prove it under the rules that govern .us.

To prove bad faith registration of a .us domain you must satisfy all three elements of the usDRP – the .us Domain Dispute Resolution Policy, a close cousin of the UDRP that governs most gTLDs. That means demonstrating (i) that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to your mark, (ii) that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the name, and (iii) that the domain was registered or is being used in bad faith. A standard usDRP case runs approximately two months and the only remedies available are transfer or cancellation of the domain.

This guide walks each step in sequence, flags the trap hidden inside each one, and explains how the .us rules diverge from the standard UDRP at the moments that matter most.

What rules govern a .us domain dispute?

The .us country-code zone is administered under the usDRP – a Policy that closely tracks the UDRP but sits alongside a separate set of Registry Nexus requirements unique to the .us zone. The usDRP is the principal mechanism for resolving a bad-faith registration of a .us domain without going to court; it leads to transfer or cancellation, never monetary compensation. Before assembling any complaint, confirm that the current usDRP is in effect for the registrar holding the domain, because registry rule updates are issued periodically and the applicable version controls the procedure.

The three-element test mirrors UDRP Paragraph 4(a). You must show: (1) identity or confusing similarity to a mark; (2) no rights or legitimate interests in the registrant; and (3) bad-faith registration or use. That third limb is worth reading twice. Under the usDRP, bad faith registration or use is enough – the disjunctive standard – whereas under the UDRP as applied to .com, panels require registration and use in bad faith cumulatively. That structural difference can favor complainants in .us cases where the registration motive is ambiguous but the subsequent use is plainly abusive.

The procedural mechanics map closely onto UDRP practice. The respondent has 20 days to file a response after commencement. Panel appointment follows, and a decision normally issues within roughly two months of filing. Transfer or cancellation is implemented by the registrar once the decision period passes without a court challenge.

At COGNOMEN we regularly advise brand owners who have only just discovered a .us registration made years earlier, where the bad-faith use is now clear but the registration intent is harder to pin down. For an assessment of whether the disjunctive standard covers your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Step 1: Establish trademark rights before anything else

The first element of the usDRP requires that you hold a trademark or service mark – registered or unregistered – in which you have rights. That sounds simple. The trap is that the mark must predate the domain registration for bad faith at the moment of registration to be arguable; a mark registered after the domain was claimed does not automatically fail the complaint, but it dramatically complicates the bad-faith analysis and gives the respondent a ready defense.

Collect the following before drafting the complaint:

One frequent mistake: submitting only the federal registration without documenting the date of first use in commerce. Panels look at first use, not registration date, to assess what a registrant could have known at the time of filing. If first use predates the domain by several years, say so explicitly in the complaint and attach the underlying records.

Step 2: Undercut the registrant's claim to a legitimate interest

The second element shifts a practical burden to the complainant to make a prima facie showing that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Once that showing is made, the respondent must come forward with evidence to the contrary. The trap here is assuming that a .us domain registered by an obvious squatter will collapse under any submission – it will not unless you specifically identify and rebut each possible legitimate-interest argument in the complaint itself.

The three safe-harbor arguments a respondent will typically raise mirror the UDRP's Paragraph 4(c):

Address each scenario explicitly in the complaint. Exhibit records of any use you have found at the disputed URL, including archived versions from web-archiving services, screenshots with timestamps, and records of redirect behavior. If the registrant's site has changed between the date you discovered it and the date you file, capture and preserve both states.

Step 3: Build the bad-faith record – the decisive element

Bad faith is where .us disputes are won or lost. The usDRP lists non-exhaustive bad-faith circumstances that parallel UDRP Paragraph 4(b): registration primarily to sell the domain to the mark owner at a price exceeding documented out-of-pocket costs; registration to disrupt a competitor; registration to attract users for commercial gain by creating confusion as to source; and a pattern of abusive registrations across multiple domains. The disjunctive standard matters here: if you cannot prove bad faith at the moment of registration, evidence of subsequent abusive use can still carry the third element.

The evidence types that move panels most reliably include:

In a recent matter – a .us typosquat complaint, spring 2025 – we assembled a bad-faith record around a combination of parking-page revenue and a pattern of similar registrations by the same holder. The registrant defaulted, and a transfer order followed roughly eight weeks after filing. No active correspondence with the registrant had preceded the filing; the offer-to-sell evidence came from a third-party broker inquiry our client had made, which the registrant answered with a six-figure demand.

One subtlety specific to .us: the zone requires registrants to certify that they meet certain nexus requirements – that they are a US citizen, a permanent resident, or a US-based organization, or that the domain is used primarily in the United States. If the registrant plainly does not meet the nexus requirement, note the discrepancy in the complaint. It is not a freestanding ground for transfer under the usDRP, but panels have treated a false nexus certification as a further indicator of bad faith in use.

Step 4: Choose the right forum and file correctly

Unlike the broader UDRP ecosystem – where WIPO and the Forum together handle roughly 97% of all proceedings – the .us zone has its own designated dispute-resolution providers. Confirm the current approved provider list in the usDRP Appendix before filing; provider authorization can change. The filing mechanics are similar to the UDRP: a complaint document, exhibits, and the filing fee paid to the provider. The respondent's 20-day response window begins after the provider formally commences the case.

Practical steps at filing:

  1. Verify the current registrar of record for the domain and confirm the registrar participates in the usDRP procedure (all usDRP-accredited registrars must).
  2. Confirm the correct administrative and technical contact details for the respondent in the RDDS record – these are the addresses to which the complaint is served.
  3. File the complaint with exhibits organized to correspond directly to the three-element test; panels appreciate a complaint structured so that each element is addressed in a clearly labeled section supported by numbered exhibits.
  4. Request a panel size. A single-member panel is standard and less expensive; a three-member panel is available and appropriate for higher-value domains or where a split outcome is plausible.
  5. Preserve a complete copy of the filed record and note the commencement date – your response-period tracking begins there.

The trap at this step is procedural: an incorrectly formatted complaint, a missing exhibit, or an unserved respondent address can lead to a deficiency notice that costs days or weeks and occasionally allows the registrant time to take defensive steps. File a complete, correctly formatted complaint on the first submission.

How does usDRP compare to a UDRP complaint for a .com domain?

Choosing between a usDRP and a UDRP is only a question when the same registrant holds infringing domains in both zones – a common pattern for systematic squatters who register a brand name across a matrix of TLDs simultaneously. The key differences:

Under the UDRP for .com, panels require bad faith registration and use – a cumulative test. Under the usDRP for .us, bad faith registration or use suffices. A complainant with a strong use-in-bad-faith case but weaker evidence of intent at registration therefore has a structurally easier case in .us than in .com. Conversely, a complainant with clear evidence of bad-faith registration intent but a domain that has not yet been actively used will find the UDRP's cumulative test more demanding – and the usDRP slightly more forgiving.

Forum fees and timelines are broadly comparable. The WIPO filing fee for a single-domain UDRP starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel; usDRP provider fees vary and should be confirmed against the current published schedule of the approved provider used. If the infringing activity spans both a .com and a .us domain held by the same registrant, a UDRP complaint can cover multiple domains registered by the same holder – check whether the same consolidation option is available under the applicable usDRP version.

Where neither the UDRP nor the usDRP reaches, court is the alternative. For .us, US anticybersquatting litigation is available and can reach monetary damages – a remedy the usDRP cannot award. Court carries substantially higher cost and a longer timeline, but it is the only path when the registrant has a colorable free-speech or legitimate-use defense that might survive arbitration, or when a damages award is central to the client's objective.

If you are weighing a usDRP complaint against broader anticybersquatting litigation, email info@cognomenlaw.com to compare the routes for your specific domain and registrant.

What happens when the registrant defaults or ignores the complaint?

Default – where the registrant files no response within the 20-day window – is common in .us proceedings, particularly where the registrant is a commercial parking service operating behind privacy layers. Default does not mean automatic transfer. The panel still evaluates the complaint on its merits and must find that all three elements are satisfied before ordering a remedy. A deficient complaint can fail even against a silent respondent.

The practical consequence of default is that the respondent introduces no competing evidence and raises no affirmative defense. Panels in this posture draw reasonable adverse inferences from the silence. A well-constructed complaint with solid exhibits will normally prevail; a thin complaint that omits key evidence may not. We have seen transfer requests denied on the papers even where the respondent never appeared, because the bad-faith evidence was circumstantial and the panel was not prepared to fill the gap by inference alone.

After a panel decision is issued, the registrar implements the transfer or cancellation once the applicable waiting period passes without a court filing by the respondent. The registrant has an opportunity to initiate a court action to stay or challenge the decision during that period. Most default respondents do not pursue this path, but a registrant with commercial stakes in the domain occasionally does.

Step 5: Handling respondent defenses and preparing for RDNH risk

A respondent who does appear will mount one or more of the following defenses: legitimate interest under a Paragraph 4(c) safe harbor; denial of bad faith; and, in stronger cases, a counter-assertion that the complaint itself constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

RDNH – a finding that the complainant filed in bad faith to deprive a legitimate domain owner of the name – carries no monetary penalty under the usDRP or the UDRP. It is a reputational sanction. But it matters. An RDNH finding becomes part of the public record and can be cited in future proceedings. Panels issue RDNH findings where complainants file against registrants who clearly had prior rights, generic-term arguments, or demonstrable registration predating any relevant trademark activity.

The RDNH risk is highest in two scenarios: when the trademark postdates the domain registration by a meaningful period, and when the domain is a common word or a short string with plausible legitimate uses. If either condition is present, the complaint should be stress-tested against an RDNH analysis before filing.

In a related matter from autumn 2024 – a .us respondent defense we handled for a domain investor – the complainant had filed on a two-word domain that matched a generic phrase used in an entire industry segment. The complainant held a registered mark but had acquired it after the domain was first registered. We secured an RDNH finding on the respondent's behalf, and the domain was retained. That outcome illustrates why both sides of the dispute benefit from a clear-eyed element-by-element analysis before any filing.

Related at COGNOMEN

Frequently asked questions

When should I prove bad faith registration of a .us domain?

File a usDRP complaint when you hold trademark rights that predate the domain's registration – or where evidence of bad-faith use is clear even if registration intent is ambiguous. The usDRP's disjunctive standard means that proven abusive use can carry the third element on its own. Act promptly: continued infringing use compounds harm to your brand, and archived evidence of the registrant's site can disappear. A usDRP case typically concludes in roughly two months, making it one of the faster routes available for .us recovery.

What happens if the other side ignores the case?

A respondent who ignores the complaint defaults after the 20-day response window closes. The panel then decides on the complaint record alone and draws reasonable adverse inferences from the silence. Default does not guarantee transfer: the panel still requires that all three usDRP elements are met on the evidence submitted. A complete, well-exhibited complaint is just as important against a defaulting respondent as against an active one. Most default transfers proceed without further challenge from the registrant.

How is usDRP different from a national court for .us?

The usDRP is an administrative procedure decided on documents alone, with no discovery, no oral hearing, and no monetary remedies – only transfer or cancellation. A US court action for cybersquatting can reach damages and provides full procedural rights, but costs substantially more and takes considerably longer. The usDRP is appropriate when the primary goal is domain recovery and the bad-faith record is clear. Court is appropriate when damages are sought, when the registrant has a defense that requires live evidence, or when the registrant has initiated litigation first.

Author: — 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

No obligation. Confidential. We reply within two hours in business hours.

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.