Blockchain domain names and the limits of the UDRP

As of October 2026, a clear legal fault line divides domain names registered inside ICANN's system from blockchain-based naming services such as the Ethereum Name Service. That fault line matters most when a brand owner searches for a blockchain domain name dispute route and finds there is no direct equivalent of the UDRP to reach for.

Blockchain-based naming systems – ENS/.eth and comparable services – sit entirely outside ICANN's contracts. The UDRP does not apply to them. There is no transfer procedure, no recognized dispute forum, and no registrar bound by any accreditation obligation. If a brand name is registered as a blockchain domain by a third party, the policy remedies available for a .com or a .uk simply do not exist. Any remedy, if one is available at all, must be pursued through general law.

This page states the legal position as of October 16, 2026, identifies who is affected, and explains what brand owners and domain investors should do now.

What are blockchain domain names, and how do they differ from ICANN domains?

A blockchain domain – such as a name ending in .eth – is a record stored on a distributed ledger, not in a DNS zone file administered by an ICANN-accredited registrar. The distinction is structural and has direct legal consequences. ICANN's authority derives from its contractual relationships with registries and registrars. Those contracts impose the UDRP as a mandatory dispute-resolution mechanism. Blockchain naming services have no such contract with ICANN and accept no equivalent obligation.

Ownership of a blockchain domain is controlled by whoever holds the corresponding private cryptographic key. There is no registrar to receive a complaint, no registry to enforce a transfer order, and no accreditation agreement under which ICANN can intervene. The result is that the entire policy architecture built around the UDRP – the complaint, the response, the panelist's decision, the registrar's implementation of a transfer – has nothing to attach to.

This is not a procedural gap that a well-drafted complaint can bridge. It is a structural absence. Panels deciding UDRP cases have consistently held jurisdiction based on the respondent's accreditation agreement with a registrar. That chain does not exist for blockchain names.

Why does the UDRP not reach blockchain domains?

The UDRP operates through a contractual cascade: ICANN binds registrars, registrars bind registrants, and the registrant's registration agreement contains a mandatory submission to dispute proceedings. A complainant files with an approved provider – WIPO, the Forum, CAC, or ADNDRC – and the registrar is obliged to implement any transfer or cancellation order the panel issues.

Every link in that chain is missing for a blockchain domain name dispute. The "registrar" is a smart contract on a public blockchain. It does not hold an ICANN accreditation. The registrant did not sign a registration agreement containing a UDRP submission clause. No approved provider has authority to direct a transfer, because there is no operator with the technical ability or legal duty to execute one. Filing a UDRP complaint against a blockchain domain would produce no enforceable result even if a panel were willing to hear it – which, under the current UDRP text, it is not.

The URS – the Uniform Rapid Suspension system for new gTLDs – shares the same structural limitation. It is also anchored in ICANN's contracted-party framework. Neither route applies here.

What remedies, if any, exist?

General law is the only avenue, and its reach is genuinely uncertain as of the date of this article. A brand owner might pursue a claim for trademark infringement or unfair competition in the relevant jurisdiction. Whether a court can compel a transfer of a blockchain domain is an open question. The technical mechanics of such enforcement – compelling a key holder to sign a transaction, or directing a smart contract's upgrade authority to act – are contested and unresolved in the major jurisdictions.

The practical position is this: for ICANN domains, a court can order a registrar to transfer a domain and the registrar, as a licensed business entity in a known jurisdiction, is reachable. For a blockchain domain, the nearest equivalent actor may be an anonymous key holder with no known location and no service address. That makes court enforcement not impossible in theory, but materially more difficult in practice.

What can a brand owner document in the meantime? Evidence of the blockchain registration, including block explorer records of the creation date and current holder address, is worth preserving. If a prior trademark registration predates the blockchain domain's creation, that timeline record is the foundation of any future claim under general law. We regularly advise brand owners to build and preserve this evidence file even when no immediate remedy is available.

To discuss a blockchain domain name dispute or to understand what evidence you should be gathering now, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

What about the .ai zone and AI-related disputes?

The .ai zone is administratively the country-code TLD for Anguilla. It is an ICANN-contracted ccTLD, administered under a registry agreement, and WIPO has been appointed as a dispute-resolution provider for .ai. UDRP proceedings are available for .ai domains. The UDRP analysis applied to .ai is the same three-element test as for any other zone where the Policy has been adopted: confusing similarity, no legitimate interest, and registration and use in bad faith.

This is a critical distinction to draw. Brand owners responding to the growth of AI-related registrations need to know which names are in the ICANN system and which are not. A company brand registered as a .ai domain can be challenged through a UDRP complaint. The same brand registered as a blockchain domain cannot. The zone – not the subject matter – determines the available route.

Who is affected, and what are the practical risks?

The risks fall on two groups: brand owners whose marks appear in blockchain naming systems, and buyers conducting domain due diligence before acquiring a blockchain-based name.

For brand owners, the position is stark. A third party can register a name that matches your trademark on a blockchain naming service, and at present you have no fast, low-cost UDRP-style route to undo it. The only options are general law – with all the cost, delay, and enforcement uncertainty that implies – or, where the name is also registered in an ICANN zone, a UDRP complaint covering the ICANN version of the name.

For buyers, the due-diligence problem is distinct. You are about to pay five figures for a blockchain domain name and you cannot verify chain of title with the same tools available for an ICANN domain. There is no WHOIS or RDAP record in the conventional sense. There is no UDRP dispute history to search. A prior claim by a trademark owner may exist and may never have been asserted simply because there was no available forum – not because the claim lacks merit. Acquiring a blockchain domain that corresponds to a registered mark is acquiring exposure to general-law proceedings with no dispute-procedure ceiling on cost or duration.

Blockchain domain names also fall outside the DNS Abuse Amendments that took effect on April 5, 2024, which impose mitigation duties on ICANN registrars and registries. Those obligations apply to contracted parties only. A blockchain naming service is not a contracted party and is not subject to any ICANN-imposed duty to act on abuse reports.

What should brand owners and buyers do now?

Three steps reflect the current state of the law as of October 16, 2026.

First, audit your brand's presence in blockchain naming systems as part of any broader brand protection monitoring program. Tools for searching ENS and comparable services are publicly available. The audit should feed into the same register that tracks your ICANN-zone monitoring, because a conflict is easier to manage – and to litigate – when discovered early.

Second, if you are acquiring a blockchain domain as part of a transaction, conduct domain due diligence that specifically addresses the absence of UDRP dispute history and the chain-of-custody limitations of blockchain records. A conventional WHOIS search and a UDRP history check are necessary but not sufficient. The due-diligence brief needs to extend to trademark clearance in the relevant classes and jurisdictions, because that is the only record that will matter if a general-law claim is brought later.

Third, if your mark is already replicated in a blockchain naming system by a third party, preserve the evidence file now: block explorer records, creation timestamps, screenshots, and the trademark registration certificate. That record is the foundation of any claim under general law, and delay in building it creates an avoidable evidential gap.

One development to monitor – as of October 16, 2026, verify the current position – is whether ICANN or any of the approved UDRP providers formally extends or adapts the dispute procedure to address blockchain-registered names. No such proposal has been adopted. The UDRP Policy Review report published on December 2, 2025 did not recommend extending the UDRP to blockchain domains. Any future development in this space remains a matter to watch, not a remedy to rely on.

For a read on how blockchain domains affect your brand-protection posture or a specific transaction, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

COGNOMEN is an independent boutique focused exclusively on domain-name disputes. We recover, defend, and transact internet domains across generic and country-code zones, before WIPO, the Forum, CAC, ADNDRC, and national procedures, and in court where arbitration cannot reach. We act for brand owners, domain investors, and registrants – including respondent-side defense and reverse domain name hijacking. We handle domain due diligence and brand protection monitoring as part of transaction support, including the specific chain-of-title questions that blockchain-based names raise. COGNOMEN focuses only on domain-name disputes – recovery, defense, and transactions. To discuss a domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• transactions – domain acquisition, due diligence, and brand protection services
• Reporting DNS abuse: what a registrar must and must not do – how ICANN's 2024 abuse rules apply to contracted parties
• alert recover lapsed domain in – steps to recover a lapsed or expired domain registration

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.