How to check eligibility to recover a .us domain

A third party registers the .us domain that matches your brand, your personal name, or your established trade identity. It redirects traffic, hosts competing content, or simply sits dormant while the registrant waits for an offer. You need it back. The first question is whether you qualify to bring a claim – and under the usDRP, eligibility is not automatic.

To check eligibility to recover a .us domain, you must satisfy the usDRP's three-part test: the domain must be identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which you have rights; the registrant must lack rights or legitimate interests; and the domain must have been registered or used in bad faith. Critically, the .us zone also imposes a US-nexus requirement – only holders of US trademarks, US persons, or US-organized entities typically qualify to hold .us registrations – which shapes both the complainant's standing and the respondent's exposure. The filing fee and timeline are comparable to a standard UDRP proceeding, though the governing rules are distinct.

This page covers the eligibility test, how it differs from the UDRP, what evidence decides the outcome, and the realistic next step for a brand owner or rights holder ready to act.

What is the usDRP and why does it govern .us disputes?

The usDRP – the .us Domain Dispute Resolution Policy – is the dedicated dispute procedure for the .us country-code zone. It is administered by the National Arbitration Forum (the Forum), the same provider that handles a large volume of standard UDRP complaints. Unlike the generic top-level domain (.com, .net, .org) model where the UDRP applies by virtue of the registrar's accreditation agreement, the usDRP applies because the .us registry – operated under contract with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration – has incorporated it into the zone's registration agreement. That distinction matters in practice. You cannot file a standard UDRP complaint to recover a .us domain; the governing rules are the usDRP, not the Policy.

The usDRP tracks the UDRP's three-element structure closely, but the text is not identical. The bad-faith limb reads differently in certain respects, the US-nexus eligibility requirement adds a layer of standing analysis, and the safe-harbor provisions have their own wording. A complaint drafted for a .com dispute will not map cleanly onto a .us case without adjustment.

For brand owners holding US trademark registrations, the usDRP is generally accessible and the standing question is straightforward. For complainants relying on foreign trademark rights, the analysis is more fact-intensive: the policy ties the registrant's eligibility to hold .us to a US-nexus requirement, and a complainant must also be able to articulate rights that are cognizable under the policy's language, which references trademark and service mark rights without explicitly limiting them to US registrations. We regularly advise rights holders on how to structure that standing argument before a complaint is filed.

How to check eligibility to recover a .us domain: the three-part test

Eligibility to file a usDRP complaint turns on the same three elements a complainant must prove under the standard UDRP, adapted for the .us zone. All three must be satisfied. A strong position on two will not save a case where the third is absent.

Element one – confusing similarity. The domain must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. Panels assess similarity visually and phonetically, comparing the alphanumeric string of the domain (excluding the .us extension) to the mark. A common word mark in a crowded field can still satisfy this element if the domain replicates it; the harder questions arise under elements two and three.

Element two – no legitimate interest. The complainant bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the registrant to produce evidence of a legitimate interest: a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute; a demonstration that it is commonly known by the name; or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent to mislead. Where the registrant defaults – as often happens in .us cases involving parking pages or redirect schemes – panels will typically infer the absence of legitimate interest from the complainant's prima facie showing.

Element three – bad faith. The usDRP's bad-faith element covers both registration and use, and its enumerated circumstances broadly parallel those in Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP: registration to sell to the mark owner at a profit, registration to disrupt a competitor's business, and the use of the domain to attract users for commercial gain by creating confusion with the complainant's mark. Panels have also applied the concept of passive holding – where a registrant does nothing with a domain but the circumstances of registration and the registrant's profile make bad faith the only plausible inference – to .us cases, consistent with the consensus approach under the UDRP. We have assessed passive-holding arguments in multiple .us matters and find that the strength of that argument tracks the strength of the complainant's mark and the registrant's apparent awareness of it at the time of registration.

For a preliminary read on whether these three elements are met for your .us domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

What is the US-nexus requirement and does it affect your eligibility?

The .us zone is a chartered ccTLD – it exists to serve the United States. That purpose is reflected in a nexus requirement that applies not to complainants but to registrants: to hold a .us registration, a registrant must be a US citizen, a permanent resident, a US-organized entity, or a foreign entity with a bona fide presence in the United States. This eligibility restriction gives usDRP complainants an additional angle that is simply unavailable in a .com dispute.

If the respondent is a foreign entity with no US presence – a common profile in opportunistic cybersquatting cases – the registrant may be in breach of the zone's nexus rules independently of whether it satisfies the usDRP bad-faith element. That breach does not automatically win the case, but it is relevant background that a complainant can surface in the evidentiary record. Panels have noted nexus non-compliance as a factor reinforcing a bad-faith inference.

Does the complainant need a US nexus? The usDRP does not impose a standing requirement on complainants that mirrors the registrant nexus rule. A foreign brand owner with no US presence can in principle bring a usDRP complaint if it holds trademark rights cognizable under the policy. In practice, the strength of the case depends on the nature of those rights and whether the panel is persuaded that the domain was targeted at the complainant's mark. We advise international rights holders to document their US-market activities and US-trademark position carefully before filing, because the absence of a US trademark registration – while not disqualifying – creates a gap in the prima facie case that the complainant must fill with other evidence of rights.

How is the usDRP different from the UDRP and when does the difference matter?

The usDRP and the UDRP share the same three-element architecture, but the operational differences are real and, in some cases, outcome-determinative. The most important: the applicable policy instrument is the usDRP, the governing forum is the Forum, and the applicable supplemental rules are the Forum's .us Supplemental Rules rather than the WIPO or Forum UDRP supplemental rules. A practitioner who files the complaint form, or drafts the brief, as if the case were a .com dispute risks procedural defects and substantive gaps.

The bad-faith analysis under the usDRP is written to encompass "registration or use" in specified circumstances, a construction that, depending on how the panel reads it, can lower the cumulative burden in cases where registration was arguably innocent but subsequent use crossed into bad faith. Panels have not uniformly resolved this interpretive question, and the minority view – that bad faith must inhere in both the registration and the use, consistent with the stricter UDRP reading – occasionally appears in usDRP decisions. A complainant whose strongest evidence relates to post-registration conduct should address this interpretive split directly.

The Forum also administers a substantial volume of .us cases, which means the body of precedent is accessible and reasonably developed, though thinner than the tens of thousands of WIPO UDRP decisions that a .com practitioner can draw upon. In our practice, we treat each usDRP brief as a self-contained evidentiary argument rather than a recitation of consensus positions; the panel's decision will turn on the specific facts, and the .us record cannot simply be assumed to track the .com consensus.

One further distinction: the usDRP, like the UDRP, provides for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) where a complainant brings the complaint in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant. For registrants who hold a .us domain in good faith and face an abusive complaint – filed by a complainant with no cognizable rights or with awareness that the case cannot succeed – the RDNH finding is the appropriate response and we are prepared to pursue it.

To weigh the usDRP against a US court action for your specific .us matter, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

What evidence decides the outcome of a usDRP case?

Evidence is where usDRP cases are won or lost. A legally correct complaint that is evidentially thin will fail. Panels decide on the written record alone; there is no hearing, no cross-examination, and no second chance to plug an evidentiary gap after the response is filed.

For the complainant, the core evidentiary package covers four areas. First, proof of trademark rights: USPTO registration certificates are optimal; common-law rights can be demonstrated through sales figures, advertising spend, press coverage, and years of continuous use, but require more supporting material. Second, similarity analysis: a clear comparison of the domain string to the mark, noting any additions (hyphens, descriptive words, typo variants) and their effect on confusion. Third, lack of legitimate interest: WHOIS data, website screenshots, parking-page evidence, and any communications from the registrant. Fourth, bad faith: evidence of the registrant's awareness of the mark, the timing of registration relative to the complainant's use, the registrant's registration pattern across other domains, and any demands made for payment.

For the respondent, the evidentiary focus is the opposite: demonstrating that the domain was registered and has been used in connection with a genuine offering before the complainant made contact; that the registrant is commonly known by the name; or that the complainant's mark rights are weak, contested, or post-date the registration. In a spring 2025 matter involving a .us domain challenged by a regional retailer, we built a legitimate-interest record around the registrant's pre-dispute use and documented the complainant's post-registration trademark filing, which defeated the transfer claim entirely.

Documentation of the nexus requirement – the registrant's US presence or status – can also bear on the bad-faith inference. A registrant who cannot demonstrate any US connection, and who registered a domain that precisely replicates a US-registered mark, faces a harder case on the bad-faith element than a registrant with a verifiable US business history.

What are the process and timeline for a usDRP complaint?

A usDRP complaint follows five stages: preparation and filing with the Forum, administrative compliance review, commencement and service on the respondent, the response period, panel appointment, and decision. The respondent has 20 days to file a response after commencement. If no response is filed, the panel proceeds on the complainant's record alone – a default outcome common in .us cases involving overseas registrants with no genuine defense.

The total timeline from filing to decision is typically comparable to a standard UDRP case – roughly six to eight weeks in uncontested matters, longer where procedural complications arise. Filing fees at the Forum for .us cases are in the range of the Forum's standard rates for UDRP matters; the current published figure for a single-member panel with one to two domains is approximately USD 1,300 for the analogous UDRP rate, and .us rates are comparable. Legal fees for preparation of the complaint and supporting evidence are separate and depend on the complexity of the case.

Remedies under the usDRP are limited to transfer or cancellation of the domain – no monetary damages, no costs award. If cancellation is ordered, the domain returns to the registry's available pool. If transfer is ordered, it passes to the complainant, who must satisfy the zone's nexus requirement to hold it. That point is occasionally overlooked: a foreign complainant who wins a usDRP transfer must either establish US-nexus eligibility or appoint a qualifying trustee to hold the registration.

In an autumn 2024 matter, we filed a usDRP complaint on behalf of a US-registered trademark holder against a registrant who had parked the domain on a pay-per-click page targeting the client's industry. The case proceeded to a single-member panel, no response was filed, and a transfer order was issued within approximately seven weeks of the original filing.

How does .us dispute resolution compare to other zones and routes?

The choice of route depends on the zone and the remedy you need. If the infringing domain is a .com, the UDRP at WIPO or the Forum is the standard path; a WIPO single-member panel filing fee starts at USD 1,500 for up to five domains. If the domain is a .us, the usDRP at the Forum is the governing procedure. If the domain is a new gTLD (.shop, .store, .online, and others), the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) is available for a faster, lower-cost suspension – though it does not transfer ownership, only suspends the domain for the registration term.

If the registrant holds matching domains across both .com and .us, the two disputes may proceed in parallel before different forums under different policies. Coordination of evidence and timing matters: a finding against the registrant in the .com UDRP can be introduced as relevant context in the .us proceeding, though the panel is not bound by it. We regularly manage parallel proceedings and structure both filings to maximize the evidentiary record in each.

When is US court action the better route? Where the complainant needs monetary damages, where the registrant has engaged in persistent multi-domain abuse that requires an injunction, or where the usDRP's limitation to transfer or cancellation is insufficient for the situation, US anticybersquatting litigation – handled with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction – is the alternative. Court proceedings are substantially more time-consuming and costly than usDRP; the decision to litigate should follow a careful assessment of the evidentiary record and the scale of harm.

For rights holders with multi-domain disputes spanning several zones, the routing question becomes a matter of strategy across forums. The ccTLD layer – the country-code zones – requires separate analysis for each zone's rules.

What are the common reasons a .us recovery claim fails?

Understanding the failure modes is as important as knowing the elements. The most frequent cause of a failed usDRP complaint is a gap in the bad-faith evidence: the complainant demonstrates similarity and the registrant's absence of a plausible legitimate interest, but cannot show that the registrant was aware of the mark at the time of registration. Where the mark is weak, newly registered, or not US-based, that gap is hard to close.

A second common failure: the complainant's trademark rights post-date the domain's registration. Under the UDRP and the usDRP alike, a complainant cannot ordinarily succeed if the registrant registered the domain before the complainant's mark came into existence, absent evidence that the registrant was specifically targeting a mark it anticipated. Pre-registration due diligence – checking the WHOIS creation date against the complainant's trademark filing and first-use dates – is an essential step before any complaint is filed.

A third failure mode is the complaint filed against a registrant with a genuine legitimate interest: a person or business commonly known by the disputed name, a registrant using the domain for a demonstrable business purpose predating the dispute, or a registrant who holds a competing trademark. These cases may result not only in a dismissed complaint but in an RDNH finding that is published and carries reputational consequences for the complainant.

The myth that any domain matching a trademark can be recovered is the single most common misunderstanding we encounter at the intake stage. The usDRP, like the UDRP, is not a trademark priority system; it is a narrow remedy for abusive registrations. A registrant with genuine prior rights, or with a plausible non-infringing use, is entitled to keep the domain. We assess both the complainant's position and the respondent's plausible defenses before advising on whether to file.

Related at COGNOMEN

• ccTLD dispute resolution services – all zones and national procedures
• French .fr domain dispute procedure – SYRELI and PARL EXPERT explained
• Guide to recovering multiple domains across zones simultaneously

Author: Gabriel Tennison — ccTLD and European procedures (.uk, .eu, .de). Meet the team.

Speak with Cognomen Law

For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter

Domain in disputeYour sideI want to recover a nameI received a complaint — I need a defensePortfolio / brand protectionWhat happenedEmailI agree to the processing of my enquiry as described in the privacy policy.Assess my case

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.