How to resolve a .us domain dispute under the national procedure
How to resolve a .us domain dispute under the national procedure. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .us. Email the firm to assess your case.
A .us domain carrying your brand has been registered by someone with no connection to your business. Or you hold a .us name you registered in good faith and a competitor has just filed against you. Either way, the path forward runs through a distinct national procedure – the usDRP – that most practitioners conflate with the UDRP but that carries its own eligibility rules, its own three-element test, and its own drafting traps.
To resolve a .us domain dispute under the national procedure, a complainant must satisfy all three elements of the usDRP: confusing similarity to a mark in which the complainant has rights; no rights or legitimate interests in the domain by the registrant; and registration or use of the domain in bad faith. The procedure is administered by the National Arbitration Forum (the Forum) as the sole approved provider. Filing fees are modest – beginning around USD 300–700 for a standard single-panel case – and a decision typically arrives within roughly two months of commencement.
This page covers the governing rules, the eligibility conditions unique to .us, the evidence that decides outcomes, and what a complainant or respondent should do next.
What is the usDRP and how does it differ from the UDRP?
The usDRP – the .us Dispute Resolution Policy – is the national procedure governing disputes over .us domain names. It was introduced by NeuStar (now GoDaddy Registry) as the .us registry operator and is the mandatory dispute-resolution mechanism embedded in every .us registrar agreement. It runs parallel to, but is not identical with, the UDRP. Knowing the differences is essential before filing.
The most consequential difference sits in the bad-faith limb. Under the standard UDRP, bad faith must be shown cumulatively: the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. The usDRP tracks that same cumulative standard in the formal test, so complainants who rely on post-registration use alone, without registering bad-faith intent, will face the same vulnerability as under the UDRP. That said, the usDRP's illustrative bad-faith factors and the eligibility conditions that accompany it create a distinct fact-pattern landscape – particularly around .us nexus requirements.
A second difference is provider exclusivity. Unlike the UDRP, where complainants may choose among WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC, .us disputes must be filed with the Forum. There is no forum-shopping in .us.
Third – and critically for complainants – the usDRP includes a nexus requirement. A registrant of a .us domain must maintain a bona fide US nexus: US citizenship, permanent residency, entity incorporation, or a regular place of business in the United States. Where a respondent holds a .us domain but lacks any US nexus, that fact can buttress a bad-faith argument and may independently give rise to a separate registry enforcement action – a distinct route from the usDRP itself.
In our practice advising both complainants and respondents in ccTLD disputes, we regularly see parties underestimate this nexus dimension. It can cut both ways: a US-nexus deficiency can hurt a respondent's credibility, but a complainant who also lacks a US connection must ensure its own standing is solid before filing.
To assess whether the three usDRP elements are met in your .us matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
Who can file and what rights qualify under the usDRP?
Any person or entity with rights in a mark that is confusingly similar to a .us domain may file a usDRP complaint. Rights under the usDRP are not confined to registered trademarks. Unregistered or common-law rights in a name or mark can qualify, provided the complainant can demonstrate that the mark was in use and had acquired sufficient distinctiveness before the domain registration at issue.
What does "confusingly similar" require? It requires showing that the domain, compared to the mark, creates a likelihood of confusion. Panels under the usDRP (as under the UDRP) assess this at the string level: the domain string is compared to the mark, ignoring the .us extension itself, and common additions such as descriptors, hyphens, or misspellings are weighed for whether they dispel confusion. They rarely do.
Complainants who hold a US trademark registration carry a clear evidentiary advantage. A certificate of registration from the US Patent and Trademark Office establishes both the mark and the date of rights acquisition – simplifying the first-element showing considerably. A complainant relying on common-law rights must assemble evidence of use in commerce: marketing materials, sales records, press coverage, and proof of the geographic scope and duration of use.
Respondents, in turn, should assess their own rights early. Do you operate under this name? Do you have a trademark filing of your own? Have you used the domain for a bona fide offering before you received notice of the dispute? These are the exact safe-harbor questions the usDRP's second-element analysis turns on.
What are the three usDRP elements and what evidence decides each one?
The complainant bears the burden of proving all three elements on a balance of probabilities. Understanding what each demands – and where defenses arise – is the practical core of any usDRP matter.
Element one: confusing similarity. This is the threshold showing. The complainant submits evidence of trademark rights and demonstrates string-level similarity. Misspellings, prefix or suffix additions, and phonetic substitutions typically do not overcome similarity. What matters is whether an ordinary internet user would associate the domain with the mark.
Element two: no rights or legitimate interests. The complainant need only make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights. The burden then effectively shifts to the respondent to produce evidence of legitimate interest. The three principal safe harbors – a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice; being commonly known by the domain name; and legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent to mislead – map directly from the UDRP's Paragraph 4(c). A respondent who can point to any of these, with contemporaneous evidence, can defeat this element.
Element three: bad faith in registration and use. This is where most .us disputes are won or lost. The usDRP lists non-exhaustive bad-faith factors: registration to sell to the mark owner at a profit; registration to disrupt a competitor's business; intentional attraction of users for commercial gain by creating confusion; and a pattern of such conduct. Each maps a fact scenario. A domain parked with pay-per-click advertising using the complainant's brand terms is a near-textbook element-three case. A domain held passively, with no active use, can also be found to constitute bad faith where the registrant has no plausible legitimate purpose – the passive-holding doctrine applies in .us as it does under the UDRP.
In a recent matter (a .us typosquat targeting a mid-size US professional services firm, spring 2025), we assembled a bad-faith record built around pay-per-click monetization, a prior UDRP loss by the same registrant involving a similar pattern, and evidence that the registrant had no US nexus. The panel transferred the domain. None of those three elements was contested seriously in isolation; it was their combination, documented precisely, that made the file strong.
How does the usDRP process work from filing to decision?
The usDRP procedure follows a five-stage sequence: complaint → commencement → response → panel appointment → decision and implementation. The Forum administers each stage. Timeline is set by the usDRP Rules, not by the parties.
The complaint is filed with the Forum. The Forum reviews it for formal compliance and, once accepted, serves notice on the registrant. The registrant then has 20 days to file a response. If no response is filed, the panel proceeds on the complaint alone – a default does not mean automatic transfer, but an undisputed factual record heavily favors the complainant.
After the response period, the Forum appoints a one- or three-member panel depending on what was requested and whether the parties agree. Panel appointment and deliberation add further time. A standard case typically reaches a decision within approximately two months of the complaint being filed, absent procedural detours such as supplemental submissions or settlement suspension.
The only remedies available under the usDRP are transfer or cancellation of the domain. No monetary damages. No costs order. A cancellation remedy disposes of the domain without awarding it to the complainant – useful where the complainant's own eligibility to hold .us is uncertain. Transfer is the typical remedy sought.
Implementation falls to the registrar. Once the decision issues and the lockout period passes without a court challenge, the registrar executes the instruction. A respondent who wishes to challenge the panel's decision must seek court relief before that window closes.
For a read on whether the usDRP elements are met in your case, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.
How does the usDRP compare to filing a UDRP complaint over the same brand?
Brand owners whose names are registered as both a .com and a .us face a practical choice. The two procedures are related but distinct. Getting that choice right matters for efficiency and for risk.
If the target is a .com, the UDRP applies – filed at WIPO (filing fee USD 1,500 for a single-member panel, one to five domains), the Forum, CAC, or ADNDRC. If the target is a .us, the usDRP applies – filed exclusively at the Forum. If both are held by the same registrant, two separate filings are necessary; a single UDRP complaint cannot extend to a .us domain, and a usDRP complaint does not reach gTLDs.
Where should you file first? In our experience, running the two proceedings concurrently is efficient when the factual record is the same for both: the same respondent, the same bad-faith pattern, the same mark. The evidence assembled for the UDRP complaint can be adapted for the usDRP filing with relatively limited additional work.
If the dispute involves only a .us domain and the brand owner holds US trademark rights, the usDRP is the right first route. Filing fees are lower than WIPO's standard rate; the procedure is fast; and the sole-provider structure means no forum choice is required. The trade-off is that the Forum is the only decision-maker in .us – you cannot migrate to WIPO if you prefer their panelist pool.
A second scenario worth addressing: what if the registrant operates the .us domain from outside the US and has no nexus? Here the usDRP argument is compounded by the nexus violation, but the usDRP panel cannot itself revoke the registration on nexus grounds alone. If the registry takes independent enforcement action on the nexus point, that is a separate administrative process running alongside the dispute. We have coordinated both tracks simultaneously in matters involving foreign registrants with no discernible US connection.
For disputes where arbitration is insufficient – where the registrant is judgment-proof in arbitration, where damages are sought, or where the domain was obtained through fraud – US anticybersquatting litigation, pursued with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction, is the alternative. That route allows monetary recovery and is available in US federal courts, but it is substantially more costly and slower than the usDRP. The two routes are not mutually exclusive; filing a usDRP complaint does not preclude a later court action, and a court action does not bar a usDRP complaint filed before it.
What does a respondent need to know about defending a .us dispute?
If you hold a .us domain and have been served with a usDRP complaint, the 20-day response window starts running from the date of commencement notice. Missing it eliminates your ability to put evidence before the panel. Defaulting does not guarantee a transfer order, but it is a serious procedural disadvantage.
The first question to answer is whether you have a legitimate-interest defense. Did you register the domain to offer genuine goods or services? Were you commonly known by this name before the dispute? Is your use noncommercial and not designed to mislead? If the answer to any of these is yes, the second element is contestable – and contestable on the facts.
The second question is whether the complaint is overreaching. We have defended respondents in usDRP proceedings where the complainant held a mark that was purely descriptive, where the complainant's rights post-dated the registrant's domain registration, and where the claimed confusion was speculative rather than demonstrated. In a matter from winter 2025 involving a .us name held by a small regional operator, we successfully defended the transfer claim and secured an RDNH finding – a panel determination that the complaint was brought in bad faith to dispossess a legitimate registrant. RDNH findings carry no monetary sanction, but they are on the public record and they signal the complainant's conduct to future panels.
What makes an RDNH argument viable in a .us matter? The complainant must have known, or should have known, that it could not succeed: because the mark is clearly generic, because the respondent's registration predates the claimed rights, or because the complaint was filed as a pressure tactic. Where that threshold is met, pressing the RDNH argument in the response is worthwhile.
Respondents should also assess their US nexus proactively. If you are a foreign national or entity holding .us domains, documenting your nexus basis – a US business address, an entity incorporated in a US state, a US citizen owner – is advisable both in the dispute context and as a general registration hygiene matter.
What practical steps should you take now to resolve a .us domain dispute?
The answer depends on which side of the dispute you are on. Both paths require acting promptly.
For a complainant, the practical sequence is: assemble evidence of trademark rights (registration certificates, evidence of use, earliest-use dates); collect evidence of the domain's current use or non-use (screenshots of the live page, WHOIS/RDDS records, evidence of monetization or confusion); assess the registrant's US nexus; identify whether the same registrant holds a .com or other gTLD version of the same string (which may allow concurrent UDRP proceedings); and file the usDRP complaint with the Forum.
For a respondent, the sequence is: preserve all evidence of your legitimate use of the name (business records, correspondence, earlier-dated website captures, trademark filings, invoices); document your US nexus; review the complaint carefully against the three elements; and file a substantive response within the 20-day window.
Do not wait for the other side to act first. Complainants who delay while a registrant continues to monetize a domain lose both time and leverage. Respondents who fail to respond within 20 days lose their voice in the proceeding entirely.
COGNOMEN handles the full scope of .us disputes – usDRP complaints, respondent defense, RDNH arguments, and coordination with concurrent UDRP proceedings or US court actions where the matter requires it. We assess the three elements, assemble the evidentiary record, and file with the Forum. For respondents, we build the legitimate-interest record and, where the complaint is abusive, pursue the RDNH finding.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions about resolving a .us domain dispute under the national procedure
How long does it take to resolve a .us domain dispute under the national procedure?
A standard usDRP case typically reaches a decision within approximately two months of filing, assuming a single-member panel and no significant procedural detours. The respondent has 20 days from commencement to file a response. Settlement, supplemental submissions, or a three-member panel request will each add time. There is no WIPO expedited option in .us – the Forum is the sole provider and runs the process on its published schedule.
What does it cost to resolve a .us domain dispute under the national procedure at usDRP?
The Forum's filing fees for .us disputes are modest – generally in the USD 300–700 range for a standard single-panel case, depending on the number of domains. Legal fees are separate and depend on the complexity of the record and whether the respondent contests the filing. As a reference point, a straightforward UDRP complaint (a closely analogous procedure) typically attracts legal fees in the USD 3,000–7,000 range in the market; usDRP matters are broadly comparable for simple cases. Verify current Forum fees directly, as schedule updates occur.
Do I need a lawyer to resolve a .us domain dispute under the national procedure?
Representation is not mandatory under the usDRP rules. Parties may appear pro se. In practice, however, the quality of the evidentiary record – and the precision with which it is mapped to the three elements – materially affects outcomes. Complainants who assemble incomplete bad-faith records, and respondents who produce disorganized legitimate-interest evidence, regularly lose cases that were winnable on the underlying facts. Specialist counsel adds most value in element-three construction (complainants) and response drafting within the 20-day window (respondents).
About COGNOMEN
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. Our practice covers .us, .uk, .eu, .de, and the full range of gTLD zones, and we regularly coordinate concurrent proceedings across multiple zones when a single brand incident requires it. To discuss a .us domain dispute or any other domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
Disclaimer: This article is general information about domain-name dispute procedures and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, the zone, and panel or court discretion. For advice on your domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
Speak with Cognomen Law
For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter
Related
This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.