How to compare UDRP with the .us national procedure

How to compare UDRP with the .us national procedure. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .us. Email the firm to assess your case.

A brand owner discovers that someone has registered the .us version of its trademark. The domain resolves to a pay-per-click page monetizing the brand's own customers. Two procedures can address this situation: the UDRP, which most trademark practitioners know, and the usDRP – the national dispute-resolution procedure that governs .us domains. Choosing incorrectly wastes time and money. Choosing correctly can mean a transfer order within weeks.

To compare UDRP with the .us national procedure, the central fact is this: the usDRP applies exclusively to .us domains, while the UDRP governs gTLDs such as .com, .net, and .org. Both procedures require the complainant to prove confusing similarity to a mark, absence of the registrant's legitimate interest, and registration or use in bad faith – but the usDRP adds a unique eligibility layer that the UDRP does not. A standard usDRP case is typically resolved within approximately two months, mirroring UDRP timelines, at a forum filing fee that is broadly comparable to WIPO's entry rate of USD 1,500 for a single-member panel on one to five domains.

This page sets out the governing rules for each procedure, the eligibility requirements for .us, where the standards diverge, what evidence determines the outcome, and how to decide which path fits your situation.

What Governs .us Domains and Why It Is Not the UDRP

The .us ccTLD operates under the usDRP – the United States Dispute Resolution Policy – which is administered by the National Arbitration Forum (the Forum) as the designated dispute-resolution service provider for .us. The UDRP, adopted by ICANN in 1999, does not extend to .us by default. Some ccTLDs have voluntarily adopted the UDRP or a near-identical variant – .me and .tv are common examples – but .us has its own distinct policy document rooted in the registry agreement between the registry operator and the United States Department of Commerce.

This matters immediately for strategy. A complainant who files a UDRP complaint against a .us domain will have the case dismissed for procedural reasons before the merits are ever considered. The inverse is equally true: a usDRP complaint cannot be filed against a .com. The zone determines the procedure. Full stop.

The usDRP structure will be familiar to practitioners who know the UDRP: a written complaint, a response window, panel appointment, a decision, and registrar implementation. The substantive test, however, carries a modification that changes the evidentiary calculus – and a .us-specific eligibility requirement that has no UDRP counterpart at all.

How the usDRP Eligibility Requirement Changes the Analysis

The .us namespace is a sponsored ccTLD with a nexus requirement: registrants must qualify under one of the enumerated US nexus categories – US citizenship, permanent residency, a US-organized entity, a US-based business presence, or a US-government entity. That requirement applies at registration. It is one of the first checks a panel will consider when a .us registrant's legitimacy is disputed.

For complainants, the eligibility layer is a double-edged sword. On one hand, many abusive .us registrants obtain the domain using facially compliant organizational details that are thin or fabricated; demonstrating that the registrant has no genuine US nexus weakens the respondent's legitimacy case and can reinforce bad-faith findings. On the other hand, a complainant based entirely outside the United States may face a threshold question about whether its mark and dispute meet the framework the registry expects – although the mark-rights test under the usDRP does not require the complainant itself to hold a US trademark, provided a valid trademark right in any jurisdiction exists.

In our practice advising brand owners across both procedures, the eligibility dimension of .us disputes frequently surfaces in the respondent's defense. A registrant who can demonstrate a genuine, documented US nexus – an active business, a verifiable address, a real organization – is in a materially stronger position than one whose registration details are plainly nominal. That distinction shapes how we build the complaint from the outset.

If your brand is infringed across both a .com and a .us domain, you may need parallel filings under two different procedures. For an assessment of your domain dispute, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

The Three-Part Test: Where usDRP and UDRP Align and Where They Diverge

Both the UDRP and the usDRP require the complainant to establish all three substantive elements: (1) the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights; (2) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain; and (3) the domain was registered or is being used in bad faith. The third element is where the two policies diverge in a way that is consequential for evidence strategy.

Under the UDRP – Paragraph 4(a) – the bad-faith requirement is cumulative: the complainant must show the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. A domain registered in bad faith but subsequently parked without active use can still satisfy this test, because panels have recognized passive holding as a form of bad-faith use under the UDRP. But the conjunctive structure means the complainant must address both registration and use.

The usDRP, by contrast, reads the bad-faith limb as registered or used in bad faith – a disjunctive formulation. In practical terms, this is a lower evidentiary bar. A complainant who can demonstrate that the registration itself was opportunistic – even if the domain currently resolves to nothing – has a credible case without needing to prove active abusive use. That single word difference matters when the domain has been defensively parked since day one.

Where do the two procedures fully agree? The Paragraph 4(b) non-exhaustive bad-faith indicators familiar from the UDRP – registration to sell to the mark owner at a profit, a pattern of abusive registrations, intentional attraction of users for commercial gain through confusion – are mirrored in the usDRP. The Paragraph 4(c) safe-harbor defenses – bona fide offering before notice, being commonly known by the name, legitimate noncommercial or fair use – are likewise preserved. Any practitioner who can read a UDRP decision can read a usDRP decision. The formatting is recognizable. The substance carries targeted differences.

How to Compare UDRP with the .us National Procedure: A Decision Matrix

The right procedure depends on the zone, the bad-faith fact pattern, and the outcome you need. Here is how to work through the choice in practice.

If the infringing domain is a .us and you need it transferred, the usDRP is your only arbitral option. There is no UDRP route. The filing goes to the Forum as the designated provider for .us. The forum filing fee for a single-member panel on a .us complaint is broadly comparable to WIPO's entry rate of USD 1,500; consult the Forum's current fee schedule to confirm the precise figure, as it may vary by domain count. A standard case runs approximately two months. Legal fees for a straightforward usDRP complaint fall in market ranges comparable to UDRP work – typically in the USD 3,000 to 7,000 range for a single domain, separate from the forum fee. The only remedies are transfer or cancellation; no monetary damages are available through this arbitral route.

If the infringing domain is a .com – or any other gTLD – the usDRP simply does not apply. You file under the UDRP at WIPO, the Forum, CAC, or ADNDRC. WIPO handles the largest share of UDRP caseload and carries the broadest panel expertise. The Forum is also widely used. CAC offers the lowest entry-level filing cost. Each provider uses the same Policy and Rules; the choice of forum is a tactical decision, not a substantive one.

If the same bad actor holds both a .com and a .us version of your brand name, you face a two-front problem. A single UDRP complaint covers only gTLD domains held by the same registrant. The .us domain requires a separate usDRP filing. Both can run in parallel. We regularly advise brand owners who discover squatted portfolios spanning multiple zones, and in those situations coordinating the two filings – timing the complaints, aligning the evidence record, and managing the response windows – is where strategy adds the most value.

If you need damages in addition to a transfer, neither the UDRP nor the usDRP reaches money. US anticybersquatting litigation in federal court is the only route that combines a transfer remedy with a damages claim. That path is substantially more expensive and slower, but it may be appropriate where the infringement is egregious or where the registrant's identity and assets are traceable. We work with local litigation counsel in the relevant US jurisdiction on court-based domain-recovery actions.

What Evidence Decides a usDRP Outcome?

Panel decisions under the usDRP turn on the same evidence clusters that resolve UDRP cases – with the bad-faith threshold modified as described above. Building a strong record from the outset is not optional; it is the case.

For element one – confusing similarity – the complainant needs proof of trademark rights: a registered mark, a pending application with use evidence, or in appropriate jurisdictions a common-law mark supported by evidence of use and acquired distinctiveness. A .us domain that reproduces a mark verbatim satisfies this element without significant analysis. Typosquats – domains like [brand]shop.us or [brand]-usa.us – require closer argument about the likelihood of user confusion, especially where the registrant has added a generic term.

For element two – absence of legitimate interest – the complainant bears the initial burden of making a prima facie case, after which the burden shifts to the registrant to demonstrate one of the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors. Evidence that the registrant has no trademark rights, no business history under the disputed name, and no plausible explanation for registering it is usually sufficient to establish the prima facie case. Where the registrant defaults and files no response, panels generally accept that showing.

For element three – the disjunctive bad-faith test under usDRP – the most useful evidence is contemporaneous: screenshots of the domain resolving to a pay-per-click page exploiting the brand's keywords; archived WHOIS records showing registration shortly after the complainant's trademark filing or product launch; communications in which the registrant offered to sell the domain at a price exceeding documented out-of-pocket costs; and evidence of a pattern of similar registrations targeting other mark owners. The disjunctive "or" means that even a clean-looking domain – currently redirecting nowhere – can satisfy this element if the circumstances of registration itself are suspicious.

In a recent matter involving a .us domain (spring 2025), we built the case primarily around registration timing: the domain was registered within days of our client's trademark publication, with no prior use and no plausible legitimate purpose. The registrant defaulted. The panel transferred the domain in under seven weeks. No bad-faith use evidence was required beyond the circumstances of registration itself.

Respondent-Side Considerations: Defending a usDRP Complaint

The bofu reader on this page is not always a complainant. Registrants who hold .us domains in good faith face a real risk of losing them to overclaiming brand owners who misread the usDRP standard or who file knowing the registrant has a legitimate interest. The usDRP, like the UDRP, recognizes the concept of reverse domain name hijacking – a finding that the complaint was brought in bad faith to strip a legitimate registrant of a domain it lawfully holds.

A respondent's strongest defenses are the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors: demonstrating that the name was registered before the complainant's trademark rights accrued; that the registrant has been commonly known by the name; or that the use is a genuine noncommercial or fair use, such as a criticism or commentary site. Alongside those defenses, a well-documented US nexus – proof that the registrant genuinely qualifies under the .us eligibility rules – removes a potential weakness the complainant might otherwise exploit.

We have defended .us registrants whose domains were targeted by complainants with thin trademark rights, late filing dates, or exaggerated similarity arguments. In those cases, we build the legitimate-interest record, document good-faith registration, and where warranted, seek an RDNH finding against the complainant.

What is the myth worth addressing directly? Many registrants assume that holding a .us domain for several years creates an automatic defense. It does not. Duration of registration is relevant to whether the registrant built a legitimate use, but passive holding for years can still constitute bad faith if the registration was opportunistic from day one. Time alone is not a safe harbor. The substance of the use – or absence of it – is what panels examine.

If you have received a usDRP complaint and need to assess the strength of the case against you, email info@cognomenlaw.com to discuss your defense options.

URS as an Alternative for New-gTLD Domains: Why It Does Not Reach .us

Brand owners encountering squatted domains across multiple zones sometimes ask whether the URS – the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure for new gTLDs – can be used against a .us domain. It cannot. The URS applies exclusively to new generic top-level domains; it does not govern ccTLDs, including .us. Its remedy is also suspension rather than transfer, and it operates under a higher "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard. For .us domains, the usDRP remains the only available arbitral remedy. If the disputed domain is a new gTLD – such as .shop, .online, or .brand – the URS or UDRP at an appropriate forum is the applicable route, and the choice between those two paths turns on the speed and certainty the complainant needs.

Related at COGNOMEN

• ccTLD dispute services – recovery and defense across national zone procedures worldwide
• Switzerland .ch national dispute procedure – eligibility, process, and evidence
• URS for new gTLDs – rapid suspension procedure, standard, and filing guidance