URS & New gTLD Disputes: a complete guide

URS & New gTLD Disputes: how it works, what it costs, and the realistic outcomes. UDRP, ccTLD and court routes. Email the firm to assess your domain.

A brand owner searches its own name and finds it registered as a .lawyer, a .shop, or a .tech — pointing to a pay-per-click parking page. Or a domain investor receives a suspension notice for a string it registered years before the complainant's trademark was ever filed. Both situations fall inside the same expanding universe: disputes over new generic top-level domains (new gTLDs), where the Uniform Rapid Suspension system (URS) and the UDRP coexist, and where the right route depends on what you want, how fast you need it, and what evidence you hold.

The URS is a fast, low-cost suspension remedy created specifically for new gTLDs, requiring clear and convincing evidence of all three UDRP elements and producing a suspension — not a transfer — of the domain for the remainder of its registration term. For transfer, or when a complainant faces a more complex fact pattern, the full UDRP remains available at WIPO, the Forum, CAC, or ADNDRC. The choice between these routes, and the option of court action where neither reaches, is the central decision this guide addresses.

This pillar covers the full practice: the governing rules, the difference between URS and UDRP, the evidentiary standards, the cost structure, cross-zone considerations, the respondent's perspective, and a directory of sub-scenarios with links to deeper resources.

What does "URS & New gTLD Disputes" cover — and who needs it?

This practice covers disputes over domain names registered in the new gTLD program launched by ICANN beginning in 2013. That program released over one thousand new top-level domain strings — .app, .bank, .blog, .clinic, .design, .finance, .law, .shop, .tech, .xyz, and hundreds more — vastly expanding the namespace beyond the legacy .com, .net, and .org zones. Every one of those new gTLDs is subject to ICANN's rights-protection mechanisms, most importantly the URS and the UDRP. Some are also subject to additional launch-phase protections: Sunrise registrations, Trademark Claims notices, and, for a small number of restricted strings, Registry Access Agreements that introduce eligibility gatekeeping.

Who needs this practice? Three distinct audiences come to us with new gTLD disputes. Brand owners — corporations, financial institutions, healthcare providers, luxury goods companies — discover that their marks, or close variants, are registered in new gTLD strings by parties with no evident connection to the name. Domain investors and registrants — individuals and businesses that registered new gTLD strings in good faith, often before any trademark priority filing — receive URS suspension notices or UDRP complaints and need a credible defense. A third group, smaller but growing, includes applicants who participated in the new gTLD program itself and encountered objections during the application process or subsequent launch phases. As of the writing of this guide, a second major wave of new gTLDs is in preparation, making this practice more active today than at any point since 2014.

A practical note on scope: the URS applies only to new gTLDs. It does not apply to .com, .net, .org, or legacy country-code domains. If your dispute involves a .com or a ccTLD, the UDRP or the relevant national procedure is the path, as described in the route-selection section below. Within new gTLDs, both URS and UDRP are available, and the choice between them is one of the two most consequential decisions a brand owner makes at the outset of a dispute.

What is the URS — and how does it differ from the UDRP?

The Uniform Rapid Suspension system is a suspension-only remedy designed to remove the most clear-cut cybersquatting in new gTLDs faster and at lower cost than a full UDRP proceeding. It applies the same three-element test as the UDRP — identical or confusingly similar to a mark, no legitimate interest, registered and used in bad faith — but requires the complainant to meet a higher evidentiary standard: clear and convincing evidence, not merely the preponderance that governs most UDRP panels.

The practical consequences of that difference are significant. A URS complaint that cannot demonstrate an unmistakably abusive registration — one where the respondent has a colorable legitimate interest, or where bad faith is inferential rather than documented — is likely to fail. In our practice, we advise brand owners to treat the URS as the tool for the unambiguous case: a deliberate misspelling pointing to a phishing page, a wholesale copy of a well-known mark in a directly competing string, a pattern of serial registrations by a known bad actor. Arguable cases belong in the UDRP, where the standard is lower and the panel has more room to weigh the evidence.

The remedies differ as starkly as the standards. A successful URS complaint results in the domain being suspended — it resolves to a neutral landing page for the remainder of the registration term. The domain is not transferred to the complainant. If the complainant wants ownership, it must either wait for the registration to expire and then pre-register, or bring a separate UDRP or court action seeking transfer. This distinction matters enormously in practice. A brand owner who wins a URS suspension of an infringing .shop domain does not own that domain; it simply goes dark for the period remaining on the registration.

The UDRP, by contrast, offers transfer or cancellation. Cancellation is rarely sought — most complainants want the domain pointed at their own servers. Transfer is the standard remedy, and it is permanent: the domain enters the complainant's registrar account on completion. For most brand owners with a genuine interest in operating the domain, the UDRP is therefore the primary tool even in new gTLD disputes, despite its higher cost and longer timeline.

There is one procedural advantage the URS retains even for sophisticated complainants: speed. A URS determination is typically delivered much faster than a full UDRP decision, making it useful where the infringing use is causing active consumer harm — redirected traffic, phishing, false affiliation — and speed matters more than permanence.

For a read on whether the three UDRP elements or the URS clear-and-convincing standard is met for your domain, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the three-element test apply in new gTLD disputes?

The legal test under both URS and UDRP requires all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP to be satisfied, though the way those elements play out in new gTLD disputes has a texture that differs from classic .com cybersquatting cases.

Element one — confusing similarity. This element is typically the easiest for a brand owner to establish. If the domain string incorporates the mark verbatim, with only the new gTLD suffix appended, panels consistently treat that as confusingly similar. The gTLD itself is ordinarily disregarded for comparison purposes. The analysis becomes more nuanced when the domain adds a descriptive term — "brand-shop.tech", "brandlawyer.com" — or when the mark is a relatively short or common word with multiple senior users. In new gTLD disputes, the string (the top-level portion after the dot) can itself carry meaning that amplifies confusion: a mark registered as "[brand].law" in the hands of a non-lawyer party presents a stronger confusion argument than the same mark in "[brand].xyz".

Element two — no legitimate interest. Under Paragraph 4(c), a registrant may demonstrate legitimate interest through a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute, a showing that it is commonly known by the name, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent to mislead. In new gTLD disputes, we have defended clients — domain investors and small businesses — on the third limb, where the domain was registered as a descriptive term or a common dictionary word that the complainant's trademark registration does not monopolize. The key is documentation: prior use, business planning records, and evidence of the registration's purpose established before any dispute letter arrived.

Element three — bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) lists four non-exhaustive circumstances of bad faith, including registration primarily to sell to the mark owner at a profit above out-of-pocket costs, registration to disrupt a competitor, and registration to attract users for commercial gain by confusion. In new gTLD disputes, the most commonly argued bad-faith ground is the confusion-for-commercial-gain factor: a domain pointing to a pay-per-click page that monetizes traffic from brand-confused visitors. Passive holding — owning a domain with no active website — can also support a bad-faith finding where the mark is well-known and no plausible legitimate use is apparent, though panels apply that reasoning more carefully when the registrant can show a prior business purpose.

The cumulative nature of element three is worth emphasizing: the UDRP requires registration and use in bad faith. A domain registered innocently — before the complainant's mark became distinctive, for example — may not satisfy this element even if the current use looks problematic. That distinction is the single most commonly misapplied point in new gTLD disputes, and it is where respondent defenses frequently succeed.

Which route fits your dispute — URS, UDRP, national procedure, or court?

The right route depends on the zone, the remedy you need, the strength of your evidence, and how quickly you need resolution. This is the decision spine of the whole practice.

If the domain is a new gTLD and the abuse is unmistakable — a verbatim mark in a directly competing string, active phishing or fraud, a known serial cybersquatter — the URS is the fastest path to stopping the harm. It does not transfer the domain, but it suspends it quickly, at a lower official fee than the UDRP. If you want the domain for your own use, you will need a UDRP or court action regardless; the URS buys time and removes the immediate harm while that longer process is prepared.

If the domain is a new gTLD and you want transfer, the UDRP is the primary vehicle. You may bring it at WIPO, the Forum, CAC, or ADNDRC. WIPO and the Forum together handle the great majority of UDRP proceedings. The WIPO filing fee starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains; the Forum's entry point is approximately USD 1,300 for one or two domains. Legal fees for a straightforward single-domain UDRP complaint typically run in the USD 3,000–7,000 range, separate from the forum filing fee. A standard UDRP case is normally completed within approximately two months.

If the domain is a .com, .net, .org, or another legacy gTLD, the URS is unavailable. The UDRP is the arbitral route. If the dispute involves a national ccTLD, the governing procedure is the one operated by or delegated to that registry: Nominet DRS for .uk, the EURid ADR process for .eu, German court proceedings (with a DENIC DISPUTE entry for a transfer block) for .de, and so on for other national zones. Each carries its own evidentiary test, timeline, and fee structure; the applicable rules should be confirmed with counsel for any ccTLD not listed here.

When does court become the right option? Three scenarios. First, where the domain is in a zone — such as .de — that has no dedicated arbitral procedure and the registrant is within litigation reach. Second, where the complainant also wants monetary damages; the UDRP and URS award no money, and a URS finding carries no financial consequence for the respondent beyond losing the use of the domain. Third, where the dispute is genuinely complex — involving competing trademark rights, a good-faith registration predating the complainant's mark, or substantial commercial value — and the looser procedural rules and broader discovery of a court action are preferable. In the United States, anticybersquatting litigation is the court path; outside the US, the applicable national law governs. COGNOMEN handles court coordination with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

A further scenario: the domain is registered in multiple zones simultaneously — the same string appears as a .com, a .shop, and a .tech. A UDRP complaint can cover multiple domains in a single filing only where the respondent is the same holder, which this multi-zone pattern often (though not always) satisfies. A URS complaint, by contrast, is filed per domain. For a portfolio of identical strings held by one registrant, a consolidated UDRP complaint is frequently the most efficient route.

To weigh UDRP against URS or a court action for your specific zone and evidence, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the URS process work from filing to suspension?

A URS complaint proceeds through a structured sequence of stages, each with fixed deadlines that make the timeline shorter than a full UDRP proceeding. Understanding the mechanics matters because the evidentiary record is assembled at the complaint stage — unlike litigation, there is no discovery phase.

The complainant files the complaint with a URS provider. WIPO and the Forum are both accredited URS providers. The complaint must include the complainant's trademark evidence, a clear statement of each of the three elements, and the documentation of the domain's infringing use. The evidentiary bar — clear and convincing — means that the complaint should be self-contained: screenshots of the infringing website, WHOIS/RDDS records showing the registration date relative to the trademark's filing and registration dates, and, where available, evidence of the respondent's prior abusive behavior.

After filing, the provider reviews the complaint for formal deficiencies. If the complaint is formally sufficient, the respondent is notified and given a short window to respond. If the respondent does not respond — a common outcome in the most clear-cut cases — the matter proceeds on the complaint record alone. A URS examiner (not a full three-member panel in the UDRP sense) reviews the record and issues a determination. If the determination finds for the complainant, the registry is directed to suspend the domain: the nameservers are redirected to a neutral notification page, and the domain may not be transferred, deleted, or altered during the suspension period, which runs for the remainder of the registration term.

The respondent has a right to seek a de novo appeal before a three-member panel. The appeal window is short. In practice, appeals in URS proceedings are uncommon in the most clear-cut cases but more frequent where the respondent has a credible legitimate-interest argument that was not fully developed in the initial response. If the examiner found for the respondent and the complaint was denied, the complainant may consider bringing a full UDRP complaint, which is not precluded by a URS denial.

One specific advantage for brand owners who win a URS suspension: if the domain expires during the suspension period and the respondent does not renew, the registry may offer the complainant a right of first refusal to register the domain at standard pricing. This converts a temporary suspension into a permanent acquisition without a separate transfer proceeding. Not all registries implement this option identically; the specific registry's published rules should be reviewed at the outset of any URS strategy.

What evidence decides URS and UDRP outcomes in new gTLD disputes?

Evidence is the decisive variable in new gTLD disputes, across both URS and UDRP. The legal test is fixed; the outcome turns on what the record shows. In our practice, the cases that fail — on both the complainant and respondent side — almost always fail on evidentiary gaps, not on the law.

For complainants, the essential record covers four areas. First, trademark rights: a registered mark is the most straightforward foundation, but panels also recognize unregistered rights where substantial use and reputation are documented. The certificate of registration, the filing date, and the goods/services covered are baseline evidence. Second, the registration date of the domain relative to the mark: the UDRP requires bad faith at the time of registration, so a domain registered before the complainant's mark achieved secondary meaning ordinarily defeats a bad-faith finding. Third, the current use of the domain: screenshots of the website (taken at multiple points to show the pattern, not a single snapshot), WHOIS/RDDS data showing the registrant's identity and registration date, and any communications from the registrant — demand letters, broker approaches, ransom demands — all go into this file. Fourth, any evidence of the registrant's prior pattern of abusive registrations: a respondent who holds dozens of third-party brand strings across multiple gTLDs presents a much stronger bad-faith case than one holding a single domain with a plausible alternative explanation.

For respondents, the record is built around the safe harbors of Paragraph 4(c). Documentary evidence of use or preparations for use before any dispute notice — a business plan, invoices, supplier contracts, early website builds — is the strongest form of legitimate-interest evidence. Evidence that the domain string corresponds to a common dictionary word or descriptive phrase that the complainant's mark does not control is the second major line of defense. Registration timing relative to trademark priority is the third: if the domain was registered before the complainant's trademark was filed or became well-known, the registration-in-bad-faith element fails on its own terms.

In a matter we handled in spring 2025, a registrant of a descriptive .tech domain received a URS complaint from a financial services company claiming the two-word string was confusingly similar to its mark. The complaint failed at the examiner stage because the registrant had documented business planning records predating the dispute notice by over a year, and the string corresponded to a common industry phrase used by multiple market participants. The URS denial did not prevent the complainant from filing a UDRP; it chose not to, likely because the legitimate-interest record would have been equally persuasive before a full panel.

What does URS and new gTLD dispute work cost?

Cost clarity is a starting point for any dispute decision. The total cost of a URS or UDRP proceeding has two components that are always kept separate: the official forum filing fee and the legal fee for preparing and filing the complaint or defense.

URS filing fees are lower than UDRP fees — that cost reduction was one of the system's design objectives — though the current provider schedules should be confirmed at the time of filing, as fee structures are subject to periodic revision. The URS complaint fee is a fraction of the WIPO UDRP rate and reflects the streamlined record and single-examiner determination.

For a UDRP complaint in a new gTLD dispute, the forum filing fees are the same as for any other UDRP proceeding. WIPO charges USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains; a three-member panel costs USD 4,000 for the same domain count. The Forum's entry point is approximately USD 1,300 for a single-member panel on one to two domains. The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) offers the lowest entry point among the four accredited providers, beginning at approximately USD 500–800. ADNDRC fees begin at approximately USD 1,300 for a single-member panel on one to two domains.

Legal fees for the complaint or the defense are separate from forum fees and depend on the complexity of the record, the number of domains, and the forum selected. For a straightforward single-domain UDRP complaint — a clear-cut cybersquatting with a documented trademark and an obvious parking page — legal fees in the market typically run in the USD 3,000–7,000 range. Respondent defense and RDNH work run in a comparable range. Complex multi-domain complaints, those requiring expert evidence of trademark reputation, or those involving competing trademark rights are priced higher and assessed case by case.

No monetary damages are available through URS or UDRP. The forum filing fee and legal fees are borne by the parties; the UDRP makes no costs award. If a complainant brings an abusive complaint and the panel finds reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH), that finding is on the public record and carries reputational consequences — it is not accompanied by a fine or a fee order against the complainant.

For brand owners managing portfolios of new gTLD registrations, the economics of dispute enforcement are worth planning at the portfolio level. A strategy of URS for suspension of clear-cut infringement, combined with selective UDRP filings for domains the brand owner genuinely wants to operate, is usually more efficient than filing UDRP complaints for every infringing registration across every zone. We regularly advise brand-protection teams on how to triage a portfolio of new gTLD threats and sequence the filings accordingly.

What is Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and how does it arise in new gTLD disputes?

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) is a finding by a UDRP panel that the complaint was brought in bad faith, primarily to deprive a legitimate registrant of a domain to which it has a valid right. The finding is made on the record of the existing proceeding; no separate action is required. The consequence is reputational: an RDNH finding appears in the publicly searchable case database and signals to future panels and to the market that the complainant — and in some cases its counsel — abused the dispute process.

RDNH findings arise more frequently in new gTLD disputes than in classic .com cases. Why? Because new gTLD strings were sometimes registered by investors and small businesses well before a complainant's trademark achieved any recognition in a given jurisdiction, and because the broad spectrum of new gTLD strings creates many situations in which a domain that looks like a brand is actually a common descriptive term. A complainant who files a UDRP complaint against a registrant who registered a dictionary-word .shop domain before the complainant's mark was filed, and who ignores that chronology, is a candidate for an RDNH finding.

We regularly defend registrants facing abusive complaints in new gTLD zones. The respondent-side record for RDNH must show, affirmatively, that the registrant had a legitimate interest and that the complainant knew or should have known the complaint would fail. Documenting the registration chronology, the pre-dispute business purpose, and any aggressive pre-complaint demand letters from the complainant or its broker is the foundation of a successful RDNH defense.

In a matter we handled in late 2024, a domain investor received a UDRP complaint over a two-word descriptive .finance domain registered years before the complainant's trademark filing. The investor held contemporaneous business records and email correspondence predating the filing by more than two years. The panel denied the complaint and issued an RDNH finding, noting that the complainant had not explained why the domain's registration date — clearly predating its trademark application — failed to negate the bad-faith-registration element. The case underscores that a UDRP complaint is not a cost-free mechanism for acquiring domains; panels take RDNH seriously, and the public record reflects every finding.

How do cross-border and multi-zone disputes work in the new gTLD era?

New gTLDs are globally available strings — a .shop domain can be registered by anyone, anywhere, regardless of jurisdiction. That global availability means disputes frequently have a cross-border dimension: the registrant is in one country, the complainant is in another, and the domain is being used in a third market. The UDRP handles that complexity well, because its jurisdiction is over the domain itself — through the registrar's contractual relationship with ICANN — not over the parties. The forum (WIPO, the Forum, CAC, or ADNDRC) adjudicates the claim regardless of where the parties are located.

Where the cross-border dimension becomes complicated is in the interplay between new gTLD disputes and parallel ccTLD disputes. A brand owner facing infringement across a .com, a .shop, and a .uk will need to coordinate a UDRP complaint (covering the .com and the .shop in a consolidated filing where the registrant is the same holder) with a separate Nominet DRS proceeding for the .uk. The DRS test differs from the UDRP in an important respect: it requires an "abusive registration" using a "registered OR used" abusively standard — a lower cumulative bar than the UDRP's "registered AND used in bad faith" requirement. Timing matters too: a UDRP decision in your favor on the .com and .shop can serve as persuasive evidence in the DRS proceeding, but the DRS panel is not bound by it.

For .eu disputes, the EURid ADR process administered through the Czech Arbitration Court applies. The .eu system recognizes a wider range of rights than registered trademarks alone, which can assist complainants whose mark is recognized in EU member states but not yet registered at the EUIPO. Eligibility for the remedy of transfer also requires an EU/EEA nexus on the complainant's side; where that nexus is absent, the remedy may be revocation rather than transfer.

For .de domains, neither the URS nor the UDRP applies. The German courts are the primary forum for .de disputes, and a DENIC DISPUTE entry — a registration block that prevents the domain from being transferred to a third party during the litigation — is the procedural safeguard equivalent to a registrar lock in arbitral proceedings. Coordinating a German court action with DENIC dispute entry, and simultaneously running a UDRP on the .com version of the same name, is a multi-zone strategy we handle with local litigation counsel in Germany for the court component.

Multi-zone disputes also raise a tactical question: which proceeding to file first, and how do parallel proceedings interact? A UDRP decision does not preclude a court action; the Policy expressly preserves both parties' rights to go to court. But a court order issued before a UDRP determination can stay the panel proceeding. Where a complainant has grounds for both an injunction in court and a UDRP complaint, and the registrant appears to be in a jurisdiction where court process is effective, the choice of sequencing is fact-specific and should be made with counsel who understands both routes.

What happens during new gTLD launch phases — and how do Sunrise and Trademark Claims work?

Every new gTLD launches through a sequence of phases governed by ICANN's rules and the individual registry's procedures. The two rights-protection mechanisms that apply during launch are Sunrise and Trademark Claims, and brand owners who miss these windows often find themselves in a post-launch dispute that a pre-registration would have prevented entirely.

The Sunrise period — typically 30 days or longer, set by the individual registry — allows trademark holders to register domains that match their marks before general availability. To participate, a brand owner must have a verified entry in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), ICANN's centralized database of authenticated trademark records. The TMCH verifies the mark, the goods/services, and the proof of use. A successful Sunrise registration preempts a subsequent cybersquatter entirely, at the cost of the Sunrise registration fee, which is set by each registry and is frequently higher than the standard registration fee. Missing Sunrise is a preventable mistake; in our practice, we routinely advise brand owners to audit their TMCH entries well in advance of any anticipated new gTLD launch.

The Trademark Claims period — running concurrently with or immediately after Sunrise, for at least ninety days at general availability — does not reserve a domain for the trademark holder. Instead, it operates as a notification and warning system. When a registrant attempts to register a domain that matches a TMCH-verified mark, it receives a notice that a mark exists in that string, that registering may infringe the mark, and that the mark holder will be notified. If the registrant proceeds despite the notice, the fact of that notice becomes powerful bad-faith evidence in a later URS or UDRP proceeding: registering in the face of an explicit warning is close to a textbook Paragraph 4(b) bad-faith scenario. Conversely, if no Trademark Claims notice was sent — because the mark was not in the TMCH — the complainant loses that evidentiary advantage.

After the launch phase closes, the domain enters the general availability phase, and from that point forward the standard URS and UDRP procedures govern any rights disputes. The key post-launch protection is therefore a combination of: a current TMCH entry, active monitoring of new gTLD registrations matching the brand, and prompt filing of URS or UDRP complaints when an infringing registration is detected. Delay harms complainants: a registrant who develops a credible web presence over time gains an increasingly stronger legitimate-interest argument, while the complainant's delay can be construed as acquiescence or as evidence that no real harm was occurring.

How does the respondent defend a URS or UDRP complaint in a new gTLD dispute?

Receiving a URS or UDRP complaint is not a signal that the proceeding is over. Panels deny complaints in a meaningful proportion of cases, and in new gTLD disputes, the respondent's defenses are often stronger than in classic .com cybersquatting cases — precisely because the new gTLD program attracted legitimate investment in descriptive strings that happen to overlap with a complainant's mark.

The respondent has 20 days to file a response after the case commences. That window is short and fixed; missing it results in a default, and default proceedings are decided on the complaint record alone — which is the complainant's best evidence, framed in the complainant's favor. Filing a response, even a concise one, preserves the respondent's ability to present its legitimate-interest record and to contest bad faith.

The core respondent defenses track the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors. A bona fide offering of goods or services made before notice of the dispute — documented through business records, prior website archives, invoices, or correspondence with suppliers or customers — is the strongest foundation. Evidence that the domain string corresponds to a generic or descriptive term, registered as part of a broader portfolio strategy rather than to target the complainant, addresses the confusing-similarity element and reinforces the no-bad-faith argument. Chronological evidence — a domain registered before the complainant's mark was filed or became known — defeats the registration-in-bad-faith limb on its own terms.

Where the complaint appears to have been filed without a reasonable prospect of success — by a complainant who cannot plausibly establish bad-faith registration in light of the known facts — the response should also affirmatively request an RDNH finding. That request is not automatic; the panel must be invited to make it, and the record must support it. We have defended registrants successfully on RDNH grounds in new gTLD proceedings and in legacy gTLD UDRP cases, and the pattern is consistent: the RDNH finding requires showing both that the registrant's case is strong and that the complainant knew or should have known the complaint was weak.

What does COGNOMEN's process look like — and what is the next step?

We are an independent boutique. We handle domain-name disputes exclusively, across new gTLDs and legacy zones, before WIPO, the Forum, CAC, ADNDRC, Nominet, EURid, and in court where arbitration cannot reach. Every matter is assessed on its specific facts.

For a new gTLD dispute, our process begins with an initial assessment of the three UDRP elements — or the clear-and-convincing URS standard — against the evidence at hand. We identify the correct forum, confirm the applicable fee structure, and advise on the route most likely to achieve the client's actual goal, whether that is suspension, transfer, defense, or RDNH. We prepare the filing, manage the procedural calendar, and advise on any cross-zone parallel proceedings. For respondents, we build the legitimate-interest record and, where warranted, pursue an RDNH finding. For brand owners managing portfolios, we structure a monitoring and enforcement program across multiple new gTLD strings.

We act for brand owners and domain investors in equal measure. A party that holds a domain in good faith and receives an abusive complaint receives exactly the same quality of analysis and representation as a brand owner pursuing a bad-faith registrant. That symmetry is not a marketing claim; it is a practical consequence of handling disputes on both sides for years.

Pricing is transparent: forum filing fees are published and we quote legal fees as a range at the outset of any matter, before engagement, so there are no surprises when the case is underway.

Related at COGNOMEN

• Suspend a domain through URS — process, evidence, and filing for new gTLDs
• New gTLD launch protections: Sunrise, TMCH, and Trademark Claims answered
• New gTLD launch-phase rights protection in the financial services sector