How to suspend a .global domain through URS

How to suspend a .global domain through URS. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .global. Email the firm to assess your case. Transparent fees, r…

A brand owner discovers a .global domain carrying its mark – pointing at a click-farm, a phishing page, or simply parked for a future ransom demand. The domain is live, the harm is accumulating, and a full UDRP complaint will take months. There is a faster path. The Uniform Rapid Suspension system was built precisely for this situation: a streamlined, lower-cost proceeding that can remove the domain from public resolution within weeks, not months.

To suspend a .global domain through URS, a complainant must satisfy a clear-and-convincing standard across the same three elements as the UDRP – confusing similarity to a valid mark, no respondent rights, and bad faith – but the only remedy is suspension for the remainder of the registration term, not transfer of ownership. The .global registry operates under the new-gTLD framework, and WIPO administers URS proceedings for it. Official filing fees are lower than the standard WIPO UDRP fee.

This page covers the URS test, the evidence that decides outcomes, the choice between URS and UDRP, the filing timeline, and what to do next.

What is the URS and why does .global use it?

The Uniform Rapid Suspension system is the mandatory dispute-resolution mechanism for new generic top-level domains introduced after ICANN's 2012 expansion round. Every new gTLD registry – including the .global registry – must offer the URS as a condition of its registry agreement. The .global zone therefore participates in URS by contract, and WIPO serves as a designated URS provider for proceedings in that zone.

The URS was designed to fill a specific gap. UDRP handles complex cases and transfers ownership. URS handles the clearest cases fast and cheaply by suspending the domain – effectively pointing it at an ICANN-controlled holding page and preventing the registrant from using or transferring it for the rest of the registration period. It is a targeted, time-limited remedy. Think of it as an injunction for a domain name, not a final judgment of ownership.

Why does this matter for brand owners watching .global? Because new-gTLD domains occasionally attract abusive registrations – a mark-holder's exact brand appended with ".global" suggests global operations, which makes the zone attractive to bad actors targeting internationally recognized marks. The URS gives the mark holder a proportionate, fast response when the case is genuinely clear-cut.

What is the legal test to suspend a .global domain through URS?

The URS applies a clear-and-convincing evidence standard across three elements that track the UDRP's Paragraph 4(a) requirements. All three must be established before a Determination Officer can order suspension. The standard is deliberately higher than the UDRP's "balance of probabilities" in individual elements because the URS does not investigate; it decides on written submissions alone, and quickly.

The first element is confusing similarity. The disputed .global domain must be identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant holds valid rights. A registered trademark is the cleanest foundation; common-law rights are harder to establish under the compressed URS timetable. If you hold a registered mark matching the domain string, the first element is usually straightforward. Where the string adds a generic word to the mark ("brand-global.global", for example), the analysis turns on whether the addition does anything meaningful to distinguish the domain from the mark – and panels have consistently held that purely descriptive additions rarely do.

The second element is the absence of any rights or legitimate interests in the domain on the registrant's side. The three safe harbors borrowed from UDRP Paragraph 4(c) apply: a bona fide offering before notice of the dispute; being commonly known by the name; and legitimate noncommercial or fair use. If the registrant registered after your mark achieved recognition and the use is clearly commercial or exploitative, the second element is typically met on the papers.

The third element is bad faith. In URS proceedings, the complainant must show bad faith clearly and convincingly, not merely on a preponderance. Parking with PPC links that exploit mark confusion, a pattern of abusive registrations in new gTLDs, or an offer to sell the domain to the mark holder at a price exceeding out-of-pocket registration costs – all of these satisfy bad faith under the framework. Passive holding is harder under URS than under the UDRP because the case must be obvious; if the bad-faith argument requires inference, the UDRP is the better vehicle.

If you hold a registered mark and a .global domain incorporating it has appeared in active abusive use, we can assess all three URS elements, identify the supporting evidence, and prepare the filing. Contact us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the URS filing process work at WIPO for a .global domain?

The URS follows a structured, fast-tracked sequence. Understanding each stage prevents the avoidable errors that cause cases to be dismissed or suspended on procedural grounds rather than the merits.

Filing: the complainant submits an electronic complaint through WIPO's URS filing system. The complaint must identify the mark and its registration details, the disputed domain, and evidence supporting each of the three elements. There is a strict page or word limit; the URS is not the place for a lengthy legal brief. Attaching a certified copy or database printout of the trademark registration, screenshots of the infringing use, and a short bad-faith narrative is the template.

Deficiency review: WIPO's administrative staff check that the complaint is formally complete. A deficient complaint is returned for correction; this is not a substantive review. Avoid it by checking the current WIPO URS Supplemental Rules before filing.

Commencement and respondent notification: once the complaint passes deficiency review, WIPO formally commences the proceeding and notifies the registrant. The respondent then has a short window to file a response – typically no longer than a few weeks from commencement. The timetable is significantly compressed compared with UDRP.

Determination: a single Determination Officer reviews the complaint and any response on the papers. There is no hearing. The officer issues a determination finding for the complainant (suspension) or the respondent (complaint denied). In a default (no response filed), the officer still applies the standard; a default does not automatically produce a suspension.

Implementation: if suspension is ordered, the registry locks the domain and redirects it to an ICANN suspension page for the remainder of the registration period. The registrant cannot transfer, delete, or renew the domain while it is under URS suspension.

Post-determination: the registrant may seek a de novo appeal to an independent panel within a short post-determination window; that appeal carries a higher fee. The complainant may also convert a URS suspension to a UDRP transfer proceeding – in our practice, this is a route worth considering when the registration term is long and ownership is the real goal.

URS versus UDRP for .global: which route fits your situation?

The right choice depends on what you need and how strong your case is on its face. These two routes are not interchangeable, and choosing the wrong one costs time and money.

If the infringement is flagrant – the domain is identical to your registered mark and it resolves to a page that impersonates your brand or harvests user credentials – URS is the faster, cheaper opening move. Official fees for URS proceedings are lower than the WIPO UDRP filing fee of USD 1,500 for a single-member panel. You get suspension within weeks. The trade-off: you do not own the domain at the end, and when the registration term expires the name goes back to the general pool or the registrant can re-register if the suspension lapses.

If you want to own the domain, you need the UDRP. A UDRP complaint at WIPO runs approximately two months to a decision, involves a fuller factual record, and can result in a transfer order. The complainant also pays the WIPO UDRP filing fee, but the outcome is ownership – permanent, not temporary. For brand owners who want the .global domain for their own portfolio, the UDRP is the correct vehicle. We regularly advise on this choice when a registrant's conduct makes both routes plausible.

If the bad-faith argument requires more context – passive holding, a registration made years ago, or a domain used in a way that depends on inferential reasoning – the "clear and convincing" URS standard is a risk. The UDRP's more developed standard and fuller procedural record give you more room to develop the argument. The URS and new gTLD disputes practice covers the full range of options in this zone.

If the domain is a .com version of the same mark held by the same registrant, you can file a UDRP complaint covering multiple domains in a single proceeding, provided the registrant is the same holder. That is a different situation from a standalone .global filing, but it is worth mapping the full domain portfolio of an abusive registrant before deciding where to file and how many domains to include.

What evidence decides a URS suspension outcome?

Evidence is the difference between a suspension order and a dismissal. Because the URS is decided on papers and under a heightened standard, what you submit at the time of filing is essentially what the Determination Officer will decide on. There is no discovery, no supplemental round of submissions by right, and no oral hearing.

Trademark proof: a printout from a recognized trademark database – USPTO, EUIPO, WIPO's Global Brand Database – showing the registration number, the goods/services, and the current validity of the registration is essential. If your mark was registered after the domain was created, the first element of the test may fail on timing; verify the priority dates before filing.

Domain use evidence: screenshots of the resolving website, captured with a tool that timestamps the image and records the URL, are the foundation of the bad-faith element. If the domain is parked with PPC links exploiting the mark, capture the full page including the link text. If it redirects to a competitor, capture both the domain URL and the destination. If it carries a buy-it-now price aimed at the mark holder, document that price.

Registration history: a WHOIS/RDDS printout showing the creation date is important. If the domain was registered after your mark was in use – especially shortly after a public brand launch or trademark filing – the timing supports bad faith. We have defended against URS proceedings ourselves, and the timing argument cuts both ways; be prepared for a respondent who points to a registration predating your trademark use.

Absence of legitimate interest evidence: if the registrant has no evident connection to the domain string – no business under that name, no generic meaning in the relevant industry – the negative can be established by showing the mark's prior recognition and the lack of any bona fide use. A screenshot of the registrant's apparent website (or absence of one) supports this.

In a recent matter – a .global phishing domain, spring 2025 – we assembled a filing that combined certified trademark registration data, timestamped screenshots of a fraudulent login page, and RDDS records showing registration two weeks after the complainant's public brand announcement. The Determination Officer suspended the domain within three weeks of commencement. No response was filed by the registrant. The complainant then initiated a parallel UDRP complaint to secure transfer before the registration term expired.

What are the cost and timeline realities for a .global URS filing?

The URS is cheaper and faster than the UDRP, but "cheaper" is relative. The official WIPO URS filing fee is lower than the WIPO UDRP fee of USD 1,500 for a single-member panel – verify the current URS fee schedule with WIPO at the time of filing, as URS fees are set separately. Legal fees for preparing a URS complaint are a separate cost.

For a straightforward URS filing – registered mark, active infringing use, responsive registrant or default – expect a total timeline from instruction to determination of approximately four to six weeks. That figure assumes no procedural complications, no respondent appeal, and no deficiency correction cycle. It is substantially faster than the roughly two-month standard UDRP timeline.

The compressed timeline is the URS's key advantage for brand owners whose harm is reputational or time-sensitive – a product launch window, a consumer protection incident, a phishing campaign. Delaying by choosing the UDRP when the URS will suffice means weeks of continued harm. Conversely, choosing the URS when the case is evidentially complex means risking a dismissal and then starting over with a UDRP complaint, which wastes both time and filing fees.

Legal fees for a URS complaint are in the same general range as a straightforward UDRP complaint, depending on the complexity of the factual record, the number of domains, and the speed of instruction. We present fee ranges at the time of assessment, not after filing.

If a .global domain is harming your brand now, the fastest path to suspension starts with an assessment of the three URS elements against your evidence. Email info@cognomenlaw.com to begin.

Cross-zone considerations: when the same registrant holds .global and other domains

Abusive registrants rarely stop at one zone. A bad actor targeting your brand in the .global zone has often also registered the .com, the .net, or one or more ccTLDs. The right response depends on which zones are affected and what remedy you need in each.

For the .global domain, URS (for speed and suspense) or UDRP (for transfer) are the available paths, both administered by WIPO. For the .com, .net, or other gTLDs held by the same registrant, a single UDRP complaint can cover multiple domains if the registrant is the same holder – a significant efficiency. For ccTLDs, the national procedure governs: a .uk domain goes to the Nominet DRS, a .eu domain to the ADR.eu platform at the Czech Arbitration Court, and a .de domain to the German courts with a DENIC DISPUTE entry to block transfers while litigation proceeds.

In a matter involving a brand-protection sweep (autumn 2024), a client faced a registrant holding approximately a dozen domain variants across .global, .com, and three ccTLDs. We coordinated a UDRP complaint covering the gTLD variants while instructing local litigation counsel in two jurisdictions for the ccTLD names. The URS was not used in that instance because transfer, not mere suspension, was the goal in every zone. Understanding pre-acquisition due diligence and chain of title is also relevant where a brand wants to purchase a domain instead of litigating – the guide to verifying chain of title covers that analysis.

The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) claims notice system was intended to reduce exactly this kind of abusive registration in new gTLDs. When a mark holder registers with the TMCH, registrants in participating new-gTLD zones – including .global – receive a notice before completing registration if the domain matches a TMCH-registered mark. That notice, and what it means for subsequent bad-faith findings, is covered in the analysis of TMCH claims notices.

Respondent-side perspective: defending against a URS complaint on a .global domain

The URS is not only a complainant's tool. Registrants who hold .global domains in good faith – and who face a complaint from a brand owner seeking to weaponize the expedited process – have defenses available, including the possibility of a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding.

RDNH under the URS is analogous to RDNH under the UDRP: a finding that the complaint was brought in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant of a domain to which the complainant has no right. The finding is reputational, not monetary, but it carries weight. Panels have consistently held that a complainant who files knowing the three elements cannot be established – for instance, where the registrant clearly registered before the mark existed, or where the domain has an obvious generic or descriptive meaning independent of the mark – is acting in bad faith under the Policy.

If you have received a URS complaint on a .global domain you registered legitimately, the response window is short. Document the registration timeline, the bona fide purpose, and any use of the domain predating notice of the dispute. If the complainant's trademark postdates your registration or your use is plainly legitimate, say so in the response with supporting records. In our practice, we regularly advise registrants who received a URS complaint and discovered the complainant had no plausible case on the facts – the clean defense is to establish the legitimate interest quickly and challenge the complainant's standing. The distinction between a meritorious URS and an abusive one often turns on a few weeks of registration history.

Related at COGNOMEN

• URS and new gTLD disputes – the full service and route selection guide
• TMCH claims notice analysis – how Trademark Clearinghouse notices affect bad-faith findings
• Verifying chain of title before acquiring a domain – a step-by-step guide