educational

Initiating a UDRP Claim

During the 1990s, the Internet emerged as a common platform upon which individuals and businesses, for both commercial and other purposes, could interact and conduct business via websites. As is commonly understood, websites are identified by a domain name, such as Yahoo.com. As the Internet grew, a need evolved for the administration of domain names and for a method to resolve disputes between parties claiming rights to use a particular domain name.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was formed to establish a governing policy by which domain names could be registered and further, established a dispute resolution process, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), by which parties could adjudicate claims over domain names in a streamlined administrative, nonjudicial context.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was formed to establish a governing policy by which domain names could be registered and further, established a dispute resolution process, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), by which parties could adjudicate claims over domain names.

In simple terms, a domain-name identifies the Internet location of a particular website. The ownership of a domain name is governed, in part, by contract rights. The mere registration of a domain name does not establish trademark rights, but the use of a domain name could, in some instances, be challenged by the owner of a trademark that is similar or identical to the domain name. During the early days of the Internet, the registration of domain names that were identical to, or substantially similar to, another party’s trademark became a paramount problem. Some of these “identical” or “similar” domain names were registered to confuse the public into visiting the domain name owner’s website, and in other instances, the domain names were held hostage to demands of a high purchase price. The cost to recover these domain names was extremely high as the only recourse was the courts. It is, in large part, these instances for which the dispute resolution procedure has been developed; specifically, to combat these abuses and provide a cost- and time-efficient manner for trademark owners to recover domain names that are similar or identical to their trademark. If a trademark owner believes that the domain name owner (“registrant”) has, in some manner, infringed upon their legal rights by using a particular domain name or set of names in violation of trademark law, that party (“complainant”) can elect to present their claim through an administrative proceeding administered by an ICANN-accredited Provider. Providers do not decide these claims; rather, they oversee and manage the dispute process. Instead, the dispute is resolved by a panel consisting either of a single panelist or a group of three panelists.

To initiate the process, the complainant must file a complaint. To prevail in the complaint, the complainant must prove the following:

  • The manner in which the disputed domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
  • Why the registrant or respondent (domain name holder) should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint; and
  • Why the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith.

The complainant should include all supporting documentation and other evidence to the complaint as there is no hearing, or other opportunity to submit evidence, other than the opportunity to file a reply to respondent’s answer, assuming the respondent answers. Further, the only remedies allowed are the transfer or the cancellation of the domain name registration. Typically, a complainant requests the transfer of the domain name since the cancellation of the domain name only takes it from the Respondent, but leaves it available for another third party to register. Once filed in accordance with the rules, the complaint is transmitted to the respondent — the holder of the domain name registration.

Once the respondent receives the complaint, the respondent must, within 20 days of receipt of the complaint, prepare and file a response addressing the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and further, include any and all bases supporting the contention that the respondent (domain-name holder) is entitled to retain the disputed domain name. As with the complaint, the Response should include supporting evidence or documentation.

In some forums, the complainant is permitted to submit a reply to the respondent’s submission. If the complainant does not do so, the case will be forwarded to the panel which renders a decision in a relatively expeditious manner. The decision will be rendered based upon the allegations contained in the complaint, the evidence in support thereof, the rebuttal arguments in the response and any evidence submitted in support of the arguments in the response, as well as any additional information submitted in a reply by either party. It is to be noted that if no response is filed, the panel will review the Complaint and accept the allegations set forth therein as true.

If the complaint fails to adequately prove one of the three required legal grounds, the decision will be adverse to the complainant. Thus, it is important that the complaint clearly prove each and every listed legal ground noted above, or the complainant risks an adverse decision, even without a response being filed.

If the decision is adverse to the respondent, the panel will either order the cancellation of the domain name registration or order it transferred to the complainant, depending upon the complainant’s election in the complaint.

The entire process typically takes less than four or five months from the filing of the complaint to the rendering of a decision. If either party is unhappy with the decision, that party has 10 days to file a federal action contesting the decision. Assuming a decision against the respondent, if no federal action is filed, the domain name will transfer to the complainant or be cancelled.

As can be seen, these tribunals offer an efficient, streamlined process to resolve these types of disputes. If the losing party files an action in federal court, well, that process is likely to be much longer.

This article is not intended to be, nor should it be considered to be, legal advice.

Attorney Anna M. Vradenburgh counsels and represents clients facing trademark, copyright, patent and other intellectual property issues, providing expert advice regarding intellectual property protection, exploitation and rights enforcement. Vradenburgh can be contacted at The Eclipse Group at (818) 488-8146.

Related:  

Copyright © 2026 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More Articles

profile

BranditScan's Aerie Saunders on Fostering Creator Knowledge, Confidence and Community

Aerie Saunders is firmly in her season. When she sits down with XBIZ, a fall-scented WoodWick candle burns in the background, pumpkins decorate her desk and the first signs of spooky season are already on display. Not that Saunders waits until autumn to embrace the macabre.

Jackie Backman ·
opinion

What Mastercard's Scam Monitoring Program Means for Adult Merchants

Mastercard's Scam Merchant Monitoring Program (SMMP) has introduced a new, investigation-led framework that works very differently from the ratio-based chargeback programs the industry has relied on for years. It applies to card-not-present merchants globally, and Mastercard's guidance on business models warranting closer attention includes adult content and dating platforms, along with subscription services, digital goods and forex.

Len Garcia ·
opinion

Why the Right Merchant Category Code Matters for NSFW AI Businesses

You explained exactly what your NSFW AI business does to your payment processor and they seemed to get it. The underwriting process felt thorough and exhausting, but it was well worth it because you began processing.

Jonathan Corona ·
opinion

How Local Payments Can Expand Access and Reduce Friction at Checkout

Global adult platforms often enter new markets with a familiar assumption: If their checkout accepts major cards, they're ready for local customers. In reality, payment habits vary widely by country. Dutch consumers use iDEAL for online shopping, BLIK is a leading e-commerce payment method in Poland, and India's UPI handles billions of transactions each month.

Mitch Platt ·
opinion

How Detailed Receipts Build Consumer Trust and Reduce Chargeback

When was the last time you bought something online? Chances are you looked for the confirmation almost immediately. Did the transaction go through? Does it show what you bought? Were you charged correctly? And if there's a problem, who can you contact?

Cathy Beardsley ·
opinion

What Adult Platforms Should Know About the EU AI Act

The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act is now largely in force, creating new obligations for adult platforms using AI for content creation, performer verification, age estimation, moderation and other functions.

Corey Silverstein ·
profile

Verifymy's Emma Robert-Tissot on Putting People at the Heart of Online Safety

Warm, friendly and always happy to help, Emma Robert-Tissot has a gift for making even the most complex corners of online safety feel approachable.

Jackie Backman ·
profile

YourVids' Gino on Listening, Learning and Putting Creators First

Get Gino talking about the work creators pour into their careers, and his passion quickly becomes contagious. He deeply appreciates the people powering the business and has firm ideas about what they deserve in return.

Jackie Backman ·
profile

Vendo CEO Mitch Platt Reflects on 20 Years of Lessons and Evolution

More than 20 years ago, three entrepreneurs in Barcelona began gathering over beers to pitch, dissect and routinely destroy one another's business ideas. The ritual was simple: One person arrived with a concept, while the other two tried to expose every weakness. Any proposal that survived earned another look. Most did not.

Jackie Backman ·
opinion

How to Avoid the Hidden Risks of AI-Generated Legal Documents

Artificial intelligence can write a contract in seconds, but that does not mean it can write the contract your business actually needs. Across the adult industry, operators, creators and producers are increasingly using generative AI to prepare model releases, performer agreements, privacy policies, takedown notices, employment documents and responses to regulators. The appeal is obvious: Legal work is expensive, AI is fast and the resulting document often looks impressively professional. That polished appearance is exactly what makes the practice dangerous.

Corey Silverstein ·
Show More