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

opinion

Manifesting Creator Success Through Action and Intention

As we enter a new year, it’s the perfect time to channel your erotic life-force energy toward your goals — and sex magic offers a powerful way to do so.

Domina Doll ·
opinion

A Creator's Guide to Starting the Year With Strong Financial Habits

Every January brings that familiar rush of new ideas and big goals. Creators feel ready to overhaul their content, commit to new posting schedules and jump on fresh opportunities.

Megan Stokes ·
opinion

Pornnhub's Jade Talks Trust and Community

If you’ve ever interacted with Jade at Pornhub, you already know one thing to be true: Whether you’re coordinating an event, confirming deliverables or simply trying to get an answer quickly, things move more smoothly when she’s involved. Emails get answered. Details are confirmed. Deadlines don’t drift. And through it all, her tone remains warm, friendly and grounded.

Women In Adult ·
opinion

Outlook 2026: Industry Execs Weigh In on Strategy, Monetization and Risk

The adult industry enters 2026 at a moment of concentrated change. Over the past year, the sector’s evolution has accelerated. Creators have become full-scale businesses, managing branding, compliance, distribution and community under intensifying competition. Studios and platforms are refining production and business models in response to pressures ranging from regulatory mandates to shifting consumer preferences.

Jackie Backman ·
opinion

How Platforms Can Tap AI to Moderate Content at Scale

Every day, billions of posts, images and videos are uploaded to platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X. As social media has grown, so has the amount of content that must be reviewed — including hate speech, misinformation, deepfakes, violent material and coordinated manipulation campaigns.

Christoph Hermes ·
opinion

What DSA and GDPR Enforcement Means for Adult Platforms

Adult platforms have never been more visible to regulators than they are right now. For years, the industry operated in a gray zone: enormous traffic, massive data volume and minimal oversight. Those days are over.

Corey D. Silverstein ·
opinion

Making the Case for Network Tokens in Recurring Billing

A declined transaction isn’t just a technical error; it’s lost revenue you fought hard to earn. But here’s some good news for adult merchants: The same technology that helps the world’s largest subscription services smoothly process millions of monthly subscriptions is now available to you as well.

Jonathan Corona ·
opinion

Navigating Age Verification Laws Without Disrupting Revenue

With age verification laws now firmly in place across multiple markets, merchants are asking practical questions: How is this affecting traffic? What happens during onboarding? Which approaches are proving workable in real payment flows?

Cathy Beardsley ·
opinion

How Adult Businesses Can Navigate Global Compliance Demands

The internet has made the world feel small. Case in point: Adult websites based in the U.S. are now getting letters from regulators demanding compliance with foreign laws, even if they don’t operate in those countries. Meanwhile, some U.S. website operators dealing with the patchwork of state-level age verification laws have considered incorporating offshore in the hopes of avoiding these new obligations — but even operators with no physical presence in the U.S. have been sued or threatened with claims for not following state AV laws.

Larry Walters ·
opinion

Top Tips for Bulletproof Creator Management Contracts

The creator management business is booming. Every week, it seems, a new agency emerges, promising to turn creators into stars, automate their fan interactions or triple their revenue through “secret” social strategies. The reality? Many of these agencies are operating with contracts that wouldn’t survive a single serious dispute — if they even have contracts at all.

Corey D. Silverstein ·
Show More