Understanding Domain Name Cybersquatting
What is Cybersquatting? Cybersquatting is the bad faith registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Cybersquatters typically seek to profit by selling the domain to the trademark owner at an inflated price, diverting traffic for ad revenue, or damaging the brand's reputation.
Legal Framework: ACPA vs. UDRP
| Factor | ACPA (Federal Court) | UDRP (Administrative) |
|---|---|---|
| Forum | U.S. District Court | WIPO, NAF, or other providers |
| Cost | $50,000-$200,000+ litigation | $1,500-$5,000 filing fee |
| Timeline | 1-3 years | 45-60 days |
| Remedies | Transfer, cancellation, $1,000-$100,000 per domain, actual damages, attorney fees | Transfer or cancellation only |
| Discovery | Full discovery available | No discovery |
| Appeal | Federal appellate courts | File de novo in court |
ACPA Elements (15 U.S.C. 1125(d))
To prevail under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, a trademark owner must prove:
- Valid trademark: You own a distinctive or famous mark (registered or common law)
- Identical or confusingly similar: The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to your mark
- Bad faith intent to profit: The registrant registered, trafficked in, or used the domain with bad faith intent to profit from your mark
Nine Bad Faith Factors Under ACPA
| # | Factor |
|---|---|
| 1 | Registrant's trademark or other IP rights in the domain name |
| 2 | Domain name contains registrant's legal name or established nickname |
| 3 | Registrant's prior use of domain in bona fide offering of goods/services |
| 4 | Registrant's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark |
| 5 | Intent to divert consumers from trademark owner's site for commercial gain by creating confusion |
| 6 | Offer to sell domain to trademark owner without having used it for bona fide purpose |
| 7 | Provision of false contact information when registering domain |
| 8 | Registration of multiple domains identical/similar to others' marks |
| 9 | Extent to which the mark is distinctive and famous |
Types of Cybersquatting
| Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Classic Cybersquatting | Registering exact trademark as domain to sell to owner | nike-official.com |
| Typosquatting | Registering common misspellings of famous marks | gooogle.com, amazn.com |
| TLD Squatting | Registering trademark in different TLDs | apple.net, google.biz |
| Name Jacking | Registering celebrity or personal names | elonmusk.com |
| Reverse Cybersquatting | Trademark owner trying to take legitimate domain | Defense claim in UDRP |
Typosquatting Alert: Courts have found typosquatting particularly egregious because it targets consumers who make innocent typing errors. In Shields v. Zuccarini, the court awarded $10,000 per domain for typosquatted variations of "Joe Cartoon."
UDRP Proceedings
Three Elements to Prove
- Identical or confusingly similar: Domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which complainant has rights
- No rights or legitimate interests: Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain
- Bad faith registration and use: Domain was registered AND is being used in bad faith
UDRP Providers and Costs
| Provider | Single Panelist | Three Panelists |
|---|---|---|
| WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) | $1,500 (1-5 domains) | $4,000 (1-5 domains) |
| NAF (National Arbitration Forum) | $1,300 (1 domain) | $2,600 (1 domain) |
| ADR Forum | $1,300 (1 domain) | $2,600 (1 domain) |
UDRP Success Rate: Trademark owners win approximately 85-90% of UDRP cases. The high success rate reflects that most cases involve clear-cut cybersquatting. Choose UDRP for straightforward cases where you primarily want the domain transferred quickly.
Statutory Damages Under ACPA
$1,000 to $100,000 Per Domain: Under 15 U.S.C. 1117(d), trademark owners can elect statutory damages instead of proving actual damages. Courts have discretion to award anywhere in this range based on the egregiousness of the conduct.
Factors Affecting Statutory Damage Awards
- Number of domains registered (pattern of conduct)
- Fame of the trademark
- Whether registrant used domains for malware/phishing
- Commercial gain from diverting traffic
- Demand price for selling domain
- Use of privacy protection to hide identity
- Defendant's financial resources
Sample Demand Letters
Sample 1: Pre-UDRP Demand Letter
[Company Letterhead]
[Date]
VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL
[Registrant Name/WHOIS Contact]
[Address from WHOIS]
Re: Demand for Transfer of Domain Name [infringing-domain.com]
Infringement of [TRADEMARK] Trademark
Dear [Registrant]:
This firm represents [Trademark Owner] ("Client"), the owner of the federally registered trademark [TRADEMARK], U.S. Registration No. [X,XXX,XXX], covering [goods/services]. Our Client has used this mark in commerce since [year] and has developed substantial goodwill in the mark.
INFRINGING DOMAIN NAME
We have discovered that you registered the domain name [infringing-domain.com] on or about [registration date]. This domain name is identical/confusingly similar to our Client's [TRADEMARK] mark.
WHOIS records indicate you registered this domain despite having no legitimate connection to the [TRADEMARK] mark. The domain currently [describes current use: parked with ads, redirects to competitor, displays "for sale" message, etc.].
CYBERSQUATTING VIOLATION
Your registration and use of [infringing-domain.com] constitutes cybersquatting under:
1. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1125(d)), which provides for statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 PER DOMAIN NAME plus attorney fees; and
2. The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which provides for mandatory transfer of domains registered in bad faith.
Your bad faith is evidenced by:
- Registration of a domain identical to a famous/distinctive trademark
- No legitimate business or personal use of the domain
- [Parking page with pay-per-click ads / offer to sell / etc.]
- No rights in the [TRADEMARK] name
DEMAND
To avoid UDRP proceedings and/or federal litigation, we demand that you:
1. TRANSFER the domain [infringing-domain.com] to our Client within fourteen (14) days by executing the enclosed transfer authorization;
2. CONFIRM in writing that you have not registered any other domains containing [TRADEMARK] or variations thereof;
3. AGREE not to register any domains containing [TRADEMARK] in the future.
If you comply promptly, our Client is prepared to waive claims for monetary damages. Failure to respond will result in immediate filing of a UDRP complaint and/or federal lawsuit seeking the maximum statutory damages of $100,000 plus attorney fees.
Please respond by [deadline date].
Sincerely,
[Attorney Name]
Counsel for [Trademark Owner]
Enclosures:
- Trademark Registration Certificate
- Domain Transfer Authorization Form
Sample 2: ACPA Litigation Threat - Typosquatting
[Law Firm Letterhead]
[Date]
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL
[Registrant/Company Name]
[Address]
Re: Typosquatting of [TRADEMARK] - Federal Lawsuit Imminent
Domains: [typo1.com], [typo2.com], [typo3.com]
Dear [Registrant]:
This firm represents [Famous Brand, Inc.] regarding your registration and use of multiple domain names that are intentional misspellings of our client's famous [TRADEMARK] mark.
THE INFRINGING DOMAINS
Our investigation has identified that you registered the following typosquatting domains:
1. [typo1.com] - registered [date] - misspelling of [TRADEMARK]
2. [typo2.com] - registered [date] - misspelling of [TRADEMARK]
3. [typo3.com] - registered [date] - keyboard-adjacent error
Each domain redirects to a website displaying pay-per-click advertisements, generating revenue from consumers who intended to visit our client's website but made common typing errors.
STATUTORY DAMAGES EXPOSURE
Your conduct constitutes willful cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d). For EACH domain name, you face:
- Statutory damages: $1,000 - $100,000 per domain
- Your potential exposure: Up to $300,000 (3 domains x $100,000)
- Plus attorney fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. 1117
Courts have consistently found typosquatting to be particularly egregious conduct warranting high statutory damage awards. See Shields v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 2001) (affirming $10,000 per domain); Verizon California Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2008).
EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH
Your bad faith intent to profit is demonstrated by:
1. PATTERN OF CONDUCT: Registration of multiple misspellings of the same famous mark
2. DECEPTIVE MONETIZATION: Pay-per-click advertising exploiting misdirected traffic
3. NO LEGITIMATE USE: No bona fide goods, services, or content on the domains
4. PRIVACY SHIELDING: Use of WHOIS privacy to conceal your identity
5. FAMOUS MARK: [TRADEMARK] is a nationally recognized brand with [describe fame]
FINAL DEMAND
We demand within TEN (10) DAYS:
1. Transfer of all three domains to our client;
2. Complete accounting of all revenue generated from the domains;
3. Disgorgement of all profits derived from the typosquatting scheme;
4. Written agreement not to register any domains containing [TRADEMARK] or variations.
If these demands are not met, we will file a federal lawsuit in the [District] seeking:
- Maximum statutory damages of $100,000 per domain ($300,000 total)
- Disgorgement of all advertising revenue
- Attorney fees as an exceptional case
- Permanent injunction
This is our client's final communication before litigation.
Very truly yours,
[Attorney Name]
Litigation Counsel for [Famous Brand, Inc.]
Sample 3: Post-UDRP Victory - Compliance Demand
[Company Letterhead]
[Date]
VIA EMAIL
[Domain Registrar]
Attn: Legal/Compliance Department
[Address]
Re: UDRP Decision - Mandatory Transfer of [domain.com]
Case No.: [WIPO/NAF Case Number]
cc: [Losing Respondent]
Dear Compliance Team:
On [decision date], the [WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center / National Arbitration Forum] issued a decision in the above-referenced matter ordering the transfer of the domain name [domain.com] to our client, [Trademark Owner].
A copy of the decision is attached.
TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS
Pursuant to the UDRP Rules and your registrar agreement with ICANN, please transfer the domain [domain.com] to:
Registrant: [Trademark Owner Legal Name]
Organization: [Company Name]
Email: [admin email]
Address: [Full address]
Phone: [Phone number]
TARGET REGISTRAR
Please transfer to our client's registrar account:
Registrar: [Registrar Name]
Account: [Account number/username]
Alternatively, if internal transfer is available, please change the registrant information to the above.
TIMELINE
Under UDRP Rules, the transfer must be completed within ten (10) business days of the decision unless the respondent files a court action. The ten-day period to file has expired without any court filing.
Please confirm receipt and provide an estimated completion date.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title]
[Contact Information]
Attachments:
- UDRP Decision
- Trademark Registration Certificate
Frequently Asked Questions
Choose UDRP if you primarily want the domain transferred quickly and cheaply (45-60 days, $1,500-$5,000). Choose ACPA litigation if you want monetary damages, face a well-funded adversary who might challenge a UDRP decision in court, need discovery to uncover the registrant's identity or pattern of conduct, or want to establish precedent. Many trademark owners start with a demand letter offering to accept transfer without damages, then escalate to UDRP, and reserve ACPA litigation for the most egregious cases.
UDRP complaints can be filed even with privacy-protected WHOIS; the provider will serve the complaint through the privacy service. For ACPA litigation, you can file an "in rem" action against the domain name itself under 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(2) if you cannot locate the registrant after due diligence. False WHOIS information is itself a bad faith factor under both ACPA and UDRP.
Under UDRP, you cannot recover costs - you only get the domain transferred. Under ACPA, attorney fees are available in "exceptional cases" under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), which courts have found in egregious cybersquatting cases involving willful bad faith, pattern of misconduct, or obstructive litigation conduct. Statutory damages under ACPA are designed to compensate when actual damages are hard to prove.
This is a critical issue. Under UDRP, you must prove the domain was "registered AND used in bad faith" - if the domain was registered before your trademark existed, it's very difficult to prove bad faith registration. Under ACPA, courts have sometimes found bad faith where a domain was registered innocently but later used in bad faith, though this is contested. If the registrant has legitimate prior rights, you may need to negotiate a purchase rather than pursue legal action.
UDRP is often the best option for international disputes because it applies globally to all ICANN-accredited registrars regardless of the registrant's location. ACPA can reach foreign registrants if they have minimum contacts with the United States, or you can bring an in rem action in the district where the registry or registrar is located. For ccTLDs (country-code domains like .uk or .de), you may need to use that country's dispute resolution process.
Reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) occurs when a trademark owner files a UDRP complaint in bad faith, knowing the registrant has legitimate rights to the domain. UDRP panels can find RDNH and report it in their decision, which damages the complainant's reputation. It can occur when: the domain was registered before the trademark, the domain consists of a generic word, or the complainant knows the registrant has legitimate rights. Always conduct honest due diligence before filing.
Need Help With Domain Recovery?
I handle UDRP proceedings and ACPA litigation for trademark owners. Get a consultation to discuss your domain dispute.
Contact for Consult