How to File a UDRP Complaint: Step-by-Step Guide (2025)

Quick Answer

Table of Contents

Before You File: Pre-Flight Checklist

Before investing time and money in a UDRP complaint, ensure you have a strong case worth pursuing.

Essential Questions to Answer

Do you have valid trademark rights?

✓ Federal trademark registration, OR ✓ Common law trademark through commercial use

Without trademark rights, UDRP will fail immediately.

Is the domain confusingly similar?

✓ Identical to your trademark, OR ✓ Obvious variation (typo, hyphen, generic addition), OR ✓ Would confuse ordinary consumers

If domain is clearly different, case will fail.

Is bad faith obvious?

✓ Domain parked with ads ✓ Offered for sale to you ✓ Typosquatting on famous mark ✓ Pattern of cybersquatting ✓ Preventing your trademark use

Without bad faith evidence, case will fail.

Does respondent lack legitimate interest?

✓ Not using for real business ✓ Not their actual name ✓ Not fair use/criticism ✓ No prior rights to domain

If they have legitimate business, case will fail.

When NOT to File UDRP

Don't file if:

Your trademark is weak or questionable:

• No registration and minimal commercial use
• Generic or highly descriptive term
• Recently created trademark (after domain registration)

Domain isn't confusingly similar enough:

• Generic dictionary word with separate meaning
• Significantly different spelling or structure
• Different industry with no consumer confusion

Respondent has obvious legitimate interest:

• Using domain for real business
• Domain matches their company name
• Genuine criticism or commentary site
• Registered before your trademark existed

You want monetary damages:

• UDRP only transfers/cancels domain
• No financial compensation available
• File ACPA lawsuit instead for damages

Domain has legitimate value beyond trademark:

• Premium generic domain
• Developed business with traffic
• Better to negotiate purchase

You'd likely face RDNH finding:

• Respondent clearly has rights
• Your claim is frivolous
• Could damage your reputation

Pre-Filing Actions

1. Send cease and desist letter first

Benefits:

• Many cybersquatters transfer voluntarily
• Saves UDRP filing cost
• Strengthens bad faith case if they refuse
• Shows you attempted resolution

Template structure:

Subject: Cease and Desist - Unauthorized Use of [TRADEMARK] Trademark

Dear [Domain Registrant],

We represent [Your Company], owner of the registered trademark
[TRADEMARK] (Reg. No. XXXXX).

We have discovered your registration and use of [domain.com], which
incorporates our trademark without authorization. This constitutes
cybersquatting and trademark infringement.

We demand that you:
1. Immediately cease all use of this domain
2. Transfer the domain to us within 10 days

Failure to comply will result in legal action including UDRP
proceedings and potential federal litigation under the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)).

Respond by [DATE].

Sincerely,
[Your Name/Attorney]

Give them 7-10 days to respond before filing UDRP.

2. Research UDRP precedent

Search for similar cases:

• WIPO case database: wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search
• NAF decisions: adr.forum.com/icann/icanndecisions
• Look for cases with similar facts
• Understand winning arguments
• Identify potential defenses

3. Document everything now

Before respondent changes anything:

• Screenshot current domain use
• Save WHOIS information
• Archive domain with Wayback Machine
• Print any communications
• Gather all trademark evidence

4. Evaluate costs vs benefits

Consider:

• UDRP filing: $1,500-$5,000
• Attorney fees: $2,000-$5,000 if hiring lawyer
• Total cost: $3,500-$10,000
• Is domain worth this investment?
• Alternative domains available?
• Could you negotiate cheaper purchase?

5. Decide attorney representation

Hire attorney when:

• Domain is highly valuable
• Case has complex legal issues
• You're unfamiliar with UDRP process
• Want maximum chance of success
• Respondent likely to fight hard

Self-represent when:

• Very clear-cut cybersquatting
• Limited budget
• Comfortable with legal writing
• Willing to do research
• Lower-value domain

Attorney costs: $2,000-$5,000 for complaint preparation typically

Step 1: Verify UDRP Requirements

Before filing, confirm you meet all UDRP eligibility requirements.

Requirement 1: You Have Trademark Rights

Acceptable trademark rights:

Federal trademark registration (strongest):

• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) registration
• Foreign trademark registration (any country)
• Status: Registered and in use (not just applied)

Verify:

• Registration number
• Current status (not abandoned/cancelled)
• Goods/services covered
• Registration date

Common law trademark rights (weaker but acceptable):

• Continuous commercial use in commerce
• Consumer recognition and association
• Secondary meaning in marketplace
• Distinctiveness in your industry

Evidence needed:

• Sales records showing commercial use
• Marketing materials with dates
• Customer testimonials/surveys
• Industry recognition
• Duration of use
• Geographic scope of use

What doesn't qualify:

• Trademark application (not yet registered)
• Abandoned or cancelled registration
• Purely personal use without commerce
• No consumer association

Requirement 2: Domain is Identical or Confusingly Similar

Standards for similarity:

Identical:

• Exact match of trademark
• Example: NIKE trademark → nike.com

Confusingly similar:

• Trademark + generic term: nike-shoes.com
• Trademark with hyphen: ni-ke.com
• Typosquatting variation: nkie.com
• Different TLD: nike.net (vs nike.com)
• Plural/singular: domain.com vs domains.com

Factors panels consider:

Visual similarity:

• How similar does it look?
• Would consumers notice the difference?
• Common typing errors?

Phonetic similarity:

• Sounds the same when spoken?
• Similar pronunciation?

Conceptual similarity:

• Same meaning or concept?
• Obvious association with trademark?

TLD doesn't matter:

• .com vs .net vs .org = still similar
• New gTLDs (.app, .shop) = still similar

Test: Would an ordinary consumer be confused about source, sponsorship, or affiliation?

Requirement 3: Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests

Check if respondent might have legitimate interest:

They DON'T have legitimate interest if:

• Domain is parked with ads
• Domain shows blank/"under construction" page
• Domain redirects to competitor
• Obvious cybersquatting
• Never used for actual business

They MIGHT have legitimate interest if:

• Operating real business on domain
• Domain matches their company name
• Using for genuine criticism/commentary
• Domain is their actual personal name
• Registered before your trademark

Your burden:

• Make prima facie case they lack interest
• Burden then shifts to them to prove legitimate use
• Usually easy if domain is unused or parked

Requirement 4: Domain Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Evidence of bad faith registration:

Strong indicators:

• Contacted you to sell domain for profit
• Pattern of registering famous trademarks
• Registered after your trademark became famous
• Impossible to imagine legitimate use
• False WHOIS information

Clear bad faith use:

• Parking page with competitor ads
• Using trademark to attract confused visitors
• Disrupting your business
• Phishing or fraud
• Typosquatting for malicious purposes

Bad faith test: Did they register specifically because of your trademark, intending to profit from it or harm you?

Requirement 5: Domain is in Scope of UDRP

UDRP applies to:

• All gTLDs: .com, .net, .org, .info, .biz, etc.
• All new gTLDs: .app, .blog, .shop, .tech, etc.
• Some ccTLDs that voluntarily adopted UDRP

UDRP does NOT apply to:

• Most ccTLDs (.uk, .de, .fr, .cn, .au, etc.)
• Legacy domains grandfathered before UDRP
• Deleted/expired domains (no current registrant)

Check: Look up registrar's registration agreement to confirm UDRP applies.

Requirement 6: Proper Party to File

Who can file UDRP:

• Trademark owner
• Exclusive licensee of trademark
• Authorized representative of trademark owner

Who cannot file:

• Non-owners without authorization
• Former employees without authority
• Competitors trying to interfere
• Third parties without legal standing

Multiple complainants:

• Can join together if same dispute
• Example: Parent company + subsidiary both own related marks

Verification Checklist

Before proceeding, confirm:

• You own valid trademark (registered or common law)
• Domain is identical or confusingly similar to trademark
• You can articulate why respondent lacks legitimate interest
• You have evidence of bad faith registration and use
• Domain is covered by UDRP (gTLD or participating ccTLD)
• You are proper party to file complaint
• You attempted pre-filing resolution (cease and desist)
• Benefits of filing outweigh costs

If all boxes checked: Proceed to gathering documentation

If any box unchecked: Reconsider filing or strengthen that element first

Step 2: Gather Required Documentation

Strong evidence is the foundation of a winning UDRP complaint. Gather comprehensive documentation before you start writing.

Trademark Evidence

For registered trademarks:

Required:

• Trademark registration certificate
• Registration number
• Registration date
• Current status confirmation

Helpful:

• Certified copy from trademark office
• TSDR (Trademark Status and Document Retrieval) report
• Foreign registrations if international mark
• Evidence of trademark use in commerce

For common law trademarks:

Required (higher burden of proof):

• Evidence of first use in commerce (dated)
• Continuous use documentation
• Sales records or invoices
• Marketing materials showing use
• Evidence of consumer recognition

Helpful:

• Consumer surveys showing brand recognition
• Industry awards or recognition
• Media coverage mentioning your trademark
• Geographic scope of use
• Duration of continuous use (longer = better)

Domain Registration Evidence

WHOIS information:

• Current WHOIS record (screenshot with date)
• Registrant name and contact info
• Registration date
• Expiration date
• Registrar information
• Domain status codes

Historical WHOIS:

• Previous WHOIS records if ownership changed
• Shows pattern of ownership
• Evidence of false WHOIS info over time

Where to get:

• DomainDetails.com WHOIS lookup
• ICANN WHOIS lookup
• Historical WHOIS from DomainTools, WhoisHistory.com

Domain Use Evidence

Current use screenshots:

• Full-page screenshot of domain
• Include URL bar showing domain
• Include date/timestamp
• Multiple pages if it's a developed site
• Parking page with ads (if applicable)
• "For sale" listings (if applicable)

Historical use (Wayback Machine):

• Archive.org historical snapshots
• Shows how domain has been used over time
• Evidence of changing use or non-use
• Pattern of parking vs development

Email communications:

• Offers to sell domain to you
• Ransom or extortion demands
• Correspondence about domain
• Cease and desist letter and response (if any)

Advertising content:

• Screenshots of ads on parked page
• Evidence ads are for your competitors
• Proof of commercial gain from confusion

Bad Faith Evidence

Pattern of cybersquatting:

• List of other famous trademark domains owned by respondent
• WHOIS searches showing multiple similar registrations
• Evidence they're a known cybersquatter
• Previous UDRP cases against same respondent

Offers to sell:

• Emails offering to sell domain
• Listing on domain marketplace (Sedo, Dan, etc.)
• Price demanded (especially if excessive)
• Timing of offer relative to your trademark

Knowledge of your trademark:

• Evidence respondent knew of your mark when registering
• Geographic proximity
• Industry overlap
• Communications showing awareness
• Obvious fame of trademark

Impossible legitimate use:

• Trademark so famous that no legitimate use exists
• Example: microsoft.com, google.com
• No plausible explanation for choosing that exact term

False WHOIS information:

• Evidence registration info is false
• Privacy service used to hide identity (note: privacy service alone isn't bad faith)
• Fake addresses or contact info

No Legitimate Interest Evidence

Non-use evidence:

• Domain resolves to blank page
• "Under construction" for years
• Parking page with no unique content
• No evidence of actual business

Business registration searches:

• Search state business registries
• No business entity matching domain name
• Respondent's actual business name is different
• No trademark registrations by respondent

Preparations for use:

• No evidence of business plan
• No development contracts or invoices
• No marketing for business related to domain
• No credible explanation for registration

Timeline Documentation

Create chronological timeline:

1. Your trademark rights established

   • Date of first use in commerce
   • Date of trademark registration
   • Evidence trademark was known/famous by certain date

2. Domain registration

   • When respondent registered domain
   • Relationship to your trademark timeline
   • Did they register before or after your rights?

3. Use over time

   • How has domain been used since registration?
   • When did you become aware of the domain?
   • When did you contact respondent (if applicable)?

4. Communications

   • Cease and desist sent when?
   • Response received when?
   • Offers to sell made when?

Timeline matters: Proves respondent registered after trademark was known, strengthening bad faith case.

Supplementary Evidence

Fame of trademark (if applicable):

• Sales figures
• Advertising spend
• Market share data
• Consumer surveys
• Media coverage
• Industry rankings
• Number of locations/customers
• Social media following

Actual confusion evidence:

• Customer complaints about fake site
• Support tickets from confused consumers
• Misdirected emails
• Survey data showing confusion

Trademark in other TLDs:

• Your ownership of trademark.com, .net, .org
• Shows your legitimate use across TLDs
• Demonstrates trademark is your brand

Organizing Your Evidence

Create numbered exhibits:

Example organization:

• Exhibit A: Trademark registration certificate
• Exhibit B: Evidence of trademark use
• Exhibit C: WHOIS information for disputed domain
• Exhibit D: Screenshot of current domain use
• Exhibit E: Historical Wayback Machine snapshots
• Exhibit F: Correspondence with respondent
• Exhibit G: Evidence of pattern of cybersquatting
• Exhibit H: Proof of bad faith

File formats:

• PDFs for documents (most common)
• Images: JPG or PNG (web screenshots)
• Keep file sizes reasonable (<5MB per exhibit)
• Name files clearly: "Exhibit-A-Trademark-Certificate.pdf"

Best practices:

• Date all screenshots
• Include URL in screenshots
• Use official sources where possible
• Authenticate documents if needed
• Keep originals (not just screenshots)
• Organize logically in order you'll reference them

Step 3: Choose the Right Provider

Four ICANN-approved UDRP providers are available. Choose strategically based on your needs.

WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)

Overview:

• Largest UDRP provider (~65% of cases)
• Based in Geneva, Switzerland
• Handles 3,000+ cases per year
• Most international recognition

Pricing:

Timeline:

• Average: 60-70 days from filing to decision
• Can be slower during busy periods

Languages supported:

• English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and more

Panel quality:

• Largest pool of experienced panelists
• Deep expertise in trademark law
• Many decisions published (good for research)

Choose WIPO when:

• International recognition matters
• You want most experienced panelists
• Your case may set precedent
• Language support needed
• Dealing with famous marks
• Multiple domains (bulk pricing)

Filing at WIPO:

• Website: wipo.int/amc/en/domains
• Online filing system
• Required: Complaint form, evidence, payment
• Electronic submission preferred

NAF / ADR Forum

Overview:

• Second largest provider (~30% of cases)
• Based in Minneapolis, USA
• Fast processing times
• U.S.-centric approach

Pricing:

Timeline:

• Average: 55-65 days (slightly faster than WIPO)
• Efficient case management

Languages supported:

• Primarily English
• Limited other language support

Panel quality:

• Strong U.S. trademark attorneys
• Efficient and practical approach
• Good understanding of U.S. law

Choose NAF when:

• Cost is primary concern (cheapest option)
• Speed matters
• U.S.-based dispute
• English-language only case
• Straightforward cybersquatting
• Want efficient processing

Filing at NAF:

• Website: adr.forum.com/icann
• Online submission system
• Required: Complaint, exhibits, payment
• User-friendly interface

ADNDRC (Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre)

Overview:

• Based in Hong Kong and Beijing
• Serves Asia-Pacific region
• Handles ~400 cases per year
• Asian language expertise

Pricing:

Timeline:

• Average: 60-70 days
• Similar to WIPO

Languages supported:

• English, Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese), Korean, Japanese
• Other Asian languages available

Panel quality:

• Asian trademark law expertise
• Understanding of regional markets
• Good for Asian brand disputes

Choose ADNDRC when:

• Asia-Pacific region dispute
• Need Chinese/Korean/Japanese language
• Respondent based in Asia
• Asian trademark issues
• Regional market expertise needed

Filing at ADNDRC:

• Website: adndrc.org
• Language options for forms
• Can file in local language

CAC (Czech Arbitration Court)

Overview:

• Based in Prague, Czech Republic
• Smallest provider (~100-150 cases/year)
• European focus
• Lowest base cost

Pricing:

Administrative fee: €200 (~$220)

Timeline:

• Average: 55-65 days
• Fast processing

Languages supported:

• English, Czech, Slovak, German, other European languages

Panel quality:

• European legal expertise
• Good for EU disputes
• Less international recognition

Choose CAC when:

• Budget is very limited (cheapest option)
• European dispute
• Need European language support
• Regional European case
• Cost outweighs need for WIPO recognition

Filing at CAC:

• Website: adr.eu
• Online submission
• European payment options

Provider Comparison Matrix

Decision Factors

Choose based on:

1. Budget

• Tightest budget: CAC (~$1,320)
• Budget-conscious: NAF ($1,300)
• Standard budget: WIPO or ADNDRC ($1,500)

2. Speed

• Fastest: NAF or CAC (55-65 days)
• Standard: WIPO or ADNDRC (60-70 days)

3. Language

• Asian languages: ADNDRC
• European languages: CAC or WIPO
• English only: NAF

4. Reputation/Precedent

• Maximum credibility: WIPO
• U.S. cases: NAF or WIPO
• Regional recognition: ADNDRC or CAC

5. Case complexity

• Complex/precedent-setting: WIPO
• Straightforward: NAF
• Regional specifics: ADNDRC or CAC

Reality: Most choose WIPO or NAF

• WIPO: ~65% of cases
• NAF: ~30% of cases
• ADNDRC: ~4% of cases
• CAC: ~1% of cases

Can't switch providers after filing, so choose carefully upfront.

Step 4: Prepare Your Complaint

Writing a strong complaint is critical to success. Follow the required format and make compelling arguments.

Required Information

Every UDRP complaint must include:

1. Complainant Information

• Full legal name
• Address
• Phone, fax, email
• Authorized representative (if applicable)
• Attorney contact info (if using counsel)

2. Respondent Information

• Domain registrant name (from WHOIS)
• Address (from WHOIS)
• Contact information (from WHOIS)
• Note if WHOIS info appears false/incomplete

3. Domain Name(s)

• List each domain being disputed
• Include full domain with TLD
• Example: example.com, example.net

4. Registrar

• Name of domain registrar
• From WHOIS information
• Provider will verify and contact registrar

5. Factual Background

• Your trademark rights
• When and how you acquired them
• Respondent's registration of domain
• How you discovered it
• Your attempt at resolution (cease and desist)

6. Legal Grounds

• Element 1: Domain identical/confusingly similar
• Element 2: Respondent lacks rights/legitimate interests
• Element 3: Domain registered and used in bad faith

7. Remedy Sought

• Transfer of domain to complainant (typical)
• Cancellation of domain (rare)

8. Certification

• Complaint is accurate and complete
• Filed in good faith
• Not filing for improper purpose
• Not reverse domain hijacking

9. Signature and Date

Complaint Structure

Professional UDRP complaint format:

UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY
COMPLAINT

Complainant: [Your Company Name]
Respondent: [Domain Registrant Name]
Disputed Domain(s): [domain.com]

I. PARTIES

Complainant is [Full Name], a [corporation/LLC] organized under
the laws of [State/Country], with principal place of business at
[Address]. Complainant is represented by [Attorney Name] of [Law Firm].

Respondent is [Name from WHOIS], located at [Address from WHOIS],
as identified in the WHOIS record for the disputed domain.

II. DOMAIN NAME AND REGISTRAR

The disputed domain name is [domain.com] (the "Domain").

The Domain is registered with [Registrar Name].

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Complainant's Trademark Rights

[Describe your trademark rights in detail]

B. Respondent's Registration and Use of the Domain

[Describe when/how respondent registered and uses domain]

C. Complainant's Attempts to Resolve

[Describe cease and desist, respondent's response or non-response]

IV. LEGAL GROUNDS

The Domain is subject to this dispute resolution proceeding pursuant
to ICANN's Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, the Rules
for Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, and the
Supplemental Rules of [Provider].

A. The Domain is Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Mark

[Argument and evidence for Element 1]

B. Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain

[Argument and evidence for Element 2]

C. The Domain Was Registered and Is Being Used in Bad Faith

[Argument and evidence for Element 3]

V. REMEDY REQUESTED

Complainant requests that the Panel order the Domain be transferred
to Complainant.

VI. CERTIFICATION

[Standard certification language]

Respectfully submitted,

[Signature]
[Name]
[Date]

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A: [Description]
Exhibit B: [Description]
...

Writing Element 1: Identical or Confusingly Similar

Structure:

1. State your trademark rights clearly
2. Prove confusing similarity
3. Address any potential counterarguments

Example argument:

A. The Domain is Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Mark

1. Complainant's Trademark Rights

Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. [XXXXX] for the mark
[TRADEMARK], registered on [Date] for [goods/services]. (Exhibit A:
Registration Certificate). Complainant has used this mark continuously
in commerce since [Date], as evidenced by [description]. (Exhibit B:
Evidence of Use).

2. Confusing Similarity

The Domain [domain.com] is identical to Complainant's registered mark
[TRADEMARK]. The only difference is the addition of the generic top-level
domain ".com," which is disregarded under UDRP analysis. See [cite UDRP
precedent cases].

[OR if not identical:]

The Domain [trademark-keyword.com] is confusingly similar to Complainant's
mark [TRADEMARK]. It incorporates the entirety of Complainant's mark with
the mere addition of the descriptive term "keyword" and the gTLD ".com."
The addition of a generic or descriptive term does not eliminate confusing
similarity under UDRP. See [cite cases].

An ordinary internet user encountering the Domain would immediately
associate it with Complainant's mark and believe the Domain is affiliated
with or sponsored by Complainant.

3. Conclusion on Element 1

Complainant has established rights in the [TRADEMARK] mark through
federal registration and substantial use in commerce. The Domain is
[identical/confusingly similar] to this mark. Element 1 is satisfied.

Writing Element 2: No Rights or Legitimate Interests

Structure:

1. Make prima facie case respondent lacks interest
2. Address potential defenses preemptively
3. Cite evidence of lack of use or bad use

Example argument:

B. Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain

Under UDRP, Complainant need only make a prima facie showing that
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. The burden then shifts
to Respondent to prove otherwise. See [cite cases].

1. Respondent Has Not Used the Domain for Bona Fide Business

The Domain currently resolves to a parking page displaying pay-per-click
advertising links. (Exhibit C: Screenshot of Domain). There is no evidence
of any bona fide offering of goods or services. Wayback Machine archives
show the Domain has been parked since registration. (Exhibit D: Historical
Snapshots). This is not legitimate use under UDRP. See [cite cases].

2. Respondent Is Not Commonly Known by the Domain

WHOIS records identify Respondent as [Name]. (Exhibit E: WHOIS). There
is no evidence Respondent has ever been known by [Domain]. A search of
[state] business registrations reveals no business entity by that name.
(Exhibit F: Business Search Results). Respondent has not established
trademark rights in the term.

3. Respondent Is Not Making Fair Use

The Domain is not being used for legitimate commentary, criticism, or
fair use. It is parked with commercial advertising, demonstrating
intent to profit from Complainant's mark, not to engage in protected
speech. This is not fair use under UDRP. See [cite cases].

4. Conclusion on Element 2

Respondent is not using the Domain for any legitimate purpose, is not
known by the Domain, and is not making fair use. Complainant has made
a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.
Element 2 is satisfied.

Writing Element 3: Bad Faith Registration and Use

Structure:

1. Prove bad faith at registration
2. Prove bad faith in current use
3. Cite specific UDRP bad faith factors
4. Use respondent's own words if available

Example argument:

C. The Domain Was Registered and Is Being Used in Bad Faith

UDRP ¶ 4(b) provides non-exclusive examples of bad faith. Multiple
factors demonstrate Respondent's bad faith here.

1. Registered Primarily to Sell to Complainant (¶ 4(b)(i))

On [Date], Respondent contacted Complainant offering to sell the Domain
for $[Amount]. (Exhibit G: Email Communication). This price far exceeds
any reasonable out-of-pocket costs associated with registration and
maintenance. This offer to sell the Domain to the trademark owner for
valuable consideration constitutes bad faith under ¶ 4(b)(i). See [cite].

2. Using Domain to Attract Users for Commercial Gain (¶ 4(b)(iv))

The Domain displays pay-per-click advertising related to Complainant's
industry. (Exhibit C: Screenshot). By using Complainant's identical
trademark in the Domain, Respondent is intentionally attracting internet
users to Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood
of confusion with Complainant's mark. This is bad faith under ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See [cite cases].

3. Knowledge of Complainant's Mark

Respondent registered the Domain on [Date], well after Complainant
established trademark rights ([Earlier Date]). Complainant's mark is
well-known in [industry] and has been extensively used in commerce.
(Exhibit H: Evidence of Fame). It is inconceivable that Respondent
coincidentally selected this exact term without knowledge of Complainant's
mark. Such knowledge at registration supports a finding of bad faith.
See [cite].

4. No Plausible Legitimate Use

Given the fame and distinctiveness of Complainant's mark, there is no
plausible legitimate use Respondent could make of the Domain. The term
[TRADEMARK] is a fanciful mark with no dictionary meaning. Respondent
could have no reason to register this specific Domain except to exploit
Complainant's trademark. See [cite passive holding cases].

5. Conclusion on Element 3

Respondent's offer to sell the Domain to Complainant, use of the Domain
to display competitor advertising, knowledge of Complainant's famous mark,
and lack of any plausible legitimate use all demonstrate bad faith
registration and use. Element 3 is satisfied.

Citing UDRP Precedent

Find relevant cases:

• Search WIPO database: wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search
• Search NAF decisions: adr.forum.com/icann/icanndecisions
• Use keywords matching your fact pattern

How to cite:

See [Trademark] v. [Respondent], WIPO Case No. D20XX-XXXX (finding [holding]).

Strong precedents to cite:

For identical/similar:

• Any case where mark + generic term = similar
• Cases where TLD doesn't defeat similarity

For no legitimate interest:

• Parking page cases
• Passive holding cases
• Cases where respondent not known by domain

For bad faith:

• Offer to sell cases
• Commercial parking page cases
• Famous mark cases (impossible to not know)
• Pattern of cybersquatting cases

Cite 3-5 strong precedents for each element to show panel your case aligns with established UDRP jurisprudence.

Length and Tone

Typical length:

• Simple case: 5-10 pages + exhibits
• Complex case: 15-25 pages + exhibits
• Don't be unnecessarily verbose

Tone:

• Professional and respectful
• Factual, not emotional
• Confident but not arrogant
• Stick to legal arguments
• Avoid personal attacks on respondent

Do:

• ✓ Be clear and organized
• ✓ Use headings and structure
• ✓ Cite evidence for every claim
• ✓ Reference specific exhibits
• ✓ Cite relevant UDRP precedent

Don't:

• ✗ Exaggerate or make false claims
• ✗ Use emotional language
• ✗ Make personal attacks
• ✗ Include irrelevant information
• ✗ Forget to cite your exhibits

(Continued in next part due to length...)