Domain Name Disputes and Cybersquatting: ACPA and UDRP Options

Last updated: November 2026

Cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to someone else's distinctive mark, with a bad faith intent to profit from the mark. (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A).) A California business has two routes against it. A UDRP complaint can transfer the domain in a few months, with no damages. An ACPA lawsuit can transfer it and add statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name. (15 U.S.C. § 1117(d).) Kolmogorov Law, P.C. handles both for Orange County and Los Angeles businesses.

Call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online if someone is holding or using a domain that belongs with your brand.

What cybersquatting is

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, makes a person liable to the owner of a mark if two things are true. The person has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark. And the person registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a mark that was distinctive when the domain was registered. For a famous mark, a dilutive domain counts too. (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A).) The claim exists without regard to the goods or services of the parties, which separates it from ordinary infringement.

Bad faith intent to profit

The statute lists nine factors a court may consider, and says the list is not exclusive. (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B).) In plain terms:

Whether the registrant has trademark rights of its own in the name.
Whether the domain is the registrant's legal name or a name it is commonly known by.
Whether the registrant used the domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services before the dispute.
Whether the site is a bona fide noncommercial or fair use.
Whether the registrant meant to divert the owner's customers, for profit or to tarnish the mark.
Whether the registrant offered to sell the domain without having used it, or has a pattern of doing so.
Whether the registrant gave false contact information or let it go stale.
Whether the registrant holds multiple domains that copy others' marks.
How distinctive or famous the mark is.

Bad faith is not found where the registrant believed, on reasonable grounds, that its use was fair or otherwise lawful. (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B).) A registrant who asked for money is rarely inside that safe harbor.

The UDRP route

Registrars of the common top-level domains require registrants to accept the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. It is a policy adopted through ICANN, not a statute. A mark owner files a complaint with an approved dispute provider. In general terms it must show three things: the domain is identical or confusingly similar to its mark; the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in it; and the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. A panel decides on the papers. The only remedies are transfer or cancellation of the domain. No damages, no injunction, no discovery. A losing registrant can block the transfer by filing a court action within a short window, which is why a UDRP win is sometimes the start of litigation rather than the end.

The ACPA route

A federal lawsuit under the ACPA gives the mark owner everything the UDRP does and more. The court can order the domain forfeited, cancelled, or transferred. It can enjoin the registrant's use of the mark. (15 U.S.C. § 1116(a).) And the owner may elect, any time before final judgment, statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name instead of proving actual damages and profits. (15 U.S.C. § 1117(d).) Attorney fees are available in exceptional cases. (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).) The price is time and cost: pleadings, discovery, and motions rather than a paper submission. Our damages and remedies page covers the election.

When the registrant cannot be found or is beyond the court's reach, the owner may file an in rem action against the domain name itself, in the district where the registrar or registry is located. Notice goes to the registrant's listed addresses and by publication. Remedies in an in rem case are limited to forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer. (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A), (D).)

UDRP vs ACPA: choosing between them

Use the UDRP when the domain is the whole problem, the registrant is a stranger, and you want it back quickly. Use the ACPA when the registrant is a competitor or a former insider using the domain to divert customers. Use it when you need an injunction that reaches beyond the domain, when damages matter, or when the registrant has a pattern you want to stop. Use both when a UDRP win is likely to be challenged in court anyway. Filing first picks the forum.

How a domain name dispute comes up for business owners

A former partner leaves and keeps the company's domain, which he registered in his own name years ago. A competitor registers the client's name with a typo and points it at its own site. A stranger registers the client's new product name the week it is announced and asks for a five-figure price. The first is often a partnership dispute as much as a domain case. The second is a strong ACPA claim, often alongside a keyword advertising claim. The third is a clean UDRP.

Where cases are heard

ACPA claims are heard in federal court, for Orange County at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building in Santa Ana and for Los Angeles at the First Street Courthouse. (15 U.S.C. § 1121(a).) UDRP proceedings have no courtroom; they run through the provider online. Related claims for infringement and unfair competition can be joined in the federal case. Our page on proving infringement covers those.

What to bring to the first meeting

The domain's registration history and dates. Proof of when your mark became distinctive or famous, which must predate the domain registration. Screenshots of the site over time. Any offer to sell the domain. Correspondence with the registrant. And, if an insider registered it, the agreements that governed the relationship.

Frequently asked questions

What is cybersquatting?

Registering, using, or trafficking in a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to someone else's distinctive mark, with a bad faith intent to profit from the mark. (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A).) Typosquatting, holding a domain for ransom, and pointing a brand's name at a competitor's site are the common forms.

UDRP vs ACPA: which should I use?

The UDRP is faster and cheaper and transfers the domain, but awards nothing else. The ACPA is a federal lawsuit that can transfer the domain, enjoin use of the mark, and award statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 per domain. (15 U.S.C. § 1117(d).) Strangers holding a domain usually get the UDRP. Competitors and former insiders usually get the ACPA.

Can I get damages for cybersquatting?

Yes, under the ACPA. You may recover actual damages and the defendant's profits, or elect statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name before final judgment. (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), (d).) The UDRP awards no damages. Attorney fees are available in exceptional cases.

What if I cannot find the person who registered the domain?

The ACPA allows an in rem action against the domain name itself in the district where the registrar or registry is located, after notice and publication. The only remedies are forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer. (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2).) The UDRP also proceeds without a cooperative registrant.

Is it cybersquatting if the domain was registered before my trademark existed?

Usually not. The ACPA asks whether the mark was distinctive or famous at the time the domain was registered. (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A).) A domain registered in good faith before the mark existed is not cybersquatting, though later bad faith use of it can raise other claims.

Talk to a California trademark litigation attorney

If a domain name is being used against your brand, call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. is at 327 Magnet, Irvine, CA 92618, and represents businesses in Orange County, Los Angeles, and throughout California. See also our IP litigation page.

This page provides general information about federal trademark law and the UDRP and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the registrant's conduct, the strength of the mark, and the forum.