This guide is for complainants and their counsel. Bad faith is the element that complainants most often get wrong. If you are building a complaint, read the conjunctive-test section first, then the paragraph 4(b) circumstance that fits your facts. If you are responding, read the passive-holding and technical-evidence sections to see how the complainant will try to prove its case.
Quick answer: what bad faith means and how it is proved
Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP, the complainant must prove that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The test is conjunctive: both bad-faith registration and bad-faith use must be shown. Paragraph 4(b) lists four non-exhaustive circumstances that, if present, are evidence of bad faith: an offer to sell, a pattern of blocking, disruption of a competitor, and commercial gain from confusion. Panels also find bad faith in passive holding cases where the Telstra factors are met, and in typosquatting and phishing cases supported by technical evidence such as MX records. The evidence must be contemporaneous, dated, and connected to the targeting of the complainant’s mark.
Key facts at a glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Element | Paragraph 4(a)(iii): registered and used in bad faith |
| Test | Conjunctive: both registration and use |
| Circumstances | Paragraph 4(b)(i)–(iv), non-exhaustive |
| Passive holding | Telstra factors; bad faith may be found without active use |
| Typosquatting | Bad faith under 4(b)(iv) |
| Technical evidence | MX records, SPF, DKIM, certificates |
| Burden | On the complainant |
| Standard | Balance of probabilities |
| Key risk | Filing on one limb alone |
| Key source | WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1–3.7 |
The third element and the conjunctive test
“Registered and used” — the conjunctive requirement
The UDRP requires the complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The word “and” is not accidental. It is the conjunctive test, and it is the single most important structural feature of the third element.
The requirement was confirmed in the first case ever decided under the Policy, World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman (WIPO Case No. D1999-0001), where the panel held that the complainant must establish not only bad-faith registration, but also bad-faith use. The requirement was reaffirmed in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003), where the panel held that the requirement “will be satisfied only if the Complainant proves that the registration was undertaken in bad faith and that the circumstances of the case are such that Respondent is continuing to act in bad faith”.
The consensus view is that bad-faith registration is insufficient if the respondent does not use the domain name in bad faith, and conversely, bad-faith use is insufficient if the registration was in good faith.
The legislative history
The conjunctive requirement is not an accident of drafting. The Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (24 October 1999) records that the WIPO report, the DNSO recommendation, and the registrars-group recommendation all required both registration and use in bad faith before the streamlined procedure would be invoked. The Staff recommended that this requirement not be changed without study and recommendation by the DNSO.
The history matters because it forecloses the argument that “and” should be read as “or”. Panels have consistently rejected that argument.
The disjunctive temptation and why it fails
Some complainants argue that paragraph 4(b)(iv) — commercial gain from confusion — makes no reference to the respondent’s state of mind at the time of registration, and therefore bad-faith use alone should suffice. The argument has been rejected by the weight of authority. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) is an example of evidence of bad faith; it does not displace the conjunctive requirement in paragraph 4(a)(iii).
The practical lesson is that a complainant who cannot prove bad-faith registration should not file under the UDRP. The correct route may be a disjunctive policy — the auDRP, Nominet DRS, CNDRP, INDRP, or usDRP — or a court.
The “retroactive bad faith” problem
Some panels explored a theory of “retroactive” bad faith registration, based on the registrant’s representations in paragraph 2 of the UDRP. The theory is that a registrant who later uses the domain in bad faith has breached its paragraph 2 warranty, and the registration can be treated as bad faith from the start.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1 notes that the concept has not been followed in subsequent cases, though paragraph 2 may be relevant on its own terms. The consensus is that a good-faith registration cannot be converted into a bad-faith registration by later conduct. The auDRP and other disjunctive policies do not have this problem, because they allow bad faith in registration or use.
The UDRP requires both registration and use in bad faith. Do not file on one limb alone. We test the evidence against the conjunctive test before you commit. Start a filing assessment →
Paragraph 4(b)(i): Offer to sell
Paragraph 4(b)(i) provides that bad faith is evidenced by:
“circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name”.
The elements: primary purpose, targeted offer, excess price
The provision has three moving parts:
- Primary purpose: The domain was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or transferring it.
- Targeted offer: The offer must be to the complainant or a competitor of the complainant.
- Excess price: The consideration must exceed the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs.
All three must be present. A mere offer to sell for a profit, where the offer does not target the trademark owner, is not enough.
“Primarily for the purpose” — what it requires
The purpose must be primary, not incidental. A respondent who registers a domain for a genuine business and later receives an unsolicited offer to sell is not within 4(b)(i). A respondent who registers a domain with the intention of selling it to the trademark owner is.
The purpose is assessed at the time of registration. Later conduct can be evidence of the original purpose, but it does not create it.
The targeted offer problem
The offer must target the complainant or a competitor. A general offer to the public, or a listing on a marketplace, is not necessarily targeted. In D2024-4776, the respondent offered the domain for sale through GoDaddy’s brokerage service at USD 48,500. The panel noted that the respondent did not negotiate directly with the complainant and that the parties negotiated through an intermediary, so neither knew with whom they were negotiating. The complainant had not presented adequate evidence that the respondent registered the domain primarily for the purpose of transferring it specifically to the complainant or a competitor.
The lesson is that targeting is essential. A high asking price is not enough if the offer is not directed at the trademark owner.
Out-of-pocket costs
The consideration must exceed the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain. These costs typically include the registration fee and any renewal fees. They do not include the respondent’s time, marketing, or the “value” the respondent attributes to the domain.
A respondent who offers the domain for USD 50,000 when the registration cost was USD 12 is offering it at a price that exceeds out-of-pocket costs by a wide margin. That is evidence under 4(b)(i), but it is not conclusive. The complainant must still show that the primary purpose at registration was to sell to the complainant or a competitor.
Mere offers to sell vs bad-faith offers
A mere offer to sell is not automatically bad faith. Panels have consistently held that the practice of registering a domain for subsequent resale — including for profit — does not in itself support a bad-faith finding. The question is whether the registration was primarily for the purpose of selling to the trademark owner or a competitor.
The distinction is between:
- A domain investor who buys and sells domains as a business, without targeting trademark owners.
- A cybersquatter who registers a domain because it matches a trademark, with the intention of extracting a payment from the trademark owner.
The first is legitimate; the second is not.
Evidence that proves the offer
The evidence should include:
- Emails showing the offer and the price.
- Marketplace listings showing the domain for sale.
- Brokerage correspondence showing the negotiation.
- Screenshots of a “make an offer” page.
- Payment records showing the out-of-pocket costs.
The evidence should be dated and connected to the respondent. An anonymous offer is harder to attribute.
An offer to sell is not automatically bad faith. It must target the complainant and reflect a primary purpose at registration. We test the link before you file. Get a filing assessment →
Paragraph 4(b)(ii): Pattern of blocking
Paragraph 4(b)(ii) provides that bad faith is evidenced by:
“circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct”.
The two limbs: blocking and pattern
The provision has two limbs:
- Blocking: The domain was registered in order to prevent the trademark owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain.
- Pattern: The respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.
Both limbs must be present. A single blocking registration is not enough; the complainant must show a pattern.
Multiple domains and third-party marks
The pattern is usually shown by the respondent’s ownership of multiple domain names that correspond to third-party trademarks. The ownership of multiple domains corresponding to third-party marks constitutes prima facie evidence of conduct falling within 4(b)(ii).
The pattern must be documented. The complainant should produce:
- A list of the domains owned by the respondent.
- Evidence that the domains match third-party marks.
- Evidence of prior adverse UDRP decisions against the respondent.
- Evidence of a consistent modus operandi.
Prior adverse UDRP decisions
Prior adverse UDRP decisions are powerful evidence of a pattern. A respondent who has been ordered to transfer domains in previous cases is on notice, and a subsequent registration matching a third-party mark is more likely to be found in bad faith.
The complainant should search the WIPO and Forum decision databases, and the UDRP.tools database, for prior decisions involving the respondent.
The “pattern” threshold
The pattern threshold is not fixed. Two or three prior registrations may be enough if they are closely related and recent. A single prior registration is unlikely to be enough. The pattern must be meaningful, not a coincidence.
Evidence that proves the pattern
The evidence should include:
- WHOIS/RDDS records for each domain.
- Screenshots of each domain’s use.
- Prior UDRP decisions and their outcomes.
- A schedule linking each domain to a third-party mark.
The schedule is critical. A panel needs to see the pattern at a glance.
Paragraph 4(b)(iii): Disruption of a competitor
Paragraph 4(b)(iii) provides that bad faith is evidenced by:
“circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor”.
The competitor relationship
The respondent and the complainant must be competitors. The competitor relationship can be direct or indirect, but it must be genuine. A respondent who is not a competitor is outside 4(b)(iii).
Disruption — diversion, disparagement, interference
The disruption can take several forms:
- Diversion of the complainant’s customers to the respondent’s site.
- Disparagement of the complainant’s business.
- Interference with the complainant’s operations.
- Hosting links to the complainant’s competitors.
The use must be primarily for the purpose of disruption. A respondent who uses the domain for a genuine business that happens to compete with the complainant is not necessarily within 4(b)(iii); the primary purpose must be disruption.
Evidence that proves disruption
The evidence should include:
- Evidence of the competitor relationship — market positioning, product overlap, customer base.
- Screenshots of the respondent’s site showing diversion or disparagement.
- Evidence of pay-per-click links to the complainant’s competitors.
- Customer complaints or confusion evidence.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv): Commercial gain from confusion
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) provides that bad faith is evidenced by:
“by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location”.
The elements: intentional attraction, commercial gain, likelihood of confusion
The provision has three elements:
- Intentional attraction: The respondent intentionally attempted to attract internet users.
- Commercial gain: The attraction was for commercial gain.
- Likelihood of confusion: The attraction created a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark.
All three must be present.
Pay-per-click and affiliate links
Pay-per-click landing pages are the classic 4(b)(iv) case. The respondent registers a domain matching a trademark, populates it with links to the complainant’s competitors, and earns a commission on each click. The use is commercial, the confusion is likely, and the intent is to profit from the mark.
Affiliate links are similar. The respondent earns a commission for directing traffic to a third party’s site.
Fake login pages and impersonation
Fake login pages are a more serious form of 4(b)(iv). The respondent mimics the complainant’s site to harvest credentials. The use is commercial (the credentials have value), the confusion is likely (the page looks like the complainant’s), and the intent is to deceive.
The “typosquatting” line of cases
Typosquatting is the registration of a domain that is a misspelling of a trademark. Panels have consistently held that typosquatting is a bad-faith use under 4(b)(iv).
The classic cases include:
- AltaVista Co. v. Stoneybrook (WIPO Case No. D2000-0886):
wwwalavista.comand other misspellings ofaltavista.com. - Dow Jones & Co. v. Powerclick, Inc. (WIPO Case No. D2000-1259):
wwwdowjones.com,wwwwsj.com,wwwbarrons.com, andwwwbarronsmag.com.
The reasoning is that the respondent’s only plausible reason to register a misspelling of a well-known mark is to take unfair advantage of the mark’s recognition and profit from consumer error.
Evidence that proves commercial gain
The evidence should include:
- Screenshots of the pay-per-click or affiliate links.
- Revenue records showing the commercial gain.
- WHOIS records showing the respondent’s identity.
- Technical evidence of the monetisation.
- Evidence of consumer confusion — emails, complaints, analytics.
Typosquatting and phishing are strong 4(b)(iv) cases. We document the technical evidence — MX records, screenshots, and monetisation — before you file. Get an evidence review →
Beyond the four circumstances
Passive holding and the Telstra test
Passive holding is the doctrine that non-use of a domain can constitute bad-faith use. The leading case is Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). The panel held that the question of bad faith in passive holding cases “can only be answered in respect of the particular facts of a specific case” and that the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent’s behaviour.
The five Telstra factors
The Telstra panel identified five factors that supported a finding of bad faith:
- The complainant’s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known.
- The respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good-faith use.
- The respondent has concealed its identity.
- The respondent has provided false contact details.
- It is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain that would not be illegitimate.
The factors are not a checklist. They are circumstances that the panel weighs. The more factors are present, the more likely a finding of bad faith.
When passive holding is not bad faith
Passive holding is not automatically bad faith. In cases where the mark is not famous, the respondent has a plausible reason for holding the domain, or the respondent has not concealed its identity, the Telstra factors may not be met.
In D2023-0532, the panel found that the complainant had not met the Telstra criteria. The domain was identical to a common word, the respondent had established a password-protected website before the complainant existed, and the complainant was the party who contacted the respondent through a broker seeking to purchase the domain. The panel found no bad faith.
The lesson is that passive holding is fact-specific. A complainant cannot rely on the doctrine without building the Telstra factors.
WHOIS privacy and false contact details
WHOIS privacy is not automatically bad faith. But it can be part of the picture, particularly when combined with:
- False contact details.
- A pattern of registrations.
- An offer to sell.
- No plausible legitimate use.
Panels weigh privacy alongside the other circumstances. A respondent who uses privacy for a legitimate reason — for example, to protect personal safety — is in a different position from one who uses it to conceal a pattern of abuse.
“Willful blindness” and the duty to check
The “willful blindness” doctrine holds that a respondent who fails to check whether a domain matches a third-party mark may be treated as knowing of the mark. The doctrine is most typically applied to professional domain investors who have the resources and sophistication to conduct due diligence.
In the speroni.com decision, the panel found RDNH grounded in the complainant’s “wilful blindness to publicly available evidence”. The same principle can apply to respondents.
Passive holding can be bad faith, but only with the right circumstances. We test the Telstra factors against the record before you file. Talk to counsel →
Technical evidence: MX records, SPF, DKIM, and certificates
MX records as evidence of bad faith
MX records are DNS records that route email for a domain. Their presence shows that the domain is configured to send or receive email. In UDRP cases, MX records can be evidence of bad-faith intent — for example, an intent to use the domain for phishing or email spoofing.
In Michelin, the panel found the domain was a typosquatting attempt and represented a phishing risk through active MX records, resulting in a transfer order. In Thales-Raytheon, WIPO transferred the domain due to phishing risks.
The “phishing that hasn’t happened yet”
Panels have increasingly accepted that MX records alone can support a bad-faith finding, even where no phishing email has been sent. The reasoning is that configuring a lookalike domain for email is technological preparation for phishing, and the risk is sufficient to justify transfer.
The Equifax case is instructive. The panel confirmed that configuring MX records for a passively held domain constitutes evidence of bad-faith intent for potential phishing, justifying an immediate domain transfer.
SPF, DKIM, and DMARC
SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are email authentication protocols. Their presence or absence can be evidence of the domain’s purpose. A lookalike domain that is configured with SPF and DKIM records is more clearly set up for sending email, which supports a phishing inference.
SSL certificates and lookalike infrastructure
The issuance of an SSL certificate for a lookalike domain is evidence that the domain is being prepared for a live website. Certificate transparency logs make this evidence easy to obtain and date.
The combination of MX records, SSL certificates, and lookalike content is powerful evidence of bad faith.
The limits of technical evidence
Technical evidence is not a shortcut around the UDRP’s basic requirements. The mere existence of MX records should not, on its own, establish bad faith. The complainant must still show:
- Bad-faith registration (or a disjunctive policy that allows bad-faith use alone).
- Targeting of the complainant’s mark.
- No legitimate interest on the respondent’s part.
Technical evidence supports the inference; it does not replace the elements.
MX records, SPF, and certificates are evidence. We coordinate the technical and legal analysis before you file. Get a technical evidence review →
The conjunctive test in practice
Priority of registration
The registration date is critical. Where the respondent registered the domain before the complainant’s trademark rights arose, panels will not normally find bad faith. The complainant must show targeting — that the respondent knew or should have known of the mark at the time of registration.
The HCL.ai case is an example. The panel relied on the surrounding facts — the strength of the HCL mark, its recognition in the technology sector, the respondent’s sophistication, and the absence of a plausible alternative use — to infer that the respondent knew or should have known of HCL’s rights. The inference was grounded in the totality of the circumstances, not direct evidence of intent.
After-acquired knowledge
Where the respondent acquired knowledge of the mark after registration, the question is whether the later use was in bad faith. Under the conjunctive test, later bad-faith use alone is not enough. The complainant must show bad faith at registration.
The disjunctive policies — auDRP, Nominet DRS, CNDRP, INDRP, usDRP — do not have this problem. A complainant who cannot prove bad-faith registration under the UDRP may be able to succeed under a disjunctive policy.
The “targeting” requirement
Targeting is the core of bad-faith registration. The complainant must show that the respondent knew or should have known of the mark and registered the domain because of it. The evidence can be direct (an email, an offer) or circumstantial (the fame of the mark, the respondent’s sophistication, the absence of a plausible alternative explanation).
The willful blindness doctrine is a form of targeting by omission. A respondent who fails to check whether a domain matches a third-party mark may be treated as knowing.
The disjunctive policies and how they differ
| Policy | Test | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| UDRP | Registered and used | Both limbs required |
| Nominet DRS | Registered or used abusively | Later use actionable |
| auDRP | Registered or used in bad faith | Later use actionable |
| CDRP | Registered in bad faith | Focus on registration |
| .eu ADR | No rights/legitimate interest or bad faith | Broader route |
| INDRP | Registered or used in bad faith | Later use actionable |
| CNDRP | Registered or used in bad faith | Later use actionable |
| SACI-Adm | Stricter: direct knowledge at registration | Higher evidentiary bar |
| usDRP | Registered or used in bad faith | Later use actionable |
The choice of policy is a strategic decision. A complainant who cannot prove bad-faith registration under the UDRP may have a stronger case under a disjunctive policy.
The same facts can produce different outcomes under different policies. We map the policy to the evidence before you file. Ask which policy applies →
Evidence that persuades panels — and evidence that fails
Contemporaneous records
The strongest evidence is created at the time. Emails, offer letters, marketplace listings, and screenshots from the registration period carry more weight than evidence assembled after the complaint.
Screenshots and URL bars
Screenshots should include the URL bar and the date. A cropped screenshot without context is easy to challenge.
Wayback captures
Wayback Machine captures show how the domain was used before notice. Panels routinely consult the Wayback Machine, and a capture that contradicts the respondent’s narrative is powerful evidence.
WHOIS history
Historical WHOIS shows the registration date, transfers, and prior registrants. It is useful for establishing priority and targeting.
Correspondence and offers
Offer emails, demand letters, and brokerage correspondence are direct evidence of bad faith under 4(b)(i). They should be produced in full, with headers where possible.
What panels discount
Panels discount:
- Unverifiable assertions.
- After-the-fact reconstructions.
- Cropped or undated screenshots.
- Fabricated evidence (which can lead to RDNH).
- AI-generated filings without verification.
In The Scent Stories, the panel noted internal drafting notes in the complaint and observed that it appeared likely to have been prepared using an AI platform. The panel declined to admit an unsolicited supplemental filing and criticised the lack of verification. AI-assisted drafting is not prohibited, but it must be reviewed and verified.
Evidence wins bad-faith cases. We build the annex file, test the timeline, and verify the record before filing. Get an evidence review →
Provider-specific approaches
WIPO
WIPO is the largest provider and has the most developed body of precedent. Its panels apply the UDRP consistently, and its decisions are the most cited. The WIPO Overview 3.0 is the canonical statement of consensus.
Forum
Forum applies the UDRP and its own Supplemental Rules. Its panels are experienced and its decisions are published. Forum is often chosen for straightforward single-domain cases.
ADNDRC
ADNDRC applies the UDRP and its own Supplemental Rules. It is often chosen for cases with an Asian nexus.
CAC
CAC applies the UDRP and its own Supplemental Rules. Its fee structure includes a supplement for responses or complexity.
CIIDRC
CIIDRC applies the UDRP and its own Supplemental Rules. It is a newer provider and may offer more personalised case management.
Worked hypotheticals
The typosquatter
Facts: A respondent registers michelinz.com, a misspelling of MICHELIN. The domain resolves to a pay-per-click page with links to tyre retailers. The domain has active MX records.
Analysis: The complainant can prove 4(b)(iv) — commercial gain from confusion — through the pay-per-click links. The typosquatting is itself evidence of bad faith. The MX records support a phishing inference. The registration was after the mark arose, and the respondent’s only plausible reason for the misspelling is to profit from consumer error. The case is strong.
Lesson: Typosquatting plus monetisation plus technical evidence is a compelling 4(b)(iv) case.
The passive holder
Facts: A respondent registers a domain matching a famous mark and does nothing with it for years. The WHOIS is private, and the respondent does not respond to the complaint.
Analysis: The complainant can rely on passive holding and the Telstra factors: the mark is famous, there is no evidence of good-faith use, the respondent has concealed its identity, and there is no plausible legitimate use. The case is strong, provided the mark is widely known.
Lesson: Passive holding requires the Telstra factors, especially the fame of the mark.
The competitor
Facts: A competitor registers a domain matching the complainant’s mark and uses it to divert customers to its own site, with links to the complainant’s competitors.
Analysis: The complainant can prove 4(b)(iii) — disruption of a competitor — and 4(b)(iv) — commercial gain from confusion. The competitor relationship and the diversion are documented. The case is strong.
Lesson: Competitor cases often satisfy more than one 4(b) circumstance.
The investor who knew
Facts: A domain investor acquires a portfolio that includes a domain matching a well-known mark. The investor does not check the portfolio for third-party marks. The domain is later offered for sale at a high price.
Analysis: The complainant can argue willful blindness — the investor failed to check, despite its sophistication. The offer to sell supports 4(b)(i) if it targets the complainant. The case is arguable, but the investor may have a legitimate interest defence if the domain has a generic meaning and the portfolio is genuine.
Lesson: Willful blindness is a route to bad faith, but it is not automatic.
The good-faith registrant
Facts: A respondent registers a domain that matches a common word. The complainant’s mark is registered after the domain. The respondent uses the domain for a genuine site about the word’s ordinary meaning.
Analysis: The respondent registered before the mark arose, so there is no bad-faith registration. Under the conjunctive test, the complaint fails. The respondent also has a legitimate interest under 4(c)(i).
Lesson: Priority defeats bad-faith registration under the UDRP. The complainant may have a stronger case under a disjunctive policy.
The bad-faith evidence checklist
- Registration date: Does it predate or postdate the complainant’s rights?
- Targeting: What evidence shows the respondent knew or should have known of the mark?
- Conjunctive test: Can you prove both bad-faith registration and bad-faith use?
- 4(b)(i): Is there an offer to sell, targeted at the complainant or a competitor, above out-of-pocket costs?
- 4(b)(ii): Is there a pattern of blocking third-party marks?
- 4(b)(iii): Is there a competitor relationship and disruption?
- 4(b)(iv): Is there commercial gain from confusion — pay-per-click, affiliate links, fake login pages?
- Passive holding: Do the Telstra factors apply?
- Technical evidence: MX records, SPF, DKIM, certificates.
- Evidence file: Dated, indexed, and verified.
- Policy choice: Is the UDRP the right route, or is a disjunctive policy stronger?
- RDNH risk: Is the complaint overreaching?
The checklist is the difference between a filing and a win. Book a filing assessment →
How counsel.domains can help
If you are building a complaint, we test the evidence against the conjunctive test and the 4(b) circumstances before you commit.
If the case involves typosquatting or phishing, we coordinate the technical evidence — MX records, SPF, certificates — with the legal analysis.
If the case involves passive holding, we test the Telstra factors against the record.
If the UDRP is the wrong policy, we advise on the disjunctive alternatives and coordinate parallel filings.
counsel.domains Domain names, worldwide. Start a complaint → · [email protected]
Disclaimer: This website provides general information about domain name dispute resolution. It is not legal advice and does not create a professional relationship. Procedures and fees change; check the relevant policy and provider before acting. counsel.domains is not affiliated with WIPO, ICANN, Forum, ADNDRC, CAC, CIIDRC, or any registry or dispute-resolution provider.