This guide is for complainants and respondents in .us domain disputes. If you have received a usDRP complaint, go straight to the response section — the deadline is 20 days. If you are planning a complaint, read the Nexus requirement first; it is the threshold issue that has no equivalent in the UDRP.
Quick answer: what the usDRP is and what it can do
The usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP) is the national dispute procedure for .us domain names, administered under the .us registry rules by accredited providers including WIPO and Forum. It shares the UDRP’s three-element architecture but has two critical differences: (1) the registrant must satisfy a US Nexus requirement, and (2) the bad-faith test is disjunctive — the domain must be registered or used in bad faith, not both. The respondent has 20 days to file a response. Remedies are limited to transfer or cancellation; there are no damages. A foreign complainant with trademark rights can file even without a US presence, provided the three elements are made out.
Key facts at a glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Policy | usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP) |
| Scope | .us second-level domains only |
| Registry | .us registry (Neustar / registry operator) |
| Nexus requirement | Registrant must have a substantive lawful connection to the US |
| Test | (i) identical/confusingly similar; (ii) no rights/legitimate interests; (iii) registered or used in bad faith |
| Response deadline | 20 days from formal commencement |
| Providers | WIPO; Forum (NAF) |
| Fees | Comparable to UDRP: US$1,300–1,500 single panelist; US$2,600–4,000 three panelists |
| Remedy | Transfer or cancellation; no damages |
| RDNH | Available |
| Parallel filing | A .com version requires a separate UDRP filing |
| Typical timeline | About two months |
What is the usDRP?
Neustar and the .us registry
The .us country-code top-level domain operates under a contract with the US Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The registry operator administers the .us namespace and the dispute-resolution policy suite.
The usDRP was implemented in 2002 and is incorporated by reference into the usTLD Registrar Accreditation and Registry-Registrar Agreement signed by all accredited .us registrars, and passed down to registrants.
The usTLD policy suite
The .us policy suite includes:
- The usDRP — the standard dispute procedure for bad-faith registrations.
- The usRS (usTLD Rapid Suspension) — a fast-track suspension procedure, similar in concept to the URS for new gTLDs. The usRS remedy is temporary suspension only, not transfer.
- Nexus compliance procedures — separate from the usDRP, allowing challenges to a registrant’s eligibility to hold a .us domain.
How the usDRP differs from the UDRP
The usDRP is modelled on but markedly improves upon the ICANN UDRP. The two most important improvements for complainants are:
- The disjunctive bad-faith test. Under the UDRP, the complainant must prove bad-faith registration and bad-faith use. Under the usDRP, the complainant may succeed by proving either bad-faith registration or bad-faith use.
- The Nexus requirement. The registrant must have a substantive lawful connection to the US. A registrant who fails the Nexus test may be vulnerable on the merits before bad-faith evidence is even assessed.
.us dispute? The Nexus requirement and the disjunctive bad-faith test change the strategy. We handle usDRP cases through WIPO and Forum. Book a usDRP review →
The Nexus requirement: the threshold filter
Who qualifies to hold a .us domain
The Nexus requirement restricts eligibility to hold a .us domain to persons and entities with a substantive lawful connection to the United States. The categories include:
- US citizens (natural persons).
- US permanent residents.
- US entities or organisations incorporated in a US state or the District of Columbia.
- Foreign entities with a bona fide presence in the US (Nexus Category 3).
A registrant who does not fall into any of these categories is in breach of the registry’s own rules, independently of any trademark dispute.
The bona fide US presence category
The “bona fide presence” category is the most contested. It requires a genuine, substantive connection — not a mailbox or a nominal registration. Panels and Nexus compliance procedures assess whether the presence is real.
Nexus failure as a merits issue
Nexus failure is not an independent ground for transfer under the usDRP. The complainant still needs to prove the three elements. But Nexus failure is relevant context for the panel’s assessment of legitimacy and bad faith. A registrant who misrepresented its Nexus status, or who has lost the connection it once had, is in a weaker position on the second and third elements.
Foreign complainants and Nexus
The Nexus requirement applies to registrants, not complainants. A foreign brand owner with a trademark recognised under applicable law may file a usDRP complaint without a US presence, provided it can satisfy the three substantive elements.
Does the registrant actually qualify to hold a .us domain? We check Nexus before you file and build it into the evidence strategy. Assess your case →
The three usDRP elements
Identical or confusingly similar
The domain must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The threshold is comparable to the UDRP. The .us suffix is disregarded.
No rights or legitimate interests
The complainant must show the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The usDRP recognises the UDRP-style safe harbours: bona fide use before notice, being commonly known by the domain, and legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Nexus failure can support the inference that the registrant has no legitimate interest, particularly where the registrant misrepresented its US connection.
Registered or used in bad faith
Quick answer: The usDRP requires bad faith in registration or use, not both. This is the single most important substantive difference from the UDRP. A domain registered innocently but later used to target the complainant can satisfy the third element, and a domain registered in bad faith but not yet used can also satisfy it.
The usDRP panelists may find for the trademark owner if the owner can establish that the domain was either registered or used in bad faith. This has largely eliminated the “registered and used” trap that defeats some UDRP complaints.
The bad-faith circumstances mirror the UDRP’s paragraph 4(b) catalogue, but the disjunctive framing means the complainant does not need to connect registration intent to later use.
The usDRP is not a UDRP clone. The “registered or used” test and the Nexus requirement change the analysis. Ask us to assess your case →
usDRP vs UDRP: the critical differences
| Feature | usDRP | UDRP |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | .us only | gTLDs and selected ccTLDs |
| Nexus requirement | Yes — registrant must have US connection | No |
| Bad faith | Registered or used | Registered and used |
| Response deadline | 20 days | 20 days + 4-day extension |
| Providers | WIPO; Forum | WIPO, Forum, ADNDRC, CAC, CIIDRC |
| Fees | Comparable to UDRP | US$1,300–1,500 single panelist |
| Remedy | Transfer or cancellation | Transfer or cancellation |
| Parallel filing | Separate UDRP for .com | Separate usDRP for .us |
| RDNH | Available | Available |
The disjunctive bad-faith test
The “or” is the strategic centre of the usDRP. A complainant who cannot prove bad-faith registration — for example, because the domain predates the mark — can still succeed by proving bad-faith use. A respondent who registered in good faith is not immune from a later abusive use finding.
The Nexus requirement
The Nexus requirement has no UDRP equivalent. It gives complainants an additional line of attack where the registrant’s US connection is doubtful, and it gives respondents a threshold issue to address in every case.
Parallel filings across .us and .com
A parallel .com registration requires a separate UDRP filing; the usDRP covers only .us second-level domains. Where the same registrant holds both, the two proceedings can run on the same timeline, but they are separate cases with separate records and separate fees.
Remedies and costs
Both procedures offer transfer or cancellation only. Neither awards damages. The costs are comparable, though provider fee schedules vary.
A UDRP win does not transfer a .us domain. The usDRP is a separate proceeding with its own Nexus analysis and disjunctive bad-faith test. Ask us to coordinate the strategy →
Standing: who can file
US and foreign trademark rights
The complainant must have rights in a trademark or service mark. The rights can be registered or common-law. There is no requirement that the mark be registered in the US, and no requirement that the complainant have a US presence. A foreign trademark recognised under applicable law can support a usDRP complaint.
The complainant’s home jurisdiction
The complainant’s home jurisdiction does not constrain the right to file. The Nexus requirement is a registrant eligibility rule, not a complainant standing rule.
No Nexus requirement for complainants
A foreign brand owner can file even if it has no US operations, provided it can satisfy the three substantive elements. This is important for international brand owners whose marks have US recognition without a US entity.
Choosing a usDRP provider
WIPO
WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center administers usDRP cases. Its case-management infrastructure is the same as for UDRP cases, and its fee schedule is comparable.
Forum (NAF)
Forum is the other main provider active in the .us zone. Its base fees are roughly US$1,300 for a single panelist and US$2,600 for three panelists in small-domain cases.
Fee comparison
| Provider | Single panelist (1–2 domains) | Three panelists (1–2 domains) |
|---|---|---|
| WIPO | Check WIPO schedule (comparable to UDRP US$1,500) | Check WIPO schedule (comparable to UDRP US$4,000) |
| Forum | ~US$1,300 | ~US$2,600 |
Provider choice affects case management and fees. We match the provider to the case and the budget. Ask us which fits →
Filing a usDRP complaint
Complaint contents
A usDRP complaint must include:
- The complainant’s details and authorised representative.
- The disputed domain name(s) and confirmation that they are
.ussecond-level domains. - The rights relied on.
- The three-element analysis, including the disjunctive bad-faith argument.
- Any Nexus evidence (if relevant to the legitimate-interest or bad-faith analysis).
- The evidence, in numbered annexes.
- The remedy sought: transfer or cancellation.
- The certification.
Evidence and the Nexus record
Where the registrant’s Nexus is doubtful, the complainant should include:
- WHOIS/RDDS records showing the registrant’s stated address and entity.
- Evidence that the registrant does not have a bona fide US presence.
- Any inconsistency between the registrant’s stated Nexus and its actual operations.
- Evidence of misrepresentation, if any.
Nexus evidence is not a substitute for the three elements, but it strengthens the legitimate-interest and bad-faith analysis.
Fees
The complainant pays the provider’s fee. Fees are comparable to UDRP fees and vary by provider, domain count, and panel composition.
The usDRP response: 20 days
The deadline
The respondent has 20 days to file a response after the case formally commences. The deadline mirrors the UDRP standard. Missing it risks a default decision on the complainant’s papers.
Default and adverse inferences
Panels treat a default as an adverse inference against the respondent rather than an automatic transfer. The panel still reviews the complaint for sufficiency, but the respondent’s evidence is absent from the record.
Building a response
A strong usDRP response focuses on:
- Nexus: Does the registrant qualify? If so, document the connection.
- Legitimate interest: bona fide use, commonly known, fair use.
- No bad faith: priority, genuine reason for the name, no targeting.
- The disjunctive test: even if registration was in good faith, the complainant must prove bad-faith use (or vice versa).
- RDNH: if the complaint is abusive or overreaching.
Received a usDRP complaint? You have 20 days. We review the complaint and build a response around the disjunctive test and the Nexus record. Book a deadline review →
The panel and the decision
Single or three-member panel
The complainant elects a single panelist or a three-member panel. Either party may elect a three-member panel, though the filing fees rise accordingly.
Transfer or cancellation
The panel can order transfer or cancellation. There are no damages.
Reverse domain name hijacking in .us
RDNH is available in usDRP cases. Panels deciding usDRP cases have consistently held that passive holding of a .us domain — without a developed site or documented business purpose — is a vulnerable position, and an RDNH finding is realistic where the complaint is brought in bad faith to strip a legitimate registrant of the domain.
The RDNH test is comparable to the UDRP: the complainant knew or should have known the complaint would fail, or brought it for an improper purpose.
Is the complaint abusive? RDNH is available in usDRP cases. We assess whether an RDNH counterclaim is viable and how to plead it. Discuss an RDNH strategy →
Enforcement and court options
After a transfer or cancellation decision, the registrar implements it unless a court action is filed within the applicable window. The usDRP does not prevent either party from going to court before or after the administrative proceeding.
Costs and timeline
| Stage | Typical duration |
|---|---|
| Complaint and compliance | Days |
| Response | 20 days |
| Panel appointment and decision | Weeks |
| Overall | About two months |
| Cost item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Single panelist | ~US$1,300–1,500 |
| Three panelists | ~US$2,600–4,000 |
| Legal fees | Additional |
Illustrative usDRP themes
Nexus failure as context
A registrant who cannot demonstrate a bona fide US presence is in a weaker position on the legitimate-interest and bad-faith elements. Nexus failure is not an independent ground for transfer, but it shapes the panel’s assessment.
Disjunctive bad faith in practice
A domain registered before the complainant’s mark arose can still be transferred if the registrant later used it to target the complainant. The “or” makes later abusive use actionable.
Passive holding and RDNH
Passive holding without a developed site is a vulnerable position. Where the complainant’s case is weak, a panel may find RDNH rather than transfer the domain.
Parallel .com and .us filings
Where the same registrant holds both the .com and .us versions, the complainant must file a UDRP for the .com and a usDRP for the .us. Coordinating the two proceedings on one timeline is practical but requires separate records and fees.
Complainant checklist
- Rights: Registered or common-law trademark rights.
- Confusing similarity: The domain is identical or confusingly similar.
- No legitimate interest: Prima facie case with affirmative evidence.
- Bad faith: Evidence of bad-faith registration or use.
- Nexus: Does the registrant qualify? Include Nexus evidence if relevant.
- Parallel filing: A .com version requires a separate UDRP.
- Provider: WIPO or Forum; fee ready.
- RDNH risk: The complaint is not overreaching or abusive.
Ready to file a usDRP complaint? We test the disjunctive test and the Nexus record before you commit. Start a usDRP assessment →
Respondent checklist
- Deadline: 20 days from formal commencement.
- Nexus: Do you qualify to hold a .us domain? Document the connection.
- Legitimate interest: Bona fide use, commonly known, fair use.
- No bad faith: Priority, genuine reason, no targeting.
- Disjunctive test: Address both registration and use.
- RDNH: Is the complaint abusive?
- File on time. Do not default.
Received a usDRP complaint? Do not ignore it. Book a deadline review →
How counsel.domains can help
If you are planning a usDRP complaint, we test the disjunctive bad-faith test and build the Nexus record before you file.
If you have received a usDRP complaint, we review the 20-day deadline, build a response, and assess RDNH.
If the same registrant holds a .com version, we coordinate the UDRP and usDRP filings as a single strategy.
counsel.domains Domain name disputes, worldwide. Talk to counsel about a .us dispute → · [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 the .us registry, WIPO, Forum, or any registry or dispute-resolution provider.