In the early days of the internet, very few businesses realized the enormous commercial potential of an online presence. This lack of awareness gave rise to cybersquatting, where opportunists registered domain names resembling well-known brands and monetized them.

Fast forward to today’s digital-first economy, and a domain name is no longer just a website address. It is your business identity, the first point of trust for customers, partners, and investors. But what happens when someone else registers a domain deceptively similar to your brand? That’s where domain name dispute resolution comes in.

What is Cybersquatting?

Cybersquatting refers to the practice of registering, selling, or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from another person’s reputation or trademark.

Common forms include:

• Registering a brand name before the legitimate business does and then offering competing products or services.

• Registering a domain only to resell it to the rightful brand owner at a hefty profit.

• Redirecting traffic to fake websites or misleading advertisements to confuse consumers.

This practice misleads customers, dilutes goodwill, and harms brand reputation.

To combat cybersquatting, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) introduced the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Protecting Your Brand Online:

A Practical Guide to Domain Name Dispute Resolution

What is the UDRP?

The UDRP is an international legal framework designed to resolve disputes involving abusive registration of internet domain names in:

• gTLDs (generic domains like .com, .net, .org), and

• ccTLDs (country-code domains) that have adopted the UDRP.

Key advantages of UDRP compared to litigation:

• Faster and more cost-effective.

• Decided by experts in trademark and internet law.

• Entirely online - no matter where the parties are located.

• Direct enforcement by the registrar.

Any owner of a registered (or even well-established unregistered) trademark can file a UDRP complaint.

How to file a UDRP complaint with WIPO?

Filing a UDRP complaint before WIPO involves a structured process:

1. Drafting the Complaint: A detailed complaint needs to be prepared in line with WIPO’s Model Complaint, clearly establishing your trademark rights and evidence of bad faith.

2. Submission: The complaint must be filed through WIPO’s online platform or by email to domain.disputes@wipo.int.

3. Payment of Fees: The prescribed filing fee must accompany the complaint; without it, WIPO will not proceed.

4. Case Registration: Once accepted, WIPO assigns a case number and notifies all concerned parties.

While this may sound straightforward, preparing a successful UDRP complaint requires precise drafting, strong evidence, and a clear legal strategy to establish all three required grounds (confusing similarity, lack of rights, and bad faith).

💡 At Intellect Goodwill LLP, we regularly assist businesses in protecting their online identity and can help you prepare, file, and represent you in UDRP complaints before WIPO to secure your rightful domain.

Grounds for filing a UDRP complaint

Under Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy, a complainant must establish all three of the following:

1. Trademark Rights: You must own a valid registered trademark (or, in certain cases, unregistered rights) that is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.

2. No Legitimate Rights: The domain registrant must have no legal rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

3. Bad Faith Registration and Use: The domain must have been registered and is being used in bad faith, for example:

While the policy sets out these requirements, proving them demands careful evidence collection, strategic drafting, and legal expertise. Many businesses struggle to get relief because their complaint was not framed strongly enough.

UDRP Process & Timeline

Steps in a UDRP proceeding:

1. Complaint is filed with WIPO.

2. Domain registrant files a response.

3. WIPO appoints a panel (one or three experts).

4. Panel issues a written decision.

5. Registrar implements the decision (transfer or cancellation of the domain, if ordered).

Timeline: Most cases are resolved within 4-6 months of filing.

Possible Outcomes:

• Transfer of the domain to the complainant.

• Cancellation of the domain (which may later be re-registered).

• Rejection of the complaint (if the registrant shows legitimate use or if the complaint is abusive, known as “reverse domain name hijacking”).

Why protection against cybersquatting matters?

For established businesses, cybersquatting undermines existing brand power. For start-ups and MSMEs, it can block growth opportunities before they even begin.

1. First Impressions Count

A domain name is often the first interaction a customer, investor, or partner has with your brand. Losing control of it damages trust instantly.

2. Avoid Brand Dilution

Fake or misleading websites run by cybersquatters can permanently harm consumer confidence, especially when your brand is still building credibility.

3. Scaling and Global Expansion

Owning the right domains (.com, .in, etc.) is vital for international visibility. Losing them early can restrict your ability to grow globally.

Conclusion

A domain name is more than a digital address, it is your online identity and brand storefront. With cybersquatting on the rise, businesses must act early:

• Register relevant domains proactively.

• Monitor online misuse of brand names.

• Be prepared to enforce rights through WIPO (UDRP) or NIXI (INDRP).

For start-ups and MSMEs, securing domain names at the initial stage can make the difference between building long-term brand value or losing critical opportunities to cybersquatters.

This article has been authored by Akriti Thakur, as part of our ongoing IP Awareness Series - Intellect Insights, aimed at simplifying complex intellectual property concepts for entrepreneurs, creators, and businesses.

The views expressed in this article are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The content reflects the personal analysis of the author and not necessarily the views of Intellect Goodwill LLP.