Return to the Domain Magistrate home page for featured panel decisions and quick links to search tools.

Under Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, a complainant must prove all three elements below. The full text appears on our Policy page. This guide explains how panels apply each requirement in practice and where to find supporting materials on Domain Magistrate.

On this page:
1. Identical or confusingly similar domain
2. No rights or legitimate interests
3. Bad-faith registration and use
Next steps for complainants and respondents

1. Identical or confusingly similar domain
The first element asks whether the disputed domain matches the complainant's trademark or service mark closely enough to confuse Internet users. Panels compare spelling, pronunciation, and overall impression. Typos, added hyphens, or generic terms paired with a famous mark often still satisfy this test when the mark itself remains recognizable.

Complainants should submit trademark registration certificates, proof of common-law use, or evidence of fame in the relevant market. Compare your mark to the full domain string, including the top-level domain only when it affects how users read the name. Review published decisions in Searches to see how prior panels treated similar strings.

Return to Top of Page

2. No rights or legitimate interests
The second element shifts attention to the registrant. The complainant must show that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Policy Paragraph 4(c) lists non-exclusive examples of legitimate use, such as offering goods or services in good faith before notice of the dispute, being commonly known by the domain name, or making a fair noncommercial use.

Respondents often prevail when they document a bona fide business plan, licensed use, or commentary that does not trade on the mark for misleading commercial gain. Complainants should address likely defenses directly in the complaint rather than assuming bad faith alone will carry the case. The Rules of Procedure set response deadlines and formatting requirements respondents must follow.

Return to Top of Page

3. Bad-faith registration and use
The third element requires proof that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) gives illustrative circumstances, including registering primarily to sell the name to the mark owner for profit, blocking the mark owner from registering a corresponding domain as part of a pattern, disrupting a competitor's business, or creating confusion about sponsorship for commercial gain.

Panels look at the totality of facts: passive holding, pay-per-click pages, false contact data, and offers to sell the domain can all support a bad-faith finding when combined with weak legitimate interest. Study celebrity decisions on the home page, such as the Celine Dion WIPO matter, to see how panels tied registration conduct to the third element.

Return to Top of Page

Next steps for complainants and respondents
After you map your facts to the three elements, select an ICANN-approved provider from the Providers list and follow that organization's supplemental rules. Filing fees and word limits vary by provider. If you are new to the process, read the FAQ for differences between the UDRP and older registrar dispute programs.

Domain Magistrate does not file complaints on your behalf. Use this site to research outcomes, compare pleadings, and prepare stronger submissions before you contact WIPO, the National Arbitration Forum, or another listed provider.

Return to Top of Page