Advanced Domain Dispute Toolkit: URS Complaints, In Rem Pleadings, and Reverse Hijacking Defenses

Summary. This toolkit collects the working papers for the domain disputes that the basic UDRP forms do not cover. It begins with a URS eligibility worksheet, a model 500-word URS complaint with an annex index, a registrant's URS response, and appeal and default-review notices. The in rem section supplies the notice of intent to proceed, a due diligence declaration, a verified complaint for the Eastern District of Virginia, the letter that triggers the registrar certificate, a publication motion and order, and default judgment papers with a registry fallback. The registrant's section provides a reverse domain name hijacking request for a UDRP response, a ten-business-day action plan with the registrar notice, a complaint under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v), a pre-suit self-audit, and a deadline calendar. Each template states its purpose, owner, and timing and ends with drafting commentary tied to the governing rules and cases.

A URS examiner gets 500 words from you and decides within days. The magistrate judge reviewing your in rem default motion in Alexandria has seen a hundred of them and knows which declaration paragraph is usually missing. The panelist deciding whether to brand a complainant a reverse hijacker wants the dates in a table, not a story. This toolkit gives each of those readers the paper they expect.

How to use this toolkit

Each template states its purpose, its owner (who should prepare it), and when to use it, then gives the template and a short drafting commentary. Bracketed capitals are placeholders. Before filing anything, check the provider's supplemental rules, the court's local rules, and the assigned judge's recent orders, all of which change more often than the statute.

This toolkit sits on top of the basic forms. The UDRP complaint skeleton, the general ACPA complaint outline, the bad-faith factor table, and the purchase agreement are in Domain Name Toolkit: UDRP Complaints, ACPA Pleadings, and Portfolio Management. The doctrine behind these templates is explained in Beyond the UDRP: Uniform Rapid Suspension, Country-Code Domain Disputes, In Rem ACPA Actions, and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Choosing among the procedures is covered step by step in Choosing the Right Domain Name Dispute Procedure: A Practical Guide and question by question in Domain Name Dispute Forum Selection Checklist: A Practical Checklist.

Template 1: URS eligibility and evidence worksheet

Purpose: decide in fifteen minutes whether a URS complaint can win, and gather its exhibits. Owner: the associate or brand-protection specialist who found the domain. When to use it: the day an abusive registration in a new gTLD is discovered, before anyone drafts.

Drafting commentary. The worksheet tracks the URS Procedure, which requires the three elements by clear and convincing evidence and directs the examiner to deny the complaint if any genuine issue of material fact remains (URS Procedure ¶¶ 1.2.6 and 8). The row that matters most is the plausible-story row. The Procedure tells examiners that trading in domain names, holding a large portfolio, and parking a name with pay-per-click links are not bad faith in themselves (¶ 5.9), so a parked page carries a URS only when the links or the timing point squarely at the complainant. Phishing, impersonation, and an explicit offer to sell to the brand owner are the cases the URS was built for.

Template 2: URS complaint statement and annex index

Purpose: the free-text explanation in the provider's online form, plus the list of attachments. Owner: the lawyer who signs the certification. When to use it: once Template 1 shows no genuine issue of material fact.

1. Rights (about 80 words). Complainant [NAME] owns [JURISDICTION] Registration No. [NUMBER] for the word mark [MARK], registered [DATE] for [GOODS OR SERVICES], in force and in current use (Annex 1). The mark is recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse with validated proof of use (Annex 2). Complainant has used [MARK] since [YEAR] and serves [NUMBER] customers in [MARKETS] (Annex 3).

2. Identical or confusingly similar (about 60 words). The domain name <[DOMAIN]> reproduces [MARK] in full. The added [term "login" / hyphen / top-level suffix] does not prevent confusing similarity; it reinforces it. The domain was registered on [DATE], [NUMBER] years after Complainant's registration.

3. No legitimate right or interest (about 120 words). Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent. Respondent is not commonly known by the name; the registration data shows [PRIVACY SERVICE / NAME]. Respondent makes no bona fide offering: the domain resolves to [a copy of Complainant's sign-in page / pay-per-click links to Complainant's competitors / a page offering the domain for sale] (Annex 4, captured [DATE, TIME, TIME ZONE]). None of the circumstances in URS Procedure ¶ 5.7 applies.

4. Registered and used in bad faith (about 180 words). [Use the paragraphs that apply.] (a) Respondent offered to sell the domain to Complainant for [AMOUNT], far above any out-of-pocket cost (Annex 5). (b) Respondent holds [NUMBER] other names reproducing third-party marks and has lost [NUMBER] prior proceedings (Annex 6), a pattern of blocking registrations. (c) The page imitates Complainant's sign-in page to collect credentials; [NUMBER] customers have reported it (Annex 7). This is use for commercial gain by creating confusion with Complainant's mark. (d) Respondent registered the domain [NUMBER] days after Complainant's public [ANNOUNCEMENT], and the page links to Complainant's direct competitors.

5. Relief (about 30 words). Complainant requests suspension of <[DOMAIN]> for the balance of the registration period [and will extend the suspension for one additional year].

Drafting commentary. The 500-word cap applies to the explanation, not the attachments (URS Procedure ¶ 1.2.7), so state each fact once and point to the annex that proves it. Do not argue law; the examiner knows the standard. The certification that the complaint is not filed for an improper purpose and has a good-faith basis (¶ 1.2.8) has teeth: two abusive complaints, or one deliberate material falsehood, bar the complainant from the URS for a year (¶ 11). Finish the registrant investigation first, because the URS gives little room to amend after the provider discloses the underlying registrant. At the Forum, the filing fee is $375 for 1 to 14 names. Captures should be made in a way a witness can later authenticate under Fed. R. Evid. 901; see Capturing the Web: A Practitioner's Guide to Authenticating Website Screenshots as Evidence in Federal Court.

Template 3: URS response

Purpose: the registrant's answer, limited to 2,500 words excluding attachments (URS Procedure ¶ 5). Owner: the registrant's counsel, or the registrant itself with this skeleton. When to use it: within 14 calendar days after the provider sends the notice of complaint; an extension of up to seven days is available on a good-faith request.

RESPONSE TO URS COMPLAINT
Provider Case No. [ ] | Domain name: <[DOMAIN]>

I.   REGISTRANT DATA
     Confirm or correct the registrant name, organization, and contact
     details shown in the complaint.

II.  SUMMARY (100 words)
     The one genuine issue of material fact that makes this an unclear
     case, stated first: e.g., "Registrant has operated a bona fide
     [BUSINESS] at this domain since [DATE], two years before
     Complainant's registration."

III. ADMISSION OR REBUTTAL OF EACH CLAIM
     A. Mark and similarity: [registration lapsed / design mark only /
        no current use / term used in its ordinary meaning]
     B. Rights or legitimate interests (URS Procedure ¶ 5.7):
        1. Use or demonstrable preparations to use the name for a bona
           fide offering before notice of the dispute [Exhibits]
        2. Registrant commonly known by the name [Exhibits]
        3. Legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent to
           divert consumers or tarnish the mark [Exhibits]
     C. No bad faith (URS Procedure ¶¶ 5.8 and 5.9):
        1. The name is generic or descriptive and used fairly
        2. The site is a tribute or criticism site
        3. A written agreement between the parties permits the holding
        4. The name is not part of a pattern of abusive registrations
        5. Domain trading, portfolio holding, and pay-per-click parking
           are not bad faith in themselves
        6. The registration predates Complainant's rights

IV.  REQUEST FOR A FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS ABUSIVE
     [Improper purpose plus unwarranted claims or no evidentiary
     support (¶ 11.3), or a deliberate material falsehood (¶ 11.4):
     identify the false statement and the document that disproves it.]

V.   STATEMENT THAT THE RESPONSE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE; signature.

EXHIBITS: registration or purchase records; business records showing
use; dated archive captures; declarations.

Drafting commentary. The registrant does not need to win the trademark case. It needs to show a genuine contestable issue, because the Procedure tells the examiner to deny the complaint wherever one exists (¶ 8.5), and a denial leaves the complainant free to file a UDRP or sue. One declaration supported by dated documents usually does more than ten pages of argument. A registrant that missed the deadline is not finished: it can file a response within six months of the notice of default, extendable once by six months, and obtain de novo review, and the name resolves again while the case is reheard (¶¶ 6.4 and 6.5). The text of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) also reaches a name that has been "suspended, disabled, or transferred" under a registry's dispute policy, which on its face includes a URS suspension, so a registrant with a strong case has a court option as well.

Template 4: URS appeal notice and default-review cover

Purpose: preserve de novo review of a URS determination. Owner: counsel for the losing side. When to use it: an appeal within 14 days after the determination (URS Procedure ¶ 12.4); a default-review response within six months after the notice of default (¶ 6.4).

NOTICE OF APPEAL. [Appellant] appeals the Determination issued [DATE] in [Provider] Case No. [ ] concerning <[DOMAIN]> and requests a [one-member / three-member] Appeal Panel. Grounds: (1) [The Examiner found no legitimate interest despite the uncontested declaration showing bona fide use since [DATE]; that evidence alone presents a genuine issue of material fact under URS Procedure ¶ 8.5.] (2) [The Examiner treated pay-per-click parking as bad faith per se, contrary to ¶ 5.9.] New evidence: [Appellant tenders Exhibits A to C, each of which predates the Complaint, and has paid the additional fee.] Relief: reverse the Determination and [dismiss the Complaint / order suspension].

RESPONSE FILED UNDER URS PROCEDURE ¶ 6.4. Registrant files this Response within six months after the Notice of Default dated [DATE] [and within the extension requested on DATE]. Registrant requests de novo review and asks that the domain name resolve to its original nameservers while the matter is reconsidered, as ¶ 6.5 provides.

Drafting commentary. The appeal is de novo on the existing record, and the appellant must state why the determination was wrong (¶ 12.1). New evidence comes in only if it clearly predates the complaint and the appellant pays an additional fee (¶ 12.2). Filing an appeal does not change whether the name resolves (¶ 12.3). At the Forum, an appeal costs $300 for one examiner or $950 for three, and $450 or $1,300 with new evidence. A complainant that lost a URS should usually skip the appeal and file a UDRP, which applies a lower standard of proof and can transfer the name.

Template 5: Notice of violation and intent to proceed in rem

Purpose: the statutory notice in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa), and early evidence on the personal-jurisdiction question. Owner: counsel for the brand owner. When to use it: before filing, sent to every postal and email address the registrant gave the registrar, plus any other address you know.

[DATE]

By email to [ADDRESS] and international courier to [ADDRESS]

Re: <[DOMAIN]> (the "Domain Name")

We represent [CLIENT], owner of the mark [MARK], U.S. Registration No. [NUMBER]. The Domain Name, registered through [REGISTRAR], [describe the use: resolves to a page imitating CLIENT's website / is offered for sale for AMOUNT]. That registration and use violate [CLIENT]'s rights under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), and under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a).

[CLIENT] intends to proceed in rem against the Domain Name under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2) in the United States District Court for the [Eastern District of Virginia], where [VeriSign, Inc., the .com registry,] is located, and to seek an order transferring the Domain Name to [CLIENT].

If you claim any right to the Domain Name, please describe it in writing by [DATE, at least 21 days from today]. If you are willing to transfer the Domain Name voluntarily, we will send instructions. This notice is sent to the postal and email addresses provided to the registrar for the Domain Name.

[SIGNATURE BLOCK]

Drafting commentary. The statute requires notice of both "the alleged violation" and the "intent to proceed under this paragraph"; a generic cease-and-desist letter that never mentions an in rem action does not satisfy it. After registration data redaction, the addresses "provided by the registrant to the registrar" usually have to come from the registrar or its privacy service, so ask the registrar to forward the notice, use its relay address or web form, and keep every transmission record, bounce message, and courier receipt. Give a real deadline. In Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com, 95 F. Supp. 2d 528 (E.D. Va. 2000), filing eight days after the notice was not a reasonable time under Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), and the court dismissed. A translation for a registrant in a non-English-speaking country costs little and helps the reasonableness showing. Whatever the registrant says in reply is evidence: in Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Shenzhen Stone Network Information Ltd., 58 F.4th 785 (4th Cir. 2023), the registrant's own statements about a six-figure offer helped prove bad faith. For a general demand letter checklist, see Drafting a Trademark Cease-and-Desist Letter Checklist: A Practical Checklist.

Template 6: Due diligence declaration

Purpose: prove the jurisdictional condition for an in rem action. Owner: the investigator or associate who did the work signs; counsel drafts. When to use it: filed with the complaint, and updated with the publication and default motions.

DECLARATION OF [NAME] IN SUPPORT OF IN REM JURISDICTION

I, [NAME], declare:

1.  I am [ROLE] at [FIRM]. I have personal knowledge of the facts below.
2.  On [DATE] I retrieved the registration data record for <[DOMAIN]>
    (Ex. A). It identifies the registrant as [PRIVACY SERVICE / NAME],
    with an address in [COUNTRY].
3.  On [DATE] I asked [REGISTRAR] to disclose the underlying registrant
    data [through ICANN's Registration Data Request Service / by letter]
    (Ex. B). The registrar [refused / did not respond / disclosed: ...].
4.  I searched historical registration records, reverse-WHOIS results
    for [EMAIL], hosting and IP records, the website's content and
    source code, corporate registries in [COUNTRY], and prior UDRP and
    URS decisions (Ex. C). [Results.]
5.  The registrant [could not be identified] / [is NAME, located in
    COUNTRY, which has no office, employees, assets, or sales in the
    United States that I could find, and whose website is in [LANGUAGE]
    and directed to users in [COUNTRY]].
6.  On [DATE] I sent the notice attached as Ex. D to [EMAIL] and
    [POSTAL ADDRESS]. [The email was delivered / bounced; the courier
    shipment was delivered / returned.] (Ex. E)
7.  As of today, [NUMBER] days after the notice, no response has been
    received.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [DATE] at [CITY].

Drafting commentary. An unsworn declaration in this form is permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1746. The statute offers two routes, and the declaration should address both: the plaintiff cannot obtain personal jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant, or it could not find one through due diligence, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii). Courts ask for "some indicia of diligence" rather than proof of a negative, Heathmount A.E. Corp. v. Technodome.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 860 (E.D. Va. 2000), and that case also holds that a registrant's contract with a Virginia registrar is not by itself a minimum contact. Address nationwide jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) expressly: if the registrant targets the United States as a whole, in personam jurisdiction may exist and the in rem route closes, Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A. v. Casinoalitalia.com, 128 F. Supp. 2d 340 (E.D. Va. 2001). The condition is measured on the filing date, and neither a registrar's form agreement nor an abandoned UDRP complaint's mutual-jurisdiction clause supplied consent to jurisdiction in Prudential. Date every search; a declaration that says "recently" invites a remand for more facts.

Template 7: Verified in rem complaint

Purpose: the initiating pleading against the domain name itself. Owner: lead counsel, with local counsel admitted in the district. When to use it: after the notice period in Template 5 has run.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

[PLAINTIFF],                          )
              Plaintiff,              )
     v.                               )   Civil Action No. [   ]
<[DOMAIN]>,                           )
              Defendant in rem.       )

VERIFIED COMPLAINT (IN REM)

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.  In rem action under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2) for transfer of the
    domain name <[DOMAIN]> (the "Defendant Domain Name").

PARTIES
2.  Plaintiff [NAME, entity type, principal place of business].
3.  The Defendant Domain Name is registered through [REGISTRAR], located
    in [CITY, COUNTRY]. Its registry is [VeriSign, Inc.], located in
    [Reston, Virginia], within this District and Division.
4.  The registrant, [NAME / an unknown person using PRIVACY SERVICE], is
    not a party. [Plaintiff could not obtain personal jurisdiction over /
    could not find] the registrant (Count conditions, paras. 9-12).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.  Subject-matter jurisdiction: 15 U.S.C. § 1121; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
    1338(a) and (b).
6.  In rem jurisdiction: 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.
    4(n)(1). Situs: § 1125(d)(2)(C)(i) (registry located in this
    District).
7.  Venue: § 1125(d)(2)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

FACTS
8.  Plaintiff's mark: registration, first use, distinctiveness on the date
    the Defendant Domain Name was registered [and on the date the current
    registrant acquired it].
9.  Registration history of the Defendant Domain Name (dated).
10. Use of the Defendant Domain Name and the bad-faith facts, mapped to
    the factors in § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i).
11. Notice under § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa): sent [DATE] to [ADDRESSES];
    [no response].
12. Facts showing that personal jurisdiction is unavailable [or that the
    registrant could not be found], with the diligence undertaken.

COUNT I: Cybersquatting, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1) and (2)
COUNT II: Infringement of a registered mark, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
COUNT III: False designation of origin, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
[COUNT IV: Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), only if the mark is famous]

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
A.  An order directing [the registry / the registrar] to transfer the
    Defendant Domain Name to Plaintiff [through a registrar of Plaintiff's
    choosing];
B.  An order that the Defendant Domain Name remain locked and unchanged
    while this action is pending, as § 1125(d)(2)(D)(i)(II) provides;
C.  Such other relief as is consistent with § 1125(d)(2)(D)(i).

VERIFICATION under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 by an officer of Plaintiff.

Drafting commentary. File only where the registrar, registry, or other domain name authority is located; depositing the registrar certificate in another district does not create a situs, Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com, 310 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2002); FleetBoston Financial Corp. v. FleetBostonFinancial.com, 138 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. Mass. 2001). For .com and .net, the registry puts every name in the Eastern District of Virginia, Cable News Network L.P. v. CNNews.com, 162 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D. Va. 2001), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(n)(1) confirms that a court may assert jurisdiction over property when a federal statute authorizes it, with notice given as the statute provides. Plead the infringement and false designation counts because the in rem provision reaches them and they do not require bad faith, Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002); Cable News Network, LP v. CNNews.com, 56 F. App'x 599 (4th Cir. 2003). Where the registrant targets only foreign users, anticipate an extraterritoriality objection to those counts under Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., 600 U.S. 412 (2023), and keep the bad-faith count as the anchor. Pray only for what the statute allows: the remedies "shall be limited to" forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(D)(i). Due process is satisfied because the property is the subject of the suit, Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977); Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesars-Palace.com, 112 F. Supp. 2d 502 (E.D. Va. 2000). Do not add the registrant as an in personam defendant; the two tracks are mutually exclusive (Alitalia). For the general cybersquatting complaint, see Template 6 of the Domain Name Toolkit: UDRP Complaints, ACPA Pleadings, and Portfolio Management.

Template 8: Registrar certificate letter and form

Purpose: trigger the registrar's and registry's statutory duties to deposit control of the name with the court and freeze it. Owner: counsel. When to use it: the day the complaint is filed.

By email and courier

[REGISTRAR legal or compliance contact]; copy to [REGISTRY legal contact]

Re: [PLAINTIFF] v. <[DOMAIN]>, Civil Action No. [ ] (E.D. Va.)

Enclosed is a file-stamped copy of the Verified Complaint filed on [DATE] in the in rem action above under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2). On receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of the complaint, the registrar and registry must (I) expeditiously deposit with the Court documents sufficient to establish the Court's control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name, and (II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name while the action is pending, except on order of the Court. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(D)(i).

Please file a registrar certificate with the Clerk, send us a copy, and confirm that the domain name has been locked for the duration of the action. A form of certificate is enclosed for your convenience; your standard form is equally acceptable.

REGISTRAR CERTIFICATE. [REGISTRAR], the registrar of record for the domain name <[DOMAIN]>, tenders to the Court complete control and authority over the registration and use of the domain name, and will not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name while this action is pending, except on order of the Court. [SIGNATURE, TITLE, DATE]

Drafting commentary. The certificate gives the court practical control, but it does not create jurisdiction in a district that is not the situs (Mattel). Registrars that comply are protected: they face no injunctive or monetary relief under the in rem provision except for bad faith or reckless disregard, including willful failure to comply with the court's order, § 1125(d)(2)(D)(ii); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(i). Most large registrars have a standard certificate and a legal-process address; use theirs. If the registrar is abroad, send the same letter to the registry, which can apply a registry-level lock that a foreign registrar cannot undo.

Template 9: Publication motion and proposed order

Purpose: satisfy the statutory requirement to publish notice of the action "as the court may direct promptly after filing," § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(bb). Owner: counsel. When to use it: with the complaint or within days after it.

Motion outline. (1) The action and the notice already sent. (2) The statute requires publication as the court directs. (3) The proposed method, chosen to reach this registrant: a publication of general circulation in [COUNTRY or LANGUAGE], plus email to every known address. (4) The proposed response period. (5) Authority: courts tailor the method to the registrant, as with publication in two Korean newspapers in GlobalSantaFe Corp. v. GlobalSantaFe.com, 250 F. Supp. 2d 610 (E.D. Va. 2003), and may excuse publication where notice was actually accomplished by email and post, Banco Inverlat, S.A. v. www.inverlat.com, 112 F. Supp. 2d 521 (E.D. Va. 2000).

[PROPOSED] ORDER. Upon Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Directing Publication of Notice of Action, it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED; that Plaintiff shall publish notice of this action, in the form attached, once in [PUBLICATION] within [14] days after entry of this Order, and shall send this Order by email to [ADDRESSES]; that any person claiming an interest in <[DOMAIN]> shall file an answer or other response with the Clerk within [21] days after publication; and that Plaintiff shall file a declaration of publication within [7] days after publication.

Drafting commentary. The bracketed periods are a common structure, not a rule; read the assigned judge's recent in rem orders and match them. The test for the method is the one in Mullane: notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to reach the interested party. A newspaper in the registrant's country and language, plus email, usually meets it; a classified ad in a U.S. paper read by no one in the registrant's country is weaker. Keep the tear sheet and the publisher's affidavit for the default motion.

Template 10: Default papers and final transfer order

Purpose: end an uncontested in rem case with an order the registry or registrar will implement. Owner: counsel. When to use it: after the response period set in the publication order has passed.

1. Request for entry of default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), with a declaration that notice was sent (Template 5), publication was completed (Template 9), and no answer or claim was filed by the deadline.
2. Motion for default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2), with a memorandum covering subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction and situs, service under § 1125(d)(2)(B) ("the actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process"), each element of each count on the well-pleaded facts, and a remedy within § 1125(d)(2)(D)(i).
3. Proposed final order:

ORDERED that default judgment is entered for Plaintiff on Counts [ ]; ORDERED that [VeriSign, Inc., as registry, and REGISTRAR, as registrar,] shall transfer the domain name <[DOMAIN]> to Plaintiff within [14] days by changing the registrant to Plaintiff [and the registrar of record to PLAINTIFF'S REGISTRAR]; and ORDERED that, if [REGISTRAR] does not complete the transfer within that time, [VeriSign, Inc.] shall change the registrar of record to [PLAINTIFF'S REGISTRAR], which shall register the domain name in Plaintiff's name.

Drafting commentary. In the Eastern District of Virginia, default judgment motions in these cases are often referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, so write the memorandum as the report you want. Build the registry fallback into the order now rather than returning to court later. When a Korean registrar refused to act because of a Seoul court's injunction, the court ordered the registry to disable the name (GlobalSantaFe); when a Chinese registrar ignored a transfer order, the court directed the .org registry to transfer the name, America Online, Inc. v. AOL.org, 259 F. Supp. 2d 449 (E.D. Va. 2003); and Agri-Supply Co. v. Agrisupply.com, 457 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Va. 2006), ordered the registry to change the registrar of record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 70 is the backstop when a party or nonparty will not perform. Do not ask for damages or an injunction against the registrant; Agri-Supply also awarded costs and fees against a serial cybersquatter on a default record, but that is an outlier. A registrant that surfaces after judgment can move to vacate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), so file a clean record of every notice step.

Template 11: Reverse domain name hijacking request

Purpose: ask a UDRP panel to declare that the complaint was brought in bad faith. Owner: the respondent's counsel. When to use it: as the last section of the UDRP response, and only when the facts support it.

VII. REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING. Respondent asks the Panel to find under Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

1. Complainant knew it could not prove bad-faith registration. The Domain Name was registered on [DATE]. Complainant's earliest claimed rights date from [DATE], [NUMBER] years later (Annex [ ]).
2. The Complaint is a "Plan B." On [DATE], Complainant's [broker] offered $[AMOUNT] for the Domain Name. Respondent declined. The Complaint followed [NUMBER] days later (Annex [ ]).
3. Complainant omitted material facts: [the purchase negotiations / the registration date / the parties' prior coexistence].
4. Complainant is represented by counsel, who knew or should have known that the Complaint could not succeed on facts available before filing.
5. [Complainant made false statements: identify each statement and the document that disproves it.]

Drafting commentary. Rule 15(e) imposes the duty on the panel, which can raise the issue on its own, but a request organized by ground makes the finding easy to write. The finding carries no fine or fee shift inside the UDRP, yet it is published, it follows the complainant into later disputes, and its facts can support a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(iv) for a knowing and material misrepresentation, or an exceptional-case fee argument under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), if the dispute reaches court. Panels hold represented complainants to a higher standard, but losing alone is not reverse hijacking, and a request made in a close case costs the respondent credibility. For the respondent's strategy generally, see Catherine A. Shultz & Courtney A. Hofflander, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 4 Cybaris Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 218 (2013).

Template 12: Ten-business-day plan and registrar notice

Purpose: stop the registrar from implementing a UDRP transfer decision. Owner: the registrant's counsel. When to use it: prepared while the UDRP is pending and executed the day the decision issues.

Re: [PROVIDER] Case No. [ ]; <[DOMAIN]>

Under Paragraph 4(k) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, enclosed is a copy of the complaint, file-stamped by the Clerk of the United States District Court for the [DISTRICT] on [DATE], in [REGISTRANT] v. [COMPLAINANT], No. [ ]. The action was commenced against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules, namely the courts of [LOCATION]. Please do not implement the Panel's decision, and take no further action, until you receive one of the items described in Paragraph 4(k). Please confirm receipt by reply.

Drafting commentary. The clock runs from the registrar's notice of the decision, not from the registrant's reading of it, so plan to file within the first week. A registrant may sue elsewhere, but only a suit in a court the complainant designated freezes the name, Storey v. Cello Holdings, L.L.C., 347 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2003). The designated forum also chooses the circuit law, which matters most on whether a re-registration restarts the ACPA clock: compare GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011), with Schmidheiny v. Weber, 319 F.3d 581 (3d Cir. 2003), Jysk Bed'N Linen v. Dutta-Roy, 810 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2015), and Prudential. For a .io name, the policy points to the courts of England instead. If the registrar signals that it will implement anyway, move for a temporary restraining order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

Template 13: Complaint under § 1114(2)(D)(v)

Purpose: keep or recover a name after a UDRP loss. Owner: the registrant's counsel. When to use it: within the ten business days in Template 12, or later to recover a name already transferred.

[REGISTRANT], Plaintiff, v. [MARK OWNER], Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(iv) and (v); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202)

NATURE OF THE ACTION: a UDRP panel ordered <[DOMAIN]> transferred on
[DATE]; Plaintiff seeks a declaration that its registration and use of the
name are not unlawful under the Lanham Act and an order that the name stay
with, or return to, Plaintiff.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338; 15 U.S.C. § 1121;
28 U.S.C. § 2201. Personal jurisdiction: Defendant submitted to this
Court's jurisdiction in its UDRP complaint under Rule 3(b)(xiii).
Venue: 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

FACTS: registration and acquisition history; Plaintiff's use and business;
the date Defendant's rights arose; the UDRP proceeding and decision;
the notice to Defendant required by § 1114(2)(D)(v).

COUNT I: Declaration under § 1114(2)(D)(v) that Plaintiff's registration
  and use are not unlawful (no bad-faith intent to profit; mark not
  distinctive when the name was registered; fair or descriptive use; no
  likelihood of confusion).
COUNT II: Knowing and material misrepresentation, § 1114(2)(D)(iv)
  [only if the UDRP complaint misstated facts and the registrar acted
  on it].
COUNT III: Declaration of non-infringement and non-dilution, 28 U.S.C.
  § 2201.

PRAYER: the declarations; an injunction barring transfer or ordering
return of the name; damages, costs, and attorney's fees under
§ 1114(2)(D)(iv); costs and fees in an exceptional case under § 1117(a).

Drafting commentary. The transfer order itself creates a case or controversy, even if the mark owner disclaims any intent to sue, Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA, 273 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001). The court applies U.S. law and gives the panel no deference, Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003); because the UDRP is not arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, its deferential standards do not apply, Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2003); Parisi v. Netlearning, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Va. 2001). Plead the four elements the Fourth Circuit identified in Barcelona.com: the plaintiff is a domain name registrant; its name was suspended, disabled, or transferred under a registrar's policy; the mark owner has notice of the action; and the registration or use is not unlawful under the Lanham Act. A registrant whose name moved after a registrar deposited control with a foreign court can still sue the mark owner here, Hawes v. Network Solutions, Inc., 337 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2003), and the mark owner remains free to counterclaim. Courts differ on how much of the Lanham Act the plaintiff must clear; some read "not unlawful" to mean not unlawful under the cybersquatting provision, Ricks v. BMEzine.com, LLC, 727 F. Supp. 2d 936 (D. Nev. 2010), so plead Count III as a backstop. Add a declaratory count under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and further relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2202. Expect an ACPA counterclaim, probably compulsory under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a); for the answer and counterclaim papers, see Responsive Pleading Toolkit: Answer Templates, Affirmative Defense Libraries, and Counterclaim Outlines, and for declaratory practice, Declaratory Relief Toolkit: Complaints, Jurisdictional Briefing, and Discretionary Dismissal.

Template 14: Registrant's pre-suit self-audit

Purpose: decide whether to fight, and clean the record before a panel or court sees it. Owner: the registrant, with counsel. When to use it: before a UDRP or URS response and before any lawsuit.

Drafting commentary. A registrant who sues with a poor record can lose more than the name. In Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2009), the registrant's suit ended in cybersquatting liability, the court relying in part on his asking price and his history of registering others' marks, and in Web-adviso v. Trump, 927 F. Supp. 2d 32 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), a domainer with a portfolio full of famous brands lost on the trademark owner's counterclaim. Fix what can lawfully be fixed (turn off the offending link categories, drop names that contain others' marks), but preserve every record; deleting evidence after a dispute begins is worse than the evidence.

Template 15: Deadline calendar

Drafting commentary. Docket each date for both sides. A complainant that wins a UDRP should calendar the registrant's ten business days and watch the mutual-jurisdiction court's docket, and a brand owner that wins a URS by default should treat the result as provisional until the default-review window closes.

Common drafting mistakes

• A URS statement that argues instead of proving. Every sentence should state a fact and point to the annex that proves it.
• A URS filed on a contestable record. If the registrant has a plausible story, the examiner must deny the complaint, and the fee and three weeks are gone.
• An in rem notice that never mentions the in rem action. The statute requires notice of the violation and of the intent to proceed in rem.
• Filing before a reasonable time has passed after notice (Lucent), or in the plaintiff's home district instead of the situs (Mattel).
• Pleading damages or an injunction against the registrant in an in rem complaint. The statute limits the remedy to the name.
• A proposed final order with no registry fallback, which sends you back to court when a foreign registrar balks.
• A reverse hijacking request in a close case, which costs the respondent credibility on the merits.
• A registrant's suit filed on day ten, or in a court the complainant never designated.

Frequently asked questions

Can one URS complaint cover several domain names? Yes, if the same registrant holds them. The Forum's fee rises with the number of names, and a registrant facing 15 or more names pays a response fee that is refunded to the prevailing party.

Do we need local counsel for an in rem case in the Eastern District of Virginia? Lawyers not admitted in the district usually appear pro hac vice alongside a member of its bar, and the district's local rules set the requirements. Retain local counsel before the notice in Template 5 goes out, because the filing date follows soon after.

What happens if the registrant appears in the in rem case? It can defend the name, and the case proceeds like ordinary litigation, as it did in Harrods and CNN. The remedy is still limited to the name, and a registrant's late offer to submit to jurisdiction elsewhere does not divest the court, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Porsche.net, 302 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2002).

Can a registrant who lost a URS go to court? Yes. Besides the URS appeal and default review, the text of § 1114(2)(D)(v) reaches a name "suspended" under a registry's dispute policy, and nothing in the URS bars an ordinary declaratory action.

Should every UDRP response ask for a reverse hijacking finding? No. Ask when the facts match the recognized grounds in Template 11, especially a registration that predates the complainant's rights or a Plan B filing. A request without that footing reads as reflexive and helps the complainant.

Can the in rem templates be used outside Virginia? Yes, for any domain whose registrar or registry is located in another district; change the caption, the situs allegations, and the publication method to fit that court's practice.

Practical takeaways

• Run Template 1 before drafting any URS; the plausible-story row decides the case.
• Write the URS statement as facts tied to annexes. A case that belongs in the URS fits in 500 words.
• In rem: send the statutory notice, wait a reasonable time, document every step, file in the situs district, publish as the court directs, and put the registry fallback in the proposed order.
• Registrants: draft the § 1114(2)(D)(v) complaint while the UDRP is pending and file in the designated forum in the first week of the window.
• Request a reverse hijacking finding only on facts that fit the recognized grounds, organized in a table.
• Docket both sides' deadlines from Template 15.

This document is general information, not legal advice for any particular situation; the law changes, and the facts matter.

Related Documents

Companion documents in this series

• Beyond the UDRP: Uniform Rapid Suspension, Country-Code Domain Disputes, In Rem ACPA Actions, and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking: the doctrine and cases behind these templates.
• Choosing the Right Domain Name Dispute Procedure: A Practical Guide: when to use each template, step by step.
• Domain Name Dispute Forum Selection Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the forum decision as a sequence of questions.

Related Articles

• Domain Name Disputes: Cybersquatting, the ACPA, and the UDRP: the elements and bad-faith factors.
• How to File a UDRP Complaint for Domain Name Disputes: the standard UDRP complaint.
• Personal Jurisdiction Over Online and Foreign Defendants: From Zippo to Ford Motor: the analysis behind the due diligence declaration.
• Unmasking Anonymous Online Speakers: John Doe Subpoenas, the Dendrite and Cahill Tests, and the First Amendment: identifying a hidden registrant through the courts.
• Capturing the Web: A Practitioner's Guide to Authenticating Website Screenshots as Evidence in Federal Court: building annexes that hold up.

Related Guides

• Recovering a Domain Name: A Practical Guide: the full recovery workflow.
• Identifying an Anonymous Defendant Online: A Practical Guide: subpoenas and expedited discovery.
• Filing or Defending a Declaratory Judgment Action: A Practical Guide: the registrant's declaratory suit.
• Lanham Act Attorney's Fees Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a): A Practical Guide: fee exposure for overreaching on either side.

Related Checklists

• Filing a UDRP Domain Name Complaint: A Practical Checklist: filing mechanics for the UDRP.
• Domain Name Dispute Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the general dispute workflow.
• Preliminary Injunction and TRO Application Checklist: A Practical Checklist: emergency relief when a registrar will not wait.
• Authenticating Website Evidence: A Practical Checklist: admissible captures.
• Drafting a Trademark Cease-and-Desist Letter Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the demand that often precedes these filings.

Related Toolkits

• Domain Name Toolkit: UDRP Complaints, ACPA Pleadings, and Portfolio Management: the basic forms this toolkit builds on.
• Responsive Pleading Toolkit: Answer Templates, Affirmative Defense Libraries, and Counterclaim Outlines: answering and counterclaiming in a registrant's suit.
• Declaratory Relief Toolkit: Complaints, Jurisdictional Briefing, and Discretionary Dismissal: declaratory pleading and briefing.
• John Doe Litigation Toolkit: Early Discovery Motions, Platform Subpoenas, and Motions to Quash: early discovery to unmask a registrant.
• Online Trademark Enforcement Toolkit: Platform Notices, Test Purchase Records, and Contributory Liability Demands: notices to platforms and intermediaries.
• Cross-Border IP Litigation and Service Toolkit: A Roadmap and Resource Library for International Disputes: litigating against foreign registrants.