Home / Blogs

These Countries Have Adopted the UDRP

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is certainly the most frequently used tool to combat cybersquatting—but, it is not always an option.

Many countries have adopted their own domain name dispute policies—or none at all—in lieu of the UDRP.

For example, domain names in the United Kingdom’s .uk country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) are subject to Nominet’s Domain Dispute Resolution Service, which applies a different test—and uses a different service provider—than the UDRP. The same is true for Canada’s .ca ccTLD, Germany’s .de ccTLD, and many others.

Still, of the 312 ccTLDs, many of them have adopted the UDRP or a variation of it. (One of the most common variations is a small but significant change to the third element of the UDRP, which requires that trademark owners show a disputed domain name was registered “and” is being used in bad faith. Many of the UDRP variants loosen this test and require only that trademark owners show a disputed domain name was registered “or” is being used in bad faith.)

Below is a list of the 42 countries that (according to WIPO and as of the date of this blog post) have adopted the UDRP.

Implications for Trademark Owners

As a result, a trademark owner can file a UDRP complaint with any of the UDRP service providers for any domain name that includes any of the ccTLDs listed below. And, as WIPO notes, “[w]here a ccTLD has adopted the UDRP, disputes in those ccTLDs may be combined in one single UDRP proceeding alongside domain names in generic top level domains (gTLDs),” such as .com or any of the new gTLDs.

Of course, as in all UDRP proceedings, language may be an issue, so it is important to determine the language of the applicable registration agreement—or consider whether an exception may be appropriate. Given that most of the ccTLDs listed below are for countries in which English is not an official language, English-speaking trademark owners may see this issue arise more frequently than in other domain name disputes.

Finally, it’s interesting to note that, although the list below is somewhat lengthy, UDRP disputes occur irregularly within these ccTLDs. For example, WIPO and the Forum (the two most-popular UDRP service providers) together have heard 366 .tv disputes (because the .tv ccTLD has been marketed on behalf of Tuvalu for those in the television industry), while they have had no cases involving the Pitcairn Islands’ .pn ccTLD.

By Doug Isenberg, Attorney & Founder of The GigaLaw Firm

Learn more by visiting The GigaLaw Firm website. Doug Isenberg also maintains a blog here.

Visit Page

Filed Under


The United States and .us Jeff Neuman  –  Jun 1, 2017 7:51 PM

The .us Top Level Domain was one of the first country-code top-level domains to adopt the UDRP.  They call it the usDRP.  It was last revised in 2014.  The .us TLD was the first to change the “and” to “or” as you describe in your post.

The reason it is not included in the WIPO directory is because WIPO is not an accredited dispute provider for the usDRP.  The US Government had a requirement that all dispute providers needed to be located in the United States.  Thus, only the American Arbitration Association and the National Arbitration Forum are accredited (or at least were as of several years ago when I last checked).

Just thought I would add this one to the list.

Thanks, Jeff, but the reasons you provide Doug Isenberg  –  Jun 1, 2017 8:02 PM

Thanks, Jeff, but the reasons you provide are why I did not include .us in this list—a (slightly) different policy applies. As the Forum states, the usDRP (which applies to .us) “is strikingly similar to the UDRP with two key differences: (1) the addition of a factor under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) and (2) the use of the disjunctive ‘or’ rather than ‘and’ in the bad faith element under usDRP 4(a)(iii).”

Also, AFAIK, the Forum (and not the Doug Isenberg  –  Jun 1, 2017 8:08 PM

Also, AFAIK, the Forum (and not the American Arbitration Association) is the only approved usDRP provider—but I am happy to be corrected.

I just didnt want it to look like the US didnt care :) Jeff Neuman  –  Jun 1, 2017 10:13 PM

It has been a few years since I left the current ccTLD operator so it does not surprise me that the AAA is no longer accredited. I don't think anyone really went to them for disputes. Again, I just didn't want to create the impression that the .us ccTLD doesn't care about protecting IP rights. I know I am no longer working there, but as one of the founders in the ccTLD operations for .us (when it expanded in 2002), I still have a close affinity to it.

Webinar on .us disputes Doug Isenberg  –  Jun 2, 2017 1:10 AM

Comment Title:

  Notify me of follow-up comments

We encourage you to post comments and engage in discussions that advance this post through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can report it using the link at the end of each comment. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of CircleID. For more information on our comment policy, see Codes of Conduct.

CircleID Newsletter The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet



Brand Protection

Sponsored byCSC

New TLDs

Sponsored byRadix

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPv4.Global


Sponsored byDNIB.com

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API


Sponsored byVerisign