.png)
Licensed in California, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, Washington, the District of Columbia, and before the USPTO.
© 2025 Lloyd & Mousilli. All rights reserved.
Your company’s website often serves as the first point of contact between your brand and prospective customers. Significant resources are typically invested into building this digital presence, from web development to strategic advertising and marketing efforts that drive traffic to your domain. Now imagine receiving notice that this critical asset is at risk of takeover attempt by a competitor or opportunistic third party. The potential loss of your domain could have catastrophic consequences for your business. This threat commonly arises through a legal mechanism known as the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a process designed to address the bad-faith registration or misuse of domain names. While intended to protect trademark holders, the UDRP is a complex and highly technical proceeding—one that carries significant risks if not navigated with precision and legal expertise.
This was the crisis Lesto Labs faced when a significantly larger and better-funded competitor, ParrotAI, initiated a UDRP proceeding, resulting in an order to transfer the domain www.tryparrot.ai. With the deadline for transfer rapidly approaching, Lesto Labs was on the brink of losing a critical digital asset. Through strategic legal action and timely intervention, the company was able to reverse course and retain ownership of its domain.
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is a process created by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a nonprofit organization that oversees the global domain name system (DNS). ICANN plays a central role in maintaining the stability of the internet by overseeing domain name assignments and addressing associated legal and policy matters. One of the major challenges ICANN seeks to address is cybersquatting, and the UDRP proceeding was created in an effort to mitigate this issue.
Cybersquatting occurs when individuals or entities register domain names similar to trademarks they do not own. These bad actors often aim to profit by reselling the domain to the rightful trademark owner at a high price, misdirecting online traffic, or harming the brand’s reputation. This practice can confuse customers, dilute brand value, and exploit the goodwill of businesses. The UDRP was designed to provide trademark owners with a fast and affordable way to resolve such disputes.
To begin a UDRP proceeding, a trademark owner must first prepare and file a formal complaint with an approved dispute resolution provider accredited by ICANN, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the Forum (formerly known as the National Arbitration Forum).
Once filed, the provider notifies the domain name registrar, who temporarily locks the domain to prevent any changes. The domain registrant (the respondent) is then given an opportunity to respond, usually within 20 days.
A panel of one or more neutral arbitrators is appointed to review the submissions and issue a decision, typically within a few weeks. Remedies are limited to either the cancellation of the domain or its transfer to the complainant. Monetary damages are not awarded under UDRP.
It is critical to ensure the complaint is thorough, well-supported, and compliant with the applicable procedural rules. Missteps can result in dismissal, delay, or an unfavorable ruling. For this reason, many trademark owners rely on experienced legal counsel to draft and prosecute UDRP claims.
To meet the burden of proof for a UDRP claim, a trademark owner must demonstrate (1) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark, (2) that the registrant has no legitimate rights to the domain, and (3) that it was registered and used in bad faith. If these criteria are met, the arbitrator can order the domain to be transferred or canceled. This streamlined process often concludes within a few months, making it significantly faster and less costly than traditional litigation.
UDRP decisions are an effective initial step for addressing domain disputes. If the outcome is unfavorable, either party can escalate the matter to federal court under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). Courts review the case independently, without being influenced by the UDRP decision. However, for many trademark owners, the UDRP offers an efficient way to take action against cybersquatters and protect their brand.
By addressing the misuse of domain names and protecting trademarks, ICANN’s UDRP process ensures that domain names are used fairly and helps businesses maintain control over their online presence. It is a valuable tool for combating cybersquatting and safeguarding brand reputation in the digital space.
While the UDRP process allows trademark owners to challenge bad-faith domain registrations without an attorney, going at it alone is often a costly mistake. Successfully reclaiming a domain requires more than just proving trademark ownership; it demands a strategic legal approach, well-supported arguments, and a clear demonstration of bad faith registration and use. Without experienced legal counsel, claimants risk missing critical arguments, failing to meet the burden of proof, or overlooking key evidentiary requirements.
If you ever find yourself involved in a UDRP claim, whether defending your domain name or pursuing action against a bad actor, you should strongly consider hiring an experienced attorney. Navigating the UDRP process can be complex, and a misstep could result in losing your domain name. Similarly, if you suspect someone is using a domain name in bad faith to exploit your brand or trademark, an attorney can help you effectively initiate a UDRP claim. Having a strong brand and a registered trademark is a critical advantage in these cases, as it bolsters your intellectual property rights and strengthens your position during the proceedings. Proactively protecting and enhancing your IP portfolio can make all the difference in achieving a favorable outcome.
Dominic Malzone, founder of Lesto Labs, launched an AI-powered video application under the name ParrotAI (the “Lesto Labs App”). As an established player in the tech industry, Lesto Labs released the app on both the Google Play Store and Apple App Store, making it instantly accessible to millions of users worldwide. To amplify visibility and user acquisition, the company registered the domain <tryparrotai.com.> At the time of registration, no other entity was using the name “ParrotAI,” and the domain quickly attracted millions of monthly visits and became a key driver of the app’s early success.
Later that year, an unrelated company operating under the name PARROTAI filed a service mark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In contrast to the Lesto Labs App, which catered to a broad consumer base for AI-driven video tools, PARROTAI focused on serving business professionals with its AI-powered note-taking solution. Despite the clear differences in target markets and functionality, PARROTAI initiated a UDRP proceeding against Lesto Labs, asserting that the <tryparrotai.com> domain infringed upon its brand rights.
Confident in the strength of his position, Mr. Malzone opted to respond to the UDRP claim without legal counsel. This ultimately resulted in an unfavorable ruling and Lesto Labs lost the case. In the wake of the panel’s decision, PARROTAI escalated the dispute by issuing cease and desist letters to both Apple and Google, demanding the removal of the Lesto Labs App from their respective platforms.
Beyond UDRP proceedings, major app distribution platforms like the Apple App Store and Google Play have their own internal protocols for handling intellectual property complaints. These procedures can directly impact whether an app remains listed or is taken down entirely. Engaging experienced legal counsel is essential not only to navigate these complex systems but also to protect your rights, preserve access to your user base, and minimize operational disruptions.
When Lesto Labs engaged Lloyd & Mousilli (L&M), the firm swiftly uncovered a critical misstep: the opposing party had prematurely issued cease-and-desist letters to Apple and Google before the UDRP appeal period had expired—an aggressive tactic seemingly aimed at disrupting Lesto Labs’ operations. In response, L&M promptly filed an appeal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging the panel’s decision. This federal appeal process allows for independent judicial review and is vital when a UDRP ruling fails to consider key facts or legal standards. Acting quickly, L&M sought to reverse the decision and safeguard Lesto Labs’ domain and business stability
L&M further strengthened Lesto Labs’ position by asserting a claim of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) against PARROTAI. This claim alleged that PARROTAI had acted in bad faith by attempting to exploit the UDRP process to improperly take control of a domain to which it had no legitimate claim. RDNH is designed to address exactly this kind of abuse—where the process is used to intimidate or pressure rightful domain owners. By bringing this claim, L&M not only challenged the validity of PARROTAI’s actions but also highlighted the legitimacy of Lesto Labs’ domain ownership.
As a result of the counterclaims and pending appeal, PARROTAI approached L&M to discuss a potential settlement ahead of its response deadline. During negotiations, PARROTAI maintained that its service mark entitled it to the domain. However, L&M’s trademark team identified a critical weakness: the term “ParrotAI” was at risk of genericide—where a trademark loses legal protection due to widespread, generic use.
L&M’s investigation revealed that at least nine other trademarks incorporating “parrot” were active in similar markets, undermining the distinctiveness of PARROTAI’s mark. This finding significantly weakened PARROTAI’s claim and bolstered Lesto Labs’ position at the negotiating table.
The appeal, counterclaims, and genericide findings significantly shifted the balance in Lesto Labs’ favor, enabling L&M to negotiate from a position of strength. Though the settlement terms remain confidential, the matter concluded with a coexistence agreement—allowing both parties to operate without further conflict.
Such agreements are common in trademark disputes and serve to define how similar marks can coexist without infringement. L&M’s experienced trademark and litigation teams are well-versed in crafting these agreements to protect clients’ rights and support long-term business stability.
Whether you are initiating a UDRP claim or defending against one, Lloyd & Mousilli offers the experience and strategic insight needed to navigate the process with confidence. Our attorneys bring deep expertise from roles at leading companies and agencies such as Apple, Dell, and the USPTO, uniquely positioning us to handle complex domain disputes. What distinguishes our firm is a steadfast commitment to delivering effective, business-aligned solutions with cost-efficiency in mind. To explore how our team can support your UDRP matter, schedule a free consultation.
Reviewed By :
