Jeffrey Neuman and Todd Ryan are Respected Industry Leaders.
Every Tuesday at Noon PST / 3pm EST, Jeff and Todd host the Domain Name Law Show.
Visit DNLshow.com for show information, including links to listen live and for replays.
Free Consultation
+1.888.897.0886
JJN Solutions Law, PLLC represents trademark holders and domain registrants before The Forum, WIPO, and other accredited UDRP providers.
All gTLD domain name registrations are subject to a mandatory dispute resolution process called the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). Under the policy, trademark owners may bring an action against a domain name registrant if the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
The UDRP was created through a multi-stakeholder process within ICANN in 1998 to address clear-cut cases of trademark abuse, also known as "cybersquatting." It functions as a quasi-arbitration before accredited dispute providers including The Forum and WIPO. Domain name disputes are heard by "Panelists" at the respective dispute providers.
Jeffrey J. Neuman is an accredited Panelist at The Forum and has also served on 3-member panels for cases brought at WIPO — giving him unparalleled insight into both sides of every dispute.
Applies to all major gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, .biz, .info, .xyz, and more)
Accredited providers include WIPO, The Forum (ADR Forum), CIIDRC, and ADNDRC
A successful UDRP complaint can result in domain transfer or cancellation
Respondents must answer within 20 days or risk a default decision
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) findings protect legitimate domain owners
JJN Solutions represents both complainants and respondents in UDRP proceedings
Cases decided by Jeffrey J. Neuman as an accredited Panelist at The Forum.
FA2007002904294 · Decided: August 18, 2020
Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
FA1909553 · Decided: September 30, 2020
Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
FA1916204 · Decided: November 17, 2020
Registrant prevailed and Complainant was found to have engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
FA1925079 · Decided: January 21, 2021
Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
FA1929303 · Decided: February 15, 2021
Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of both domain names in bad faith.
FA1929303 · Decided: March 3, 2021
Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
FA1931133 · Decided: March 24, 2021
Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of both domain names in bad faith.
FA1933334 · Decided: April 12, 2021
Registration and use of the disputed domain name by the ex-spouse of a former Franchisee of Complainant. Complainant prevailed in demonstrating bad faith registration and use.
FA1937107 · Decided: April 22, 2021
Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
FA1940674 · Decided: May 12, 2021
Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
FA1941414 · Decided: June 3, 2021
Complainant prevailed in demonstrating bad faith. Notable aspect: the domain name resolved to a random website that was neither associated with the Complainant nor Respondent.
FA1969097 · Decided: November 24, 2021
Respondent prevailed due to the complex legal issues presented by both sides. The UDRP was intended for clear-cut cases of cybersquatting, not for cases more appropriate for national courts which depend on collection and cross-examination of evidence.
FA1969515 · Decided: December 9, 2021
Respondent prevailed and Complainant was found liable for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The case examines key factors used to determine RDNH, including: materially false or omitted evidence, misrepresentation of facts, no trademark rights at the time of domain registration, ulterior purpose to increase negotiating leverage, and where the Complainant knew the Complaint was doomed to fail.
FA1980684 · Decided: February 7, 2022
Complainant prevailed and both domain names were transferred. The case examines a situation where the listed WHOIS registrant claims not to be the actual registrant. The Panel held that a mere unsubstantiated assertion that the domain names were registered by a third party does not absolve the named registrant of its obligations under the domain name registration agreement — the listed registrant is responsible for the registration and use regardless of whether it exercised actual control.
Facing a domain name dispute? Need representation before The Forum or WIPO?
Contact Jeff Neuman View UDRP FAQ pageJeffrey Neuman and Todd Ryan are Respected Industry Leaders.
Every Tuesday at Noon PST / 3pm EST, Jeff and Todd host the Domain Name Law Show.
Visit DNLshow.com for show information, including links to listen live and for replays.
Legal and policy consultancy focusing on Internet, Infrastructure & Intellectual Property.
© 2026 JJN Solutions Law, PLLC • All Rights Reserved | Management services by StageMarx, LLC