What decides a .uk domain dispute: the story, not the paperwork

· Carl Heaton · Deep dive Security

This filing is part of a Steelwise deep dive into 25 years of .uk domain disputes, published as the service that decides them moves to WIPO on 7 July 2026.

Someone registers your company's name as a domain, or a one-letter-off misspelling of it. What are your odds of getting it back? We analysed all 5,525 published decisions from 25 years of Nominet's Dispute Resolution Service (DRS), the system that settles .uk domain disputes, and the answer is unusually clean: the odds depend almost entirely on the story of the registration, and almost not at all on anything you could game.

You cannot predict it from the paperwork

We first tested how well the filable attributes of a case predict its outcome: the shape of the domain, the type of party on each side, whether the respondent replied, the year. They barely help. Knowing all of them gets you to 86.3% accuracy, and simply guessing "the complainant wins" every time gets you to 86.1%. Outcomes are not predictable from the metadata.

Then we classified each case by its fact-pattern, the actual story the decision tells, and a decisive gradient appeared. Complainant win rates by pattern:

  • Typosquatting (deliberate misspellings of a brand): 98%, across 603 cases
  • Brand plus a keyword (yourbrand-support, yourbrand-shop): 92%
  • The exact brand name: 85%
  • Ex-employee or business fallout: 80%
  • Generic dictionary words: complainants won just one of eight cases, and fan or criticism sites fared little better, though the case counts there are small enough to treat as direction rather than rates

The closer a domain sits to a naked brand or a typo of one, the more automatic the transfer. The more the respondent has a legitimate story of their own, the more likely they keep the name. One professional domain investor won 28 cases in a row on exactly that basis.

For the strength of the "hard case" effect, the cleanest measurement in the data needs nothing clever at all. Ordinary brand and word domains transfer about 88% of the time. Short, low-vowel acronym domains like ghd, g4s, rhs, and no7 split almost exactly 50-50. A three-letter string is legitimately claimable by many parties, and the experts treat it that way. That 36-point gap is the sharpest structured split in the whole record.

The typo economy

Typosquatting deserves its own paragraph, because it sits where domain disputes meet security. Around 24% of all disputed domains contain the complainant's brand inside them, and 397 sit within one or two typing errors of the real name: yahho, airlingus, carphonewarhouse, hargeaveslansdown. Squatters misspelled Morgan Stanley six different ways, morgenstanley among them; the bank brought 23 cases over the years and won every one. Enterprise Holdings, the rental-car group, once swept 29 typo domains in a single 2018 case, and Jaguar Land Rover took back 32 domains in one filing.

These names are not registered to sell you rental cars. A convincing typo domain is infrastructure for phishing emails and fake login pages, which is why they lose 98% of the time and why finding them early matters more than litigating them late.

The decisions also record what squatters wanted. Our reading of the decisions surfaced 460 sale prices and demands, topped by £3.25 million asked for eurowindenergy.co.uk, £1.8 million for hotelbandb.co.uk, and £1 million each for virginfm and snapchats, all four confirmed against the decision texts.

What to do with this

  • Check your own perimeter now. Type the obvious misspellings and keyword variants of your domain and see who holds them. Doing it takes 20 minutes and most businesses never have.
  • If someone is squatting your name, use the system. On typo and brand-plus-keyword facts the win rate is 92 to 98%, mediation is free, and a summary decision costs £200. From 7 July you file with WIPO instead of Nominet; the policy and fees are unchanged.
  • If you legitimately hold a generic word, keep evidence. Records of why you registered it and how you use it are what win the cases respondents win.
  • Do not over-reach. Filing against a legitimate holder just because you want the name can end in a formal finding that you abused the process, which the experts now issue more readily than ever.

How Steelwise can help

Checking what look-alike names exist around your brand, and whether any of them are already pointing somewhere hostile, is part of the security reviews we do. Get in touch.

The series

About the data. The numbers in this filing come from our analysis of every published DRS decision: 5,525 disputes decided between September 2001 and July 2026. Fact-patterns and sale prices come from our reading and classification of the decision texts; counts and the headline gradient are validated, and we flag the small samples.

If you spot an error in this filing, tell us and we will correct it and note the change.

Further reading

← All filings

We use cookies to understand how visitors use this site. More information.