Judge says law firm presented “ample evidence” Namecheap violated the ACPA.
A law firm is asking a federal court to require Namecheap to reimburse more than $50,000 in expenses it says were caused by the registrar’s handling of a disputed domain name.
Greenberg Gross LLP initiated an in rem action against the domain GreenbergGrossLLP.com in April 2025, filing the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, where Namecheap is headquartered. The complaint sought transfer of the domain under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
On April 23, 2025, Greenberg Gross served Namecheap, the domain’s registrar, with an amended complaint in the in rem action. Under the ACPA, once a registrar receives written notice of an in rem complaint, it must not “transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify” the domain while the case is pending except pursuant to a court order.
At the time the lawsuit was filed, the Whois record listed the registrant as Diverse ISP. Subsequently the domain was placed behind Namecheap’s Whois privacy service, and Namecheap later disclosed that a different registrant had come to own the domain.
Namecheap’s records indicate the registration expired on July 31, 2025. On September 9, 2025, a different Namecheap customer registered the domain. Although the court filings do not detail the precise mechanics of that change, the Whois creation date remained 2024 and the domain did not pass through a pending delete period, suggesting it was not a typical expiration capture but instead involved a direct reassignment or auction-style transfer.
Greenberg Gross contends that Namecheap should have locked or otherwise preserved the domain after being served with the in rem complaint, preventing any new registration or modification while the litigation was pending. In its communications with the firm, Namecheap maintained that it did not perform an account-to-account transfer; rather, the original registration lapsed and a new customer later registered the domain. Namecheap argued that this sequence did not run afoul of its obligations under the ACPA.
The law firm disagrees with that characterization, noting the ACPA bars a registrar from “otherwise modifying” a domain during an in rem action, not only from transferring it directly. Greenberg Gross says the registrar’s conduct forced the firm to take additional legal steps to identify and pursue the new registrant.
Because the new registration used Namecheap’s privacy service, the registrant’s details were redacted in Whois. When Greenberg Gross sought the underlying registrant information from Namecheap, the registrar declined to provide it without a court order or subpoena. That refusal prompted the firm to seek early discovery from the court to subpoena Namecheap for the underlying registration records.
Namecheap ultimately responded to the subpoena in December 2025 and identified the new registrant. Following that disclosure, Greenberg Gross secured another default judgment against the domain, and Namecheap transferred GreenbergGrossLLP.com to the plaintiff in April 2026.
As a result of the intervening registrant change and the need to pursue early discovery, Greenberg Gross says it incurred more than $50,000 in additional attorneys’ fees and related costs. The firm asks the court to order Namecheap to reimburse those expenses, arguing the extra work was necessary because the registrar failed to preserve the domain or disclose registrant data after being notified of the in rem action.
Because Namecheap is not a named party in the underlying in rem litigation, Greenberg Gross sought an order to show cause requiring the registrar to explain why it should not be sanctioned for its conduct. U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi granted that procedural request and ordered Namecheap to respond.
In his order the judge went beyond simply requiring a response. Liburdi wrote that Greenberg Gross had presented “ample evidence that Namecheap violated its obligations under the ACPA.” The ACPA generally limits monetary liability for registrars in these circumstances unless they act in bad faith or with reckless disregard for their obligations. Judge Liburdi observed that Namecheap received court filings over several months yet continued to allow the second registrant to use privacy protection, which the judge said suggests the registrar was aware of the pending action and its duties under the statute but chose to disregard them.
The court also identified a legal threshold issue: the ACPA provision that shields registrars limits when a registrar can be subject to monetary relief, and it does not by itself provide a clear grant of authority for awarding attorneys’ fees against a nonparty registrar. To address that gap, Judge Liburdi ordered both sides to brief whether the court should instead invoke its authority to sanction a nonparty whose actions caused a litigant to incur additional expenses.
Namecheap has until October 12 to file its response to the order to show cause, and Greenberg Gross must file any reply by October 19. The outcome will determine whether the firm can recover the fees it attributes to Namecheap’s post-notice handling of the domain.
Legal observers note that an alternative procedural path for Greenberg Gross could have been filing the in rem action in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the .com registry operator is located; in that forum, the registry might have placed a lock that would have preserved the status of the domain and possibly avoided the registrant change. However, the case at hand proceeds in Arizona, and the court will now decide how to treat the registrar’s conduct and whether monetary sanctions are appropriate.