To explain why it shouldn’t pay $50,000 in ACPA case — Namecheap ordered
Judge states law firm presented “ample evidence” Namecheap violated the ACPA.
A law firm is asking a court to let it recover over $50,000 in expenses from Namecheap.
Greenberg Gross LLP filed an in rem lawsuit against the domain name GreenbergGrossLLP.com in April 2025. The filing, in U.S. District Court in Arizona (where Namecheap is based), sought transfer of the domain under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
Greenberg Gross served Namecheap, the domain’s registrar, with an amended complaint on April 23, 2025.
The ACPA states that, following receiving written notification of an in rem complaint, a registrar must not “transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify” the domain name while the case is pending, except by court order.
When the lawsuit was filed, the Whois record listed the registrant as Diverse ISP. But the domain later went under Whois privacy, and Namecheap later disclosed that a fresh registrant owned the domain.
Namecheap stated the registration expired on July 31, 2025. On September 9, a fresh client registered the domain.
Although the court documents don’t address it, if the domain expired and someone else registered it, it appears to have been a direct auction transfer. The domain never went through pending delete; the Whois creation date remains 2024.
Greenberg Gross argues that Namecheap ought to have locked the domain following receiving notice of the lawsuit and prevented someone else from registering it.
In correspondence with Greenberg Gross, Namecheap argued that it did not transfer the domain from one account to another. Instead, the original registration expired, and a different client later registered the domain. It states this does not violate its requirements under the ACPA.
Greenberg Gross states that distinction does not matter since the ACPA prohibits a registrar from otherwise modifying a domain during an in rem action, not merely transferring it.
The change in registrant created additional work for Greenberg Gross.
The fresh registration used Namecheap’s privacy service, so the registrant’s information was redacted in Whois. When Greenberg Gross asked Namecheap for the underlying registrant details, Namecheap stated it would not provide them without a court order or subpoena.
Greenberg Gross then had to ask the court for permission to conduct early discovery and subpoena Namecheap. Namecheap responded to the subpoena in December 2025 and identified the fresh registrant.
The law firm subsequently obtained another default against the domain. Namecheap transferred GreenbergGrossLLP.com to the plaintiff in April 2026.
Greenberg Gross is asking the court to force Namecheap to pay for costs it states it incurred since of Namecheap’s handling of the domain.
The firm states it has incurred over $50,000 in additional attorneys’ fees and costs since it first contacted Namecheap regarding the fresh registrant’s redacted Whois information. It is asking the court to require Namecheap to reimburse those expenses.
Namecheap is not a party to the lawsuit, so Greenberg Gross asked the court to issue an order to show cause (pdf) requiring the registrar to explain why it ought to not be sanctioned.
U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi granted that request (pdf) on Monday.
The order goes beyond merely asking Namecheap to respond. Liburdi wrote that Greenberg Gross had presented “ample evidence that Namecheap violated its obligations under the ACPA.”
The ACPA generally shields registrars from monetary liability in these circumstances unless they act in bad faith or with reckless disregard. Liburdi noted that Namecheap received court filings over a number of months but still permitted the second registrant to use privacy protection.
“This suggests that Namecheap knew of this pending action as well as its obligations under the ACPA and chose to disregard them,” he wrote.
A separate question remains regarding whether the court can order Namecheap to pay the firm’s attorneys’ fees.
Liburdi noted that the relevant ACPA provision limits when monetary relief can be imposed on a registrar, but does not itself grant the court authority to award fees in this situation. The judge ordered both sides to address whether he ought to instead use the court’s authority to sanction a nonparty whose actions caused a party to incur additional expenses.
Namecheap has until October 12 to respond. Greenberg Gross must file a reply by October 19.
The plaintiff could have saved itself a headache by filing its lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia, where .com registry Verisign is located. It would have resulted in .com registry Verisign locking the domain, which could have prevented the registrant change.
