Domain Dispute Decisions Scraper

UDRP Decisions Scraper - National Arbitration Forum & ADR.eu

Every domain name dispute decided by FORUM and the Czech Arbitration Court, in one schema. 44,269 cases at FORUM going back to February 2000 across 82,204 disputed domains, about 6,200 UDRP cases and 1,600 .eu ADR cases at the Czech court. Parties, domains, panelists, registrars, outcomes and the full text of the decision. No login, no browser, no proxy. Export to CSV, JSON, Excel, or XML.

WIPO decides roughly 60% of UDRP cases. This Actor covers the rest: FORUM (formerly the National Arbitration Forum) handles most US filings, and the Czech Arbitration Court runs both a UDRP docket and the sole .eu ADR docket. Both publish to anonymous visitors through the same interfaces their own sites call.

Who uses it	What they use dispute decisions for
Trademark and domain lawyers	Precedent search by issue, panelist, registrar and outcome before filing
Brand protection teams	Every case naming their brand, their competitors, or a repeat cybersquatter
Domain investors	Which panelists deny complaints, and the cases where the panel found reverse domain name hijacking
Legal analytics and academics	A structured corpus with the reasoning sections separated out
Registrars and registries	Which of their names show up in disputes and how those cases end

What it does

Three row shapes across the two providers:

• ⚖️ Decisions (default): one row per case. Provider, case number, policy, case name, every disputed domain with its TLD, complainant and respondent with their domiciles, the panelist, the outcome in the provider's own words and normalised to who won, the decision and filing dates, the proceeding language, the URS stage, and the link to the published decision.
• 👤 Panelists: the Czech Arbitration Court's arbitrator directory with country, the languages they hear cases in and a link to each CV.
• 🌐 Disputed domains: the court's register of every domain name that has ever been in a dispute, with the state of that dispute.

And four blocks you can switch on, all read out of the published decision itself:

• 📄 Parsed decision: the registrar, the panelists and the panel size, the relief sought and the relief ordered, the outcome per domain, the default and dissent flags, the reverse domain name hijacking finding, and the reasoning split into its sections (findings, discussion, bad faith, rights, legitimate interests, principal reasons).
• 📅 Case timeline: filing date, response deadline, response received date, the date the panel signed, and the days from filing to decision.
• 🧑‍⚖️ Party representatives: counsel and law firm for each side.
• 📝 Full decision text: the whole decision as plain text with a word count, 2,000 to 6,000 words a case.

Search by what the panel actually decided

FORUM indexes every decision against its own taxonomy of legal issues. Forty of those tags are exposed as a filter, so you can pull only the cases where the panel dealt with phishing, typosquatting, pay per click parking, a gripe site, a parody, a former employee, a celebrity name, a privacy or proxy registration, a pattern of cybersquatting, a domain registered before the trademark, or a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. No other public interface lets you slice UDRP case law that way.

Every decision row contains: source, provider, caseNumber, caseId, policy, caseName, domains, primaryDomain, domainCount, tlds, complainant, complainantDomicile, respondent, respondentDomicile, panelist, outcome, outcomeNormalised, decisionDate, submissionDate, publishedAt, language, ursStage, decisionUrl, caseUrl and scrapedAt. With every block switched on a row carries up to 62 fields.

What you can do with dispute data

Watch a brand.

complainantContains pulls every case a company has brought across both providers, with the domains, the outcomes and the counsel who filed them.

Find the precedent.

legalIssues plus outcomes gives you, for example, every case in which a panel found reverse domain name hijacking, or every phishing case that ended in a transfer.

Profile a panelist.

panelistContains returns their whole docket, and the outcome column shows how often they deny.

Track a registrar.

Switch on the parsed decision and the registrar appears on every FORUM row, so you can count which registrars carry the disputed names.

Check a domain.

domainContains searches the disputed name itself, and the disputed-domain mode gives you the court's whole register to join against your own portfolio.

Why choose this scraper

	What you get
The 40% WIPO does not decide	FORUM and the Czech Arbitration Court, the two providers missing from every WIPO dataset
One schema across providers	Both houses' vocabularies folded onto a single outcome axis, so the rows are comparable
Forty legal issue filters	FORUM's own case index, exposed as a filter rather than as a field
The reasoning, not just the result	Findings, discussion, bad faith and rights sections separated out per case
Twelve policies	UDRP, USDRP, URS, CDRP, STOP, ERDRP, RDRP, .usRS, TDRP and the .eu ADR rules
Back to February 2000	The full FORUM archive, not a recent window
No key, no proxy, no browser	Both providers answer anonymous plain HTTP, which is why this costs $5 per 1,000

How it compares

Our WIPO UDRP Decisions Scraper covers the other side of the same market. Run both and you have the whole UDRP record.

Feature	ParseForge FORUM & CAC	ParseForge WIPO	Other actors
FORUM decisions	Yes	No	No
Czech Arbitration Court UDRP	Yes	No	No
.eu ADR decisions	Yes	No	No
WIPO decisions	No	Yes	No
Legal issue filters	40	No	No
Full decision text	Yes	Yes	No
Registrar per case	Yes	Yes	No
Price per case	$0.005	$0.021	Not sold

What a decision looks like

{
  "source": "FORUM",
  "provider": "FORUM (formerly the National Arbitration Forum)",
  "caseNumber": "2235578",
  "policy": "UDRP",
  "caseName": "Carol Cole Company, Inc. v. Weijie Xu",
  "domains": ["nuface.xyz"],
  "primaryDomain": "nuface.xyz",
  "domainCount": 1,
  "tlds": ["xyz"],
  "complainant": "Carol Cole Company, Inc.",
  "complainantDomicile": "Vista CA US",
  "respondent": "Weijie Xu",
  "respondentDomicile": "Huaian, Jiangsu II CN",
  "panelist": "Steven M. Levy",
  "outcome": "Claim Denied",
  "outcomeNormalised": "Respondent won",
  "decisionDate": "2026-08-27",
  "submissionDate": "2026-07-28",
  "decisionUrl": "https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/2235578.htm",
  "registrar": "Dominet (HK) Limited.",
  "panelSize": "Single-member",
  "relief": "Denied",
  "orderMade": "Remains with Respondent",
  "reverseDomainNameHijacking": "Not raised",
  "findings": "- Complainant owns trademark rights to the NUFACE mark and the <nuface.xyz> domain name is identical to the mark; - Complainant has not established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where the only use shown by the record is a general offer to sell the domain name..."
}

Configure the run

Run it with no input for the last twelve months across all three dockets.

The last year, all providers:

{ "maxItems": 500 }

Every case a brand has brought, with the reasoning and the counsel:

{
  "complainantContains": "Google",
  "dateFrom": "2015-01-01",
  "includeParsedDecision": true,
  "includeRepresentatives": true,
  "maxItems": 500
}

Reverse domain name hijacking findings at FORUM:

{
  "sources": ["forum"],
  "legalIssues": ["reverseDomainNameHijackingFound"],
  "dateFrom": "2020-01-01",
  "includeParsedDecision": true,
  "maxItems": 300
}

Phishing cases that ended in a transfer, with the full text:

{
  "fullTextSearch": "phishing",
  "outcomes": ["Complainant won"],
  "includeDecisionText": true,
  "maxItems": 200
}

One panelist's whole docket:

{ "panelistContains": "Neil Anthony Brown", "dateFrom": "2010-01-01", "maxItems": 1000 }

Free users

Free-plan runs return up to 10 rows as a preview. Upgrade your Apify plan to pull a whole docket.

Run it

1. Create a free Apify account with $5 in credit.
2. Open the UDRP & Domain Dispute Decisions Scraper.
3. Pick the providers, the date range and any filters, then click Start.
4. Export the results as CSV, Excel, JSON, or XML from the Dataset tab, or schedule it weekly to catch new decisions.

Run it programmatically through the Apify API (run-sync-get-dataset-items) or the ApifyClient for JavaScript and Python.

Use with AI agents (MCP)

Give an AI agent the UDRP record through the Model Context Protocol:

claude mcp add --transport http apify "https://mcp.apify.com?tools=parseforge/domain-dispute-decisions-scraper"

Then ask: "Which panelists have found reverse domain name hijacking in the last two years?", "Show me every UDRP case brought against a .shop domain in 2026" or "How often does a respondent who files a response actually win?"

Troubleshooting

Why did an empty run return nothing?

FORUM's search matches nothing without a date window, so a run with no dates is defined as the last twelve months. Set dateFrom to go further back; the archive starts on 4 February 2000.

Why is the panelist blank on FORUM rows?

FORUM's case index does not carry it. Switch on the parsed decision and the panelist, the panel size and the registrar are read out of the decision itself.

Why is the registrar N/A on Czech Arbitration Court rows?

The court does not name the registrar in its published decisions. FORUM does.

Why does a legal issue filter return a case whose text never mentions the issue?

The filter uses FORUM's own index of its decisions, which is occasionally broader than the text. The reverseDomainNameHijacking field reports what the decision actually says, so use the filter to narrow and the field to confirm.

Why do the Czech Arbitration Court rows have no submission date?

Its grid does not publish one. Switch on the case timeline and the filing timestamp is read from the decision page.

Why are there fewer .eu rows than UDRP rows?

The .eu docket is smaller: about 1,600 decisions in total against roughly 6,200 on the court's UDRP docket and 44,269 at FORUM. With several providers selected the run splits its row budget between them and hands back whatever a provider does not use.

FAQ

Question	Answer
Where does the data come from?	The public search API behind adrforum.com and the public decision grids at udrp.adr.eu and eu.adr.eu.
Do I need an API key or a login?	No. Both providers answer anonymously.
How far back does it go?	FORUM to 4 February 2000. The Czech Arbitration Court's dockets start later.
Does it include WIPO?	No. WIPO is a separate provider; use our WIPO UDRP Decisions Scraper for that side.
Which policies are covered?	UDRP, USDRP, URS, CDRP, STOP, ERDRP, RDRP, .usRS, TDRP and the .eu ADR rules.
Can I get the full text of a decision?	Yes, switch on the full decision text, or take just the reasoning sections with the parsed decision.
Are pending cases included?	Yes, and they carry N/A for the decision date. Switch on "only decided cases" to drop them.
How fast is it?	400 cases with the parsed decision, timeline and counsel took 21 seconds on the platform.
How many rows per run?	Free plan: 10. Paid: as many as the filters match, up to 50,000.
Is this an official FORUM or ADR.eu product?	No. It is unofficial and reads only publicly available decisions.

🆘 Need help? Email parseforge@protonmail.com with your run ID, your input, and what you expected.

⚠️ Disclaimer. This Actor is unofficial and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by FORUM, the Czech Arbitration Court, ICANN, EURid or WIPO. It reads only publicly available decisions. Nothing here is legal advice.