Court systems can also be used to sort out claims of cybersquatting, but jurisdiction is often a problem, as different courts have ruled that the proper location for a trial is that of the complainant, the defendant, or the location of the server through which the name is registered. People often choose the UDRP process because it is usually quicker and cheaper than going to court, but courts can and often do overrule UDRP decisions.

Some countries have specific laws against cybersquatting beyond the normal rules of trademark law. The United States, for example, has the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999.

Under UDRP policy, successful complainants can have the names deleted (which often just means someone else will register it) or transferred to their ownership (which means paying regular renewal fees on all the names or risk them being registered by someone else). Under the ACPA the cybersquatter can be held liable for actual damages or statutory damages in the amount of a maximum of $100,000 for each name found to be in violation.

There have been several instances of companies, individuals or governments trying to get generic domain names away from their owners by making false claims of trademark violation. Sometimes they are successful. This practice is called "reverse domain hijacking" and is also punishable by a penalty of up to $100,000 for each violation.

The term cybersquatting is sometimes wrongly used to refer to the sale or purchase of generic domain names. Due to the shortage of descriptive and generic available domain names, covetous entities often try to exploit the term Cybersquatting to suit their desired ends.

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).