Independent · Testable · Defensible

Domain Name Expert Witness for UDRP, ACPA & Cybersquatting Matters

Independent analysis and testimony on domain names, websites, ownership history, transfers, valuation, and alleged cybersquatting. Findings are reproducible and tied to the record — built to hold up under cross-examination, not just to sound persuasive on paper.

Overview

Domain Names as Evidence

A domain name carries commercial value, brand value, and evidentiary value all at once. Because a domain connects ownership records, technical configuration, traffic, and reputation, disputes over domain names rarely turn on a single fact. They turn on chronology — who owned what and when — on intent, on chains of custody across registrars and hosting providers, and on whether the record supports a likelihood of confusion with an existing trademark.

Bill Hartzer has worked in domain names and search since the 1990s, and has been retained as an expert in numerous legal matters where domain names and websites were central to the dispute. His work spans technical forensics, ownership research, valuation, and policy, connecting registrant identities, infrastructure, and content to questions of registration, use, and harm.

At a Glance

Decades of Domain-Specific Experience

1990s–Present
Working in domain names and search
2013
Launched domain background-check services (Verified.Domains)
Legacy + New gTLDs
Research across hundreds of top-level domains
Reports · Rebuttals · Testimony
Deposition and trial experience
Expert Services

Six Areas of Domain Expert Witness Support

Each engagement is scoped to the specific questions counsel needs answered. The six areas below cover the matters Bill Hartzer is most frequently retained for — each has its own dedicated page covering methodology, typical deliverables, and the kinds of matters it applies to.

Common Matter Types

Where Domain Expertise Becomes Case-Critical

Domain names and websites play a central evidentiary role in a recurring set of dispute types: UDRP/URS complaints and responses, ACPA litigation, typosquatting and traffic-diversion schemes, ownership disputes and stolen domains, brand confusion tied to domains and redirects, and historic-use analysis drawn from archived content and DNS records.

See the full list of common matter types →

Why Attorneys Retain Bill Hartzer

Independent, Evidence-First, Explained Plainly

Independent

Opinions follow the record, not the retaining party’s preferred outcome. Gaps and limitations in the evidence are documented explicitly, not glossed over.

Testable

Every conclusion is tied to a specific, citable artifact — WHOIS/RDAP history, DNS records, archived pages — so opposing counsel and the court can verify the reasoning.

Defensible

Findings are built to withstand cross-examination: reproducible methodology, documented sources, and plain-language explanations for non-technical fact-finders.

Start a Conversation About Your Matter

Every engagement begins with a conflict check and a short scoping conversation about the questions that need to be answered, the deadlines involved, and what evidence is already available.