GoDaddy Copyright Complaint Rules 2026: Arizona Courts and 14 Days

If something you host or sell through GoDaddy is reported for infringing someone else's copyright or trademark, the document that decides what happens next is GoDaddy's Trademark and Copyright Infringement Policy. We read it in full on 22 October 2026.

For anyone outside the United States, one clause in it matters more than the rest. You cannot dispute a takedown without consenting, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a US federal court - and agreeing to accept service of process from the party that complained about you.

The sentence in full: a counter-notification must include "the alleged infringer's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the Infringer consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the judicial district of Arizona, or if the alleged infringer's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which GoDaddy may be found, and that the alleged infringer will accept service of process from the Complaining Party or an agent of such Party."

Read the second branch carefully, because it is the one that applies in India. A US-based customer consents to one named court, the District of Arizona. A customer with an address outside the US consents to any judicial district in which GoDaddy may be found - which is a wider consent, not a narrower one.

And you agree in advance to accept service from your opponent. That is part of the same required statement. There is no version of the counter-notification process in this policy that omits it. We are not lawyers and this is not advice - but it is the kind of clause worth taking advice on before you file, rather than after.

The restoration window has a floor as well as a ceiling. Material comes back "in not less than ten (10), nor more than fourteen (14), business days" after the counter-notice. Nothing is restored before day ten, however obviously mistaken the original complaint was - and ten business days is two calendar weeks before public holidays.

The complainant has an exit inside that window. GoDaddy will not restore the material if it "first receives notice from the Complaining Party that such Complaining Party has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the alleged infringer from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on GoDaddy's system or network." Filing is enough; winning is not required for the material to stay down.

Everything GoDaddy does during the investigation is discretionary. The policy repeatedly says GoDaddy acts "at its sole discretion and without any legal obligation to do so" - whether that is locking down a domain, redirecting the DNS, or temporarily removing material. It commits to nothing in either direction while a claim is open.

This is the asymmetry worth knowing. On copyright the policy is firm: "If GoDaddy concludes that the Complaining Party has raised a legitimate copyright claim, it will continue to suspend the alleged infringer's GoDaddy account and/or if it is solely stored on a GoDaddy server, deny access to the allegedly infringing material." Note "will", and note that the object of the suspension is the account.

On trademark it is softer but wider. GoDaddy "may, at its sole discretion and without any legal obligation to do so, permanently remove the challenged material from GoDaddy Auctions, continue to suspend the alleged infringer's GoDaddy account and/or ... deny access to the allegedly infringing material." Permanent removal from Auctions is a trademark-specific remedy, and it is the reason this policy has a distinct track for domains offered for sale on GoDaddy Auctions or as Premium Domain Names.

The word "continue" is doing real work in both. It tells you the suspension is expected to have started during the investigation, before any finding was made.

The registration threshold is explicit and it excludes two things by name. A trademark claim requires a mark "registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register or, for foreign marks, registered with the appropriate intellectual property organization of your country" - and then: "state registrations and registrations on the Supplemental Register are not considered valid for these purposes". For an Indian mark that points at a Trade Marks Registry registration.

The trademark complainant's certification asks for more than ownership. It is "a good faith certification, signed under penalty of perjury", stating both that the content infringes and "that use of the content of the website claimed to be infringing at issue is not defensible". That asks a complainant to foreclose the other side's defences in a sworn statement before anyone has heard them.

The copyright complainant swears to ownership and good faith: a statement of good-faith belief that the use is not authorised by the owner, its agent or the law, plus a statement "under penalty of perjury, that the Complaining Party is the owner, or is authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed". Both routes run through perjury statements, which is the system's main check on abuse.