Opt-Out Services sues four typo domains over the OPTOUTPRESCREEN mark

The complaint

Opt-Out Services LLC v. optputprescreen.com, opoutprescreen.com, optoutpresceen.com, and optoutpresecreen.com, No. 1:26-cv-03705 (E.D. Va., Alexandria Division), is a 15-page verified complaint filed November 9, 2026. It is an in rem action against those four domain names. The docket records an initial assignment to District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis. Opt-Out Services is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. The same day, it filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for service by publication and electronic means.

The mark

The complaint relies on the mark OPTOUTPRESCREEN. USPTO TSDR lists U.S. Registration No. 4073252 as a live Principal Register standard-character service mark, owned by Opt-Out Services LLC, registered December 20, 2011, with a claimed first use in commerce of December 9, 2004, in International Class 35 for business referral and information services, namely, referral of requests by consumers to the various consumer credit reporting agencies to opt-in or opt-out of firm offers of credit or insurance. TSDR shows the Section 8 declaration accepted and the Section 15 declaration acknowledged on March 7, 2017, and the registration renewed on April 25, 2022. The complaint calls the registration incontestable. It alleges that Opt-Out Services has used the mark since 2004, including at optoutprescreen.com, to process consumer opt-in and opt-out requests for firm offers of credit or insurance, and that the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regularly promote the service.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint alleges that the four defendant domains, optputprescreen.com, opoutprescreen.com, optoutpresceen.com, and optoutpresecreen.com, are typographical variants that each differ from OPTOUTPRESCREEN by a single letter, and it calls this typo-based cybersquatting typosquatting. It alleges that all four domains have been configured for email use and for numerous third-level domains, some of which it says mirror third-level domains used with optoutprescreen.com. It alleges that the main pages at optputprescreen.com, opoutprescreen.com, and optoutpresecreen.com display pay-per-click advertisements. It alleges, on information and belief, that the website at optoutpresceen.com distributes malware, that the registrant or registrants concealed identifying information, registered the domains with intent to divert consumers from optoutprescreen.com for commercial gain, and that the four domains were registered by or are under the control of the same person or entity. It also alleges that use of the mark in the domains is unauthorized.

Counts and relief

Count One alleges a violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1). Count Two alleges in rem trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). The complaint says in rem jurisdiction is appropriate under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A) because, it alleges, the registrant identities have been concealed and Opt-Out Services cannot obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in an ACPA civil action, and despite due diligence it has been unable to find such a person. The prayer asks for judgment on the cybersquatting and trademark infringement claims and for an order transferring the defendant domain names to Opt-Out Services, plus such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.