Oath Research has filed a federal lawsuit against Fewmoretaps OU, trading as TrustName, after alleging that transfer attempts were initiated for 25 of its domain names. The company also says one affected domain generated about $70,000 in daily revenue.
Ech’s short answer
Oath Research, LLC and Stacey Grant filed their federal complaint on 1 September, alleging unauthorised transfers involving 25 domains and claiming one affected domain generated roughly $70,000 per day. On 3 September, the judge denied the plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction request without prejudice, finding that they had not yet established a basis for personal jurisdiction over TrustName and had not justified proceeding without first giving the registrar an opportunity to respond. The underlying allegations have not been decided.
The allegations surrounding TrustName have escalated. A customer that says it lost control of valuable domains has now taken the registrar to federal court, turning what began as a series of customer reports into an active lawsuit.
Domain Name Wire reported on 3 September that Oath Research, LLC has sued Fewmoretaps OU, doing business as TrustName. The case comes only days after customers began publicly reporting allegedly unauthorised transfers and after ICANN issued a notice terminating TrustName’s registrar accreditation.
We covered those earlier allegations and the ICANN action in our 1 September report on TrustName customers reporting stolen domains. This article now also includes the court’s first ruling on the plaintiffs’ emergency motion.
On 3 September, U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin denied Oath Research and Stacey Grant’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction without prejudice. The court said the plaintiffs had not yet established a basis for personal jurisdiction over TrustName and had not shown why the court should proceed against the registrar before it had an opportunity to respond. The judge did not decide the merits of the underlying domain-transfer allegations, and the order allows the plaintiffs to renew their request if they make a sufficient jurisdictional showing.
The complaint was filed on 1 September 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Public court records list Oath Research, LLC and Stacey Grant as plaintiffs and Fewmoretaps OU d/b/a TrustName.com, along with John Does 1-10, as defendants. The case is numbered 2:2026cv11303 and was filed on 1 September 2026.
Oath Research and Grant also filed an emergency motion asking the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Among other things, they sought orders aimed at restoring their status as registrants of record for the disputed domains and preventing further transfers or changes.
On 3 September, the court denied that motion without prejudice. Judge Evelyn Padin found that the plaintiffs had not established a basis for personal jurisdiction over TrustName and separately had not justified ex parte relief against a known and reachable defendant. The court did not reach the ordinary preliminary-injunction factors, so the ruling should not be read as a decision on whether the underlying domain-transfer allegations are true.
Oath Research is suing TrustName after alleging that its domains were stolen, but a filed complaint states the plaintiffs’ case rather than a proven finding. Until evidence is tested and the court rules, the safest wording is that the domains were allegedly stolen or transferred without authorisation.
The scale of the claim makes this one of the most significant publicly reported cases to emerge from the TrustName situation so far.
According to Domain Name Wire, Oath Research alleges that the person responsible initiated transfers involving 25 of its domain names. The same report says the domains ultimately ended up at the Chinese registrar NiceNic.
The financial allegation is particularly striking. Oath Research says one of the affected domains generated around $70,000 in revenue per day. That figure is the company’s claim and has not been independently established by the court, but it helps explain why the plaintiffs are seeking urgent relief.
Domain Name Wire also says customers who reported stolen domains had two-factor authentication enabled on their accounts. The publication previously reported similar claims from other TrustName customers, making the Oath Research complaint part of a wider pattern of allegations rather than an isolated public report.
Oath Research alleges transfer activity was initiated for 25 domain names.
The company says one affected domain generated roughly this amount in daily revenue.
Domain Name Wire reports that the disputed domains ended up at the Chinese registrar.
A domain that receives substantial direct traffic, powers a major website or controls important email can be far more valuable to its owner than its simple registration cost. That is why rapid registrar locks and court orders can become important when ownership or transfer control is disputed.
The court case is new, but the allegations surrounding unauthorised transfers began before the lawsuit was publicly reported.
On 1 September, Domain Name Wire reported that several TrustName customers said domains had been pushed out of their accounts and transferred elsewhere without permission. Some customers said two-factor authentication had been enabled.
Our earlier TrustName report examined those claims in detail and also explained the separate ICANN enforcement action against the registrar. ICANN issued its termination notice to Fewmoretaps OU on 27 August 2026, with the accreditation scheduled to terminate on 11 September 2026.
The distinction remains important. ICANN’s termination action concerns repeated contractual and DNS-abuse compliance failures. It was not a finding that TrustName stole customer domains. The alleged unauthorised transfers are a separate issue that is now also being contested through litigation.
The first emergency motion has been denied without prejudice, so attention now turns to whether the plaintiffs renew it and how TrustName responds.
The Oath Research lawsuit does not mean every TrustName customer has lost a domain. However, customers should verify that each domain remains where they expect it to be, preserve invoices and account records, and investigate any unexpected registrar, nameserver or registrant changes immediately.
For domains that appear to have moved without permission, owners should contact the registrars involved and keep a clear written record of the dispute. ICANN also provides an unauthorised-transfer complaint route for qualifying cases.
New filings could materially change what is known about the 25 domains, the alleged transfers and the parties’ positions. Claims made by either side should be treated as allegations unless and until they are established by evidence or a court ruling.
Bottom line
Oath Research now alleges in court that transfer attempts were initiated for 25 of its domains and says one affected domain generated around $70,000 in daily revenue. The company is seeking urgent court relief, but the underlying theft allegations have not yet been proven. The case now gives domain owners a public legal proceeding to watch alongside TrustName’s separate ICANN de-accreditation.
