Update: changes affecting how to draft a domain assignment agreement…

Update: changes affecting how to draft a domain assignment agreement. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .in. Email the firm to assess your case.

A .in domain changes hands. The transfer is processed. Then a prior dispute surfaces in the registry record, a lapsed INDRP proceeding the seller never disclosed. The buyer now holds a name carrying another party's unresolved claim. Getting the assignment right from the start is the only reliable protection against that outcome.

Drafting a domain assignment agreement for a .in domain requires more than a standard intellectual property transfer clause. The Indian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) governs .in disputes, and a domain with prior INDRP history – or one that could attract a future complaint – carries title risk that the assignment document itself must address. Chain-of-title verification, prior-dispute searches, registrant eligibility confirmation, and structured escrow are the critical steps a buyer cannot skip.

This alert covers what has changed in practice, who is affected, and the concrete steps to take before executing any .in assignment.

What changed?

The INDRP, administered by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), operates a dispute-resolution procedure that runs parallel to the UDRP but under its own rules and timelines. Recent procedural updates to NIXI's process have sharpened the registry's scrutiny of registrant eligibility following a transfer – meaning a buyer who acquires a .in domain without confirming eligibility at the point of assignment risks a subsequent administrative challenge to the registration itself.

Separately, market practice around .in domain transactions has evolved. Panels and practitioners have observed a pattern: disputed domains are sold during – or shortly after – an INDRP proceeding, sometimes to obscure the bad-faith record. When the new registrant later faces a complaint, panels apply a successor-knowledge standard. If the buyer had constructive or actual notice of a prior dispute, the bad-faith finding can follow the domain rather than the seller.

That successor-knowledge doctrine is not unique to .in. It appears in UDRP panel reasoning globally. But it is particularly acute in .in transactions because NIXI's published decision database is publicly searchable, meaning a buyer who skips that search has difficulty asserting ignorance of a prior proceeding.

If you are in the process of acquiring or transferring a .in domain, this is the moment to verify the record. For a due-diligence read before signing, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Who is affected?

The practical impact falls on three categories of party. First, buyers of premium .in names – whether brand owners expanding into the Indian market or domain investors acquiring names for portfolio or resale – face the most direct exposure. A gap in pre-acquisition due diligence can transfer title risk along with the domain. Second, sellers have their own exposure: an assignment agreement that does not address prior disputes or misrepresents the domain's clean history can give the buyer grounds to unwind the transaction or pursue a breach claim. Third, brand owners holding existing .in registrations who are about to transfer names within a corporate group – for example, following a merger or brand consolidation – need to confirm that the internal transfer itself is documented with the same formality as a third-party sale, including registrar confirmation and updated WHOIS/RDDS records.

In our practice, we regularly advise registrants on .in portfolio moves where the assignment documentation was treated as a formality. The registrar mechanics – unlock, authorization code, transfer confirmation – are procedural. The legal substance of the agreement is not.

What should you do now?

The assignment agreement itself should address four points explicitly. First, the seller should warrant that the domain is not the subject of a pending or threatened INDRP proceeding, and that no prior INDRP decision has been issued affecting the name. Second, the agreement should include a representation that the seller has full authority to transfer and that no third-party claim, lien, or dispute is outstanding. Third, the parties should agree on escrow: the purchase price is held by a neutral escrow agent and released only when the registrar confirms the transfer is complete and WHOIS/RDDS reflects the buyer as registrant. Fourth, where the domain carries trademark significance, the buyer should obtain a copy of the seller's registration history – not just the current WHOIS record – to confirm the chain of title has no unexplained gaps.

Beyond the document, the pre-signing checklist should include: a search of the NIXI INDRP decision database for the domain string; a UDRP and ccTLD dispute search across the major forum databases where the same brand string may have been disputed in other zones; confirmation that the buyer meets NIXI's .in registrant eligibility requirements; and a review of any prior use that could invite a future complaint from a trademark owner.

We have advised on .in acquisitions where a NIXI database search, run before signing, revealed a prior INDRP proceeding the seller had not disclosed. In one such matter (a .in premium name, early 2025), the undisclosed proceeding allowed the buyer to renegotiate the price and require a full indemnity in the assignment agreement before proceeding. That search cost far less than the dispute it prevented.

To weigh the due-diligence steps for your .in acquisition or transfer, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• Domain transactions, escrow, and pre-acquisition due diligence across all zones
• Domain due diligence for .au acquisitions: chain-of-title and dispute history
• Responding within deadline in .sg domain disputes: the procedural risk explained