Update: changes affecting how to structure escrow for a .me domain purchase
A buyer wires payment. The registrant delays the push. The domain never arrives. That scenario is not hypothetical – it is the routine risk anyone faces when acquiring a .me domain without a properly structured transfer. Recent practice developments in the .me zone make it worth revisiting exactly how escrow and chain-of-title checks should be sequenced for these transactions.
To structure escrow for a .me domain purchase correctly, buyers must account for the fact that .me operates under WIPO dispute-resolution rules, meaning any domain with a prior UDRP or ccTLD proceeding carries transferable risk. The practical steps are: verify chain of title and prior dispute history before funds are committed, hold payment in neutral escrow until the registrar confirms the push, and confirm the receiving registrar accepts .me transfers under standard conditions. Skipping any step can leave a buyer holding a domain that is immediately challenged or locked.
This alert covers what has sharpened in practice, who is affected, and the concrete steps to take before the next .me acquisition closes.
What Changed in .me Escrow Practice?
The .me registry (operated from Montenegro) appointed WIPO as its dispute-resolution provider, meaning .me domains are subject to UDRP proceedings in the same way .com domains are. That is not new. What has sharpened is awareness of two practical gaps that have caught buyers. First, prior dispute history – including a prior UDRP complaint that ended in withdrawal or settlement – does not always appear in standard WHOIS or RDDS queries. Second, some escrow arrangements in secondary-market .me transactions have treated the domain push as the trigger for releasing funds, without first confirming the domain is free of any pending lock or dispute hold at the registry level.
Panels have consistently held that a domain acquired from a prior bad-faith registrant does not automatically inherit clean title. A new registrant who takes a domain that was previously subject to an abusive registration may face a fresh complaint, and the registration date for bad-faith analysis will be examined at the time of the new acquisition. That creates real exposure for buyers who skip the history check.
Who Is Affected?
Any party currently negotiating or about to close a secondary-market .me acquisition is directly affected. That includes brand owners acquiring defensive registrations, domain investors buying .me assets for resale, and startups purchasing a .me domain as a primary brand address. Brokers and escrow agents handling .me transactions are equally in scope: if the transaction structure does not account for the WIPO dispute pathway, the service provider's process is incomplete.
Sellers are not exempt. A seller who has held the domain without active use and is now transacting it may inadvertently surface a passive-holding bad-faith argument in a post-sale UDRP brought against the buyer. In our practice, we regularly advise registrants who discover only at closing that a prior dispute or correspondence exists that was never disclosed.
For an assessment of your .me transaction structure before funds move, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
What Should You Do Now?
Three steps should be completed before any .me escrow is funded.
Step one: chain-of-title and prior-dispute search. Run a full WHOIS history on the domain, not just the current record. Check the WIPO case database for any prior complaint naming this domain. A domain that was previously transferred under a UDRP order, or that was the subject of a withdrawn complaint, carries a documented dispute history that will be visible to any future panel. We have advised on .me acquisitions where a prior settlement – not a formal order – resolved a dispute, and no transfer record appeared in the public registry; that history was found only in WIPO's case records.
Step two: escrow structure and release conditions. Funds should be held by a neutral escrow agent and released only upon three confirmed events: (a) the registrar has processed the push or transfer, (b) the gaining registrar confirms the domain is in the buyer's account without any pending lock, and (c) a final WHOIS or RDDS query confirms registrant data has updated. Releasing payment on seller's confirmation of initiation – without registrar confirmation of completion – is the single most common structural defect we see.
Step three: post-acquisition monitoring. Even a clean acquisition can attract a UDRP complaint if the domain is confusingly similar to a mark the buyer did not identify at due diligence. Set up monitoring for any UDRP or dispute correspondence addressed to the domain within the first twelve months of ownership. WIPO's 20-day response window under the UDRP leaves very little time to react once a complaint is filed and served.
To weigh UDRP risk against the value of a specific .me domain before closing, email info@cognomenlaw.com.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions
What changed?
Practice in .me secondary-market transactions has tightened around two gaps: prior dispute history (including withdrawn complaints) that does not surface in standard WHOIS queries, and escrow release conditions that trigger on seller confirmation rather than verified registrar completion of the push. Both gaps create post-acquisition UDRP exposure for buyers.
Who is affected?
Any buyer, seller, broker, or escrow agent involved in a .me domain transaction is affected. Brand owners acquiring .me defensively, domain investors, and startups using .me as a primary address all face the same risk if the transaction structure omits a prior-dispute check and a properly conditioned escrow release.
What should you do now?
Before funding escrow: run a full WHOIS history and WIPO case-database check; structure escrow release on registrar confirmation of completed push, not seller initiation; and set up post-acquisition monitoring for UDRP correspondence. If a .me acquisition is already in progress, pause before release and run the history check. Contact info@cognomenlaw.com to review the current structure.
Author: Cordelia Roe — UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery; domain transactions and brand protection. Meet the team.
Speak with Cognomen Law
For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter
This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.