Update: changes affecting how to recover a .info domain from a serial cybersquatter
A brand owner searches for its own name and finds a .info domain held by a registrant with a long history of abusive registrations across multiple zones. The instinct is to act fast. The question is whether the rules that govern recovery from a serial cybersquatter have shifted — and what those shifts mean for the evidence you need today.
Recovering a .info domain from a serial cybersquatter proceeds under the UDRP, which applies to .info as a sponsored gTLD. You must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity to your mark, no legitimate interest on the registrant's side, and registration and use in bad faith. A standard case runs about two months, with a WIPO filing fee starting at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel. Recent practice has sharpened how panels treat pattern evidence against serial cybersquatters.
This alert covers what has changed, who is affected, and the concrete next step.
What Changed in How Panels Handle Serial Cybersquatters?
Panels have consistently held that a demonstrated pattern of abusive registrations is one of the Paragraph 4(b) bad-faith indicators — and the evidentiary weight of that pattern has grown more visible in recent decisions. The consensus view is no longer merely that prior bad-faith findings are relevant; it is that a well-documented pattern can anchor the third UDRP element even where the current use of the .info domain is passive. Passive holding combined with a registrant's prior record across .com, .net, and .info zones now draws substantially less skepticism than it once did.
What has not changed is the structure of the test. All three elements of Paragraph 4(a) remain cumulative. You still need trademark rights, you still need to negate any legitimate interest, and you still need to prove bad faith at the time of registration and in ongoing use. The shift is in how panels are weighing the contextual evidence that supports the third limb — particularly when the complainant assembles prior UDRP decisions involving the same registrant.
For an assessment of your domain dispute, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
Who Is Affected by These Developments?
Brand owners with registered trademarks whose names have been registered as .info domains by a party with prior adverse findings are most directly affected. If the registrant in your matter appears in multiple past transfer orders across gTLDs, those findings are now more reliably admissible as pattern evidence than a conservative complainant might have assumed.
Registrants and domain investors holding .info names in good faith should also pay attention. A well-organized prior-bad-faith record against a different registrant with a similar name can, in rare cases, be mistaken for your registration. We regularly advise registrants who receive complaints built on tenuous pattern arguments — and the same evidentiary sharpening that strengthens a genuine complainant's case can produce a more aggressive complaint against a legitimate holder. Knowing where Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors sit, and what a bona fide pre-notice offering looks like in evidence, matters more now than it did before.
What Should You Do Now?
If you are a brand owner, audit the registration history of the .info domain in question before filing. Pull RDDS records, identify any prior UDRP decisions naming the same registrant, and document the current use — whether a parking page, a pay-per-click redirect, or a phishing-adjacent site. The 20-day response window runs from the day the proceeding formally commences; every day you spend gathering evidence before filing is a day the respondent cannot yet seek an extension.
The choice of forum matters. WIPO handles the substantial majority of .info matters and offers the expedited option for single-panel cases of up to five domains, delivering a decision in about one month. In our practice we generally recommend WIPO for serial-cybersquatter .info matters because the institution's case archive — which a panel may reference — is the most complete repository of prior findings against known repeat offenders.
If the registrant holds the same or similar names across both .info and other gTLDs, a single complaint can cover multiple domains only where the same entity holds them all. Where the registrations are split across entities or privacy services with distinct disclosed contacts, separate filings may be required. That architecture decision affects both cost and strategy.
To weigh UDRP against a court action for your case, email info@cognomenlaw.com.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions
What changed?
Recent panel practice places greater evidentiary weight on a documented pattern of prior bad-faith findings when a complainant seeks to recover a .info domain from a serial cybersquatter. Passive holding combined with a known prior record now more reliably satisfies the bad-faith limb of Paragraph 4(a), though all three UDRP elements remain mandatory and cumulative.
Who is affected?
Brand owners whose marks have been registered as .info domains by repeat offenders benefit most directly. Legitimate .info registrants are also affected — the same evidentiary trend can produce over-reaching complaints. Both groups should understand how the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors and the Paragraph 4(b) pattern-of-conduct factor interact in the current environment.
What should you do now?
Brand owners should compile prior adverse UDRP decisions against the registrant, document current use of the domain, and assess whether a single or multi-domain complaint is appropriate. Registrants who receive a complaint should immediately build a bona fide pre-notice use record. Either way, the 20-day response window moves fast; early legal review is advisable.
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.