Protect a brand in a new .info gTLD launch: what panels actually deci…

Protect a brand in a new .info gTLD launch: what panels actually deci. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your c…

A brand owner watches a new registry open for .info registrations. Within hours, a third party has registered a domain matching the brand's trademark. The domain points at a pay-per-click page. Sound familiar? The scenario plays out with each new gTLD launch, and .info is no exception. What separates a recoverable situation from an expensive stalemate is understanding how panels reason about these cases – before a filing is made, not after.

To protect a brand in a new .info gTLD launch, a trademark owner must choose between the UDRP – which can produce a transfer of the domain – and the URS, which produces only suspension for the registration term and requires a higher clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard. The .info zone is fully subject to both mechanisms via WIPO and the Forum. The right tool depends on speed, budget, and the specific evidence of bad faith the brand owner can assemble.

This analysis covers the governing rules, the competing mechanisms, what evidence actually moves panels, the consensus and contrary positions in the jurisprudence, and the realistic path forward.

Why .info falls squarely under the UDRP and URS

The .info zone operates under standard ICANN accreditation, which means every .info registrar is contractually bound to submit registrants to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. That is not a jurisdictional technicality. It is the operational baseline: any trademark owner with a qualifying registration can bring a UDRP complaint at WIPO, the Forum, or the Czech Arbitration Court without needing a court order first.

.info was part of the original 2001 gTLD expansion. It sits in the same category as .com, .net, and .org for UDRP purposes. Panels treat a confusingly similar .info domain no differently from a .com domain when evaluating the three elements under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The suffix itself does not add or subtract meaning. Panels have consistently held that adding a gTLD extension to a trademark – even one like .info that carries a generic sense – does not avoid confusing similarity. A domain incorporating a well-known mark plus the .info extension will typically satisfy the first UDRP element on its face.

The URS applies to .info because ICANN's new gTLD program made URS mandatory for all new gTLDs. A structural note is worth making here: .info predates the formal new gTLD round, but the relevant compliance requirements and UDRP applicability have never been in doubt. For the purposes of brand protection strategy, .info should be treated identically to any UDRP-covered new gTLD. The Forum administers URS for .info domains, and WIPO administers UDRP cases involving .info at its standard published rates.

For an assessment of your domain dispute, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

What does "protect a brand in a new .info gTLD launch" actually require?

Protecting a brand in a new .info gTLD launch requires understanding that launch mechanics create both risks and protective tools. The two primary protective tools before a domain is registered are Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) submission and Sunrise period participation. After registration, the tools shift to dispute resolution.

TMCH submission is the foundation. A brand owner submits its trademark to the Clearinghouse, which validates the mark and creates a Signed Mark Data file. That file enables a Sunrise registration – the right to register corresponding domains before the general public can do so. Many brand owners in our practice have used Sunrise rights to block a .info registration before a squatter can act. Those that miss the Sunrise window face either Trademark Claims – a notification mechanism that runs for roughly the first 90 days of general availability – or post-registration dispute resolution.

Trademark Claims does not prevent registration. It notifies the prospective registrant that a matching mark exists in the TMCH and requires affirmative acknowledgment. A bad-faith actor who ignores or overrides the Claims notice creates useful evidence for a later UDRP filing. Panels have noted that proceeding despite a Claims notification tends to undercut any claim of good-faith registration.

What happens when all protective windows are missed? That is when dispute resolution becomes the primary tool. And that is where the choice between URS and UDRP becomes outcome-determinative.

URS versus UDRP: which mechanism actually protects the brand?

The URS suspends a domain; the UDRP transfers it. That single distinction explains why, for most brand owners seeking to recover a .info registration, the UDRP is ultimately the more valuable remedy – even though the URS is faster and cheaper.

Under the URS, the examiners apply a clear-and-convincing standard. That is a materially higher threshold than the UDRP's preponderance standard. The complainant must show that the domain clearly abuses a trademark right, with no plausible good-faith use. Where there is any genuine ambiguity – even about the registrant's intent – URS examiners tend to deny, precisely because the suspension remedy is not meant to resolve close cases. We regularly advise brand owners that URS is the right tool when the infringement is blatant: an exact trademark match, with pay-per-click advertising targeting the brand's sector, registered by a party with a documented history of cybersquatting. In those situations, the lower filing cost and faster decision timeline make URS attractive.

The UDRP's three-element test – identical or confusingly similar mark, no rights or legitimate interests, registration and use in bad faith – is the more familiar standard. Filing fees at WIPO start at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains. A standard case resolves in roughly two months. If successful, the registrar implements the transfer. The domain moves to the brand owner's account. That is the outcome URS cannot deliver.

There is also a timing consideration. URS decisions typically come faster than UDRP decisions. For a live launch where the offending domain is already directing consumer traffic to a competing or harmful site, speed matters. Some brand owners begin with a URS to suspend the domain quickly and follow with a UDRP if the transfer is necessary. That dual-track approach requires careful budgeting and sequencing, and it is not always necessary – but in fast-moving launch situations it can preserve the brand's position while the longer proceeding runs its course.

What about the contrary view? A minority of practitioners argue that URS, because of its higher standard, actually produces more durable findings – that a successful URS determination carries persuasive weight. Panels sitting under the UDRP are not bound by prior URS outcomes, and we have seen cases where a URS denial did not prevent a subsequent UDRP transfer. The consensus position is that URS findings are persuasive context, not binding precedent, and that the two mechanisms should be analyzed independently.

What evidence moves a panel in a .info launch dispute?

Evidence is where most UDRP complaints succeed or fail. The first element – confusing similarity – is rarely contested when the domain incorporates the brand's trademark. The second and third elements, legitimate interests and bad faith, require real documentation.

For legitimate interests, the question is whether the registrant can invoke any of the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors: a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute, being commonly known by the domain name, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. In a post-launch .info dispute, the safe harbor most frequently invoked is the "bona fide offering" argument – the registrant claims to have registered the domain for a legitimate commercial purpose unrelated to the trademark. Panels scrutinize the timing closely. Registration made during or immediately after a brand's Sunrise or Trademark Claims window attracts heightened suspicion. A registrant that registered during a Claims notification window faces a particularly difficult task explaining good faith.

For bad faith, the key evidence categories are:

• The content of the website – pay-per-click pages, particularly those serving ads in the brand's industry, are a reliable bad-faith marker recognized across WIPO and Forum panels.
• The registrant's registration history – a pattern of abusive registrations targeting multiple brand owners, as referenced in Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, shifts the burden sharply.
• The timing relative to the brand's trademark rights and public profile – registration of a mark that was already well known at the time of registration is a strong indicator.
• The Trademark Claims notification evidence – ICANN's TMCH system creates a timestamped record. If the registrant acknowledged the Claims notice and proceeded, that acknowledgment is documented.
• Passive holding – a registrant who acquires a domain that matches a well-known mark and does nothing with it is not automatically safe. Panels have consistently applied the passive-holding doctrine: where the circumstances make it impossible to conceive of any plausible good-faith use, inactive use still constitutes bad-faith use for purposes of the third element.

What evidence tends to defeat a complaint? Panels have denied transfer where the registrant demonstrated a pre-dispute business use of the term that is genuinely descriptive, where the trademark was weak or recently acquired, or where the complainant's mark was limited in scope and the domain predated commercial use of the mark. In a .info context, a complainant who acquired trademark rights after the registration date is in a difficult position. The UDRP requires the domain to have been registered in bad faith – not merely used in bad faith later. A complainant that cannot show its mark was recognizable at the moment of registration must rely on circumstantial evidence of the registrant's intent.

In a recent matter – a .info exact-match registration targeting a fintech brand, spring 2025 – we assembled a UDRP complaint centered on the registrant's documented Claims notification acknowledgment and the presence of competitive pay-per-click advertising on the domain. The panel transferred the domain within roughly eight weeks of filing. The evidence of bad faith was present in the registry's own records; it simply needed to be presented coherently.

To weigh UDRP against a court action for your case, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

How do complainants and panels handle the "registered AND used in bad faith" requirement?

The cumulative nature of the third element – registered AND used – is the most litigated aspect of UDRP jurisprudence and the area where the consensus and minority positions diverge most sharply in new gTLD launch contexts.

The consensus view is strict: both conditions must be independently satisfied. Registration in bad faith means the registrant had the trademark in mind and intended to exploit it at the moment of registration. Use in bad faith is a separate, ongoing requirement. A registrant who registers in apparent good faith but later begins using the domain abusively creates a genuinely contested case. Panels have reached different results in these situations, and that unpredictability is itself a factor in advising clients.

Where does the minority position sit? Some panels have applied a more holistic reading, treating registration and use as part of a single inquiry into the registrant's overall conduct. Under this reading, strong evidence of current bad-faith use can inform the inference about intent at registration. This approach has been applied particularly in cases involving passive holding and famous marks – if the brand was globally well known at the date of registration, the panel may infer that any registration was in bad faith even absent direct evidence of the registrant's intent at that moment.

For a new .info launch, the practical implication is this: the closer the registration date is to a public Trademark Claims notification or a TMCH record, the stronger the circumstantial case for bad faith at registration. That temporal proximity does real work for the complainant. When the registration predates any public trademark use, the analysis tilts sharply in the registrant's favor.

Does the .info suffix change the analysis? Not materially. Panels have noted that suffixes like .info, .biz, or .shop can sometimes carry a secondary descriptive meaning – a domain like "brandname.info" might be argued to provide informational commentary. In the overwhelming majority of competitive-use cases, panels reject that argument. But where the complainant's mark is descriptive and the domain plausibly serves an informational purpose, that argument has succeeded on the respondent's side. It is an angle that informed respondents – and informed complainants who need to anticipate it – should evaluate carefully.

Reverse domain name hijacking: when the complaint is the problem

RDNH findings are an underappreciated risk in new gTLD launch disputes. A brand owner who files a UDRP complaint without meeting the standard – particularly where the registrant has a plausible legitimate interest or where the trademark was weak or newly acquired – can receive an RDNH finding alongside the denial. That finding is reputational, not financial. There is no monetary penalty. But it is published in the WIPO or Forum decision database and it signals that the complaint was an abuse of process.

We have defended registrants in .info cases where a brand owner used the UDRP as a low-cost alternative to negotiating fair market value for a domain that was legitimately registered. RDNH is precisely the mechanism that addresses that abuse. The respondent defense strategy in these cases focuses on establishing the pre-dispute registration purpose, documenting any bona fide commercial or informational use, and putting the complainant's trademark rights under scrutiny – particularly their scope, their registration date relative to the domain's registration, and any prior acquiescence to the registrant's use.

In a recent defense matter – a .info generic-term domain targeted by a brand owner asserting a recently acquired descriptive mark, autumn 2024 – we secured both a denial of the complaint and an RDNH finding. The critical evidence was the registrant's documented pre-dispute correspondence about a legitimate web project and the complainant's trademark, which post-dated the domain registration by over a year.

The lesson for complainants: before filing, assess whether the three elements are genuinely met. The lesson for respondents: an RDNH finding requires active advocacy. Default does not produce RDNH. A respondent who fails to file a response forfeits the only mechanism that documents the abuse.

Cross-zone strategy: when .info is one domain among several

Brand owners rarely face a single offending domain. A bad-faith registrant targeting a mark may register the .com, the .info, the .net, and several new gTLD variants in a coordinated campaign. What does that cross-zone picture mean for strategy?

Under the UDRP, a single complaint may cover multiple domains only if the registrant is the same holder. That unity-of-registrant requirement is verified through WHOIS or RDDS records at the time of filing. Where a squatter has distributed registrations across different registrant accounts – a tactic sometimes used to complicate enforcement – separate complaints are required.

The right route depends on the zone and the goal. If the primary commercial harm is from a .com registration and the .info is a secondary variant, filing the .com complaint first under UDRP at WIPO makes sense: it addresses the main harm and creates a published decision that forms useful context for any subsequent .info filing. If the .info domain is causing the greater immediate harm – because the brand's customer base associates .info with authoritative sources in that sector – the .info complaint should be prioritized. Forum selection matters: the Forum's slightly lower filing fee relative to WIPO for some multi-domain configurations can be a practical consideration when a brand owner is managing several simultaneous proceedings.

Where a domain registration is part of a broader scheme that also involves country-code zones – a registrant who has taken .info, .de, and .uk variants simultaneously – the brand owner faces a multi-forum problem. The UDRP addresses the .info domain. The .de domain has no UDRP; it requires German court action and a DENIC DISPUTE entry to block transfer pending litigation. The .uk domain goes to Nominet's DRS, which operates a free mediation stage before any expert decision. Each zone has its own timeline and its own cost structure, and they cannot be consolidated into a single proceeding.

In practice, we advise brand owners facing multi-zone campaigns to prioritize by commercial harm and by the strength of evidence in each zone. A weak case in the .info zone should not drive the overall strategy if a strong case exists for the .com.

What are the realistic outcomes – and what this means for your brand

Panels decide on the evidence in the record. No outcome is guaranteed. That said, certain fact patterns produce predictable results across the UDRP consensus, and understanding those patterns is the point of this analysis.

Where the domain is an exact or near-exact trademark match, was registered during or after a Trademark Claims window, and is used for pay-per-click advertising in the brand's sector, the three UDRP elements are typically well supported. Transfer is the expected outcome in those cases, subject to the panel's assessment of the specific record.

Where the mark is descriptive, recently registered, or of limited commercial fame at the date of the domain's registration, the case is genuinely contested. A panel applying the consensus "registered AND used in bad faith" standard will scrutinize the registration-date evidence carefully. The complainant needs something more than the mere identity of the mark and domain – contemporaneous evidence of the registrant's awareness of the mark, or a pattern of targeting, or Trademark Claims acknowledgment data.

The URS route produces suspension, not transfer, and requires clear-and-convincing evidence. It is appropriate for blatant infringement requiring immediate action. It is not a substitute for UDRP where the brand owner ultimately wants to hold the domain.

For a brand owner planning a .info launch, the practical sequence is: TMCH submission before the Sunrise opens, Sunrise registration for high-value variants, monitoring during the Trademark Claims window, and a rapid assessment of any infringing registrations that appear during general availability. Post-registration disputes filed promptly – while bad-faith use is active – produce a stronger evidentiary record than complaints filed after the offending content has been taken down.

For a registrant facing a complaint, the response window is 20 days after commencement. Missing that window is a default. Default does not guarantee transfer – panels still assess the record – but it forfeits the registrant's only formal opportunity to present the legitimate-interest evidence, and it eliminates any possibility of an RDNH finding.

Related at COGNOMEN

• URS and new gTLD disputes: COGNOMEN's recovery and defense service across all new gTLD zones
• Step-by-step guide to protecting a brand in a new .com gTLD launch
• Domain escrow analysis: managing transaction risk in .io and other zones