Case study: use mediation before a .in domain decision

Case study: use mediation before a .in domain decision. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .in. Email the firm to assess your case.

A technology company based in South Asia discovered that its registered brand name had been registered as a .in domain by a third party with no apparent connection to the business. The registrant was using the domain to display pay-per-click advertising that traded on the brand's reputation. A demand letter produced no response. The question became whether to file an INDRP complaint immediately – or whether to use mediation before a .in domain decision was handed down by an arbitrator.

The .in country-code zone is governed by the IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP), administered by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI). The INDRP tracks the three-element UDRP test – confusing similarity, absence of rights or legitimate interests, and bad faith registration and use – but the procedure is distinct: a single arbitrator decides the case under Indian arbitration law, and the rules contemplate a mediation option that can conclude a matter without a formal decision. Filing fees and timelines differ from WIPO or the Forum.

This case study traces the situation, the strategic choice to pursue mediation, and the resolution that followed.

What Was the Situation?

The brand owner held a registered trademark in India covering software services. The .in domain at issue was an exact match of the mark. The registrant had held it for roughly two years and had pointed it at a parking page monetized with links to competing services – a textbook bad-faith use pattern that panels handling similar disputes have found to satisfy the third UDRP element.

A direct purchase approach had already failed. The registrant acknowledged receipt of an offer but did not reply substantively. The brand owner approached COGNOMEN in winter 2025 wanting to understand whether an INDRP complaint was the right move, or whether a structured mediation before any formal filing might resolve the matter more quickly and with less procedural exposure.

Two risks weighed against immediate filing. First, the registrant had no public web presence connected to the domain except the parking page, which meant no clear evidence of commercial preparation that could be used against the registrant – but equally, none that would help the registrant. Second, any arbitration under the INDRP proceeds under Indian arbitration law, which means a more formalized evidentiary framework than a standard UDRP paper proceeding. Getting the evidence organized before filing was a priority.

What Did the Firm Do?

We assessed all three INDRP elements against the available record. Confusing similarity was clear: the domain was an identical match of the registered mark, and no descriptive or generic element separated them. Legitimate interest appeared absent: the registrant had no disclosed connection to the brand, no business name resembling the domain, and no history of operating under that designation. Bad faith was supported by the pay-per-click use and the registrant's silence in the face of a purchase offer.

Rather than file immediately, we recommended a structured approach: a formal pre-filing mediation communication, drafted at arm's length, proposing a defined window for a negotiated domain assignment. The communication was explicit that an INDRP complaint would follow if no resolution was reached. This created a clear record of good-faith engagement and gave the registrant a commercially rational exit.

The communication was accompanied by a marked-up draft domain assignment agreement ready to execute. That document addressed chain of title, representations as to no existing liens or disputes, and the mechanics of registrar-level transfer – preparation that would have been required regardless of outcome.

We also prepared the INDRP complaint in parallel, so that if mediation failed the filing could proceed without delay.

What Was the Outcome?

The registrant responded within ten days of receiving the mediation communication. Negotiations concluded within three weeks. The domain was transferred by registrar-level assignment for a sum below the registrant's original informal demand – and well below the cost of a contested INDRP proceeding. No formal complaint was ever filed.

The brand owner retained the .in domain, which was immediately redirected to its main product page. The domain assignment agreement was executed, providing clean title with contractual warranties. The whole matter resolved in under a month from initial engagement.

The parallel complaint preparation mattered. The registrant's counsel was aware that a filing was ready. That credibility – combined with a commercially fair offer – made the difference between a second round of silence and a deal.

This outcome is not typical of every .in dispute. Where a registrant is unresponsive to any pre-filing engagement, or is using the domain actively to harm the brand, proceeding directly to an INDRP complaint is often the correct course. The choice between mediation and formal filing depends on the registrant's apparent motivation, the evidence available, and the client's timeline.

Related at COGNOMEN

• ccTLD dispute services: national procedures across .in, .uk, .eu, and beyond
• Case study: checking eligibility before filing a .sg ccTLD complaint
• Domain assignment agreements: transferring title after a dispute or negotiation