Case study: suspend a .info domain through URS

Case study: suspend a .info domain through URS. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your case.

A brand owner found a .info domain mirroring its registered trademark almost exactly – same letters, a single transposed character, pointed at a site harvesting pay-per-click revenue on the brand's name. Transfer through a full UDRP complaint was one option. But the registrant's conduct was so clear, and the brand's evidence so clean, that a faster, lower-cost route was worth examining first.

The Uniform Rapid Suspension system – URS – is available for new gTLD domains, including .info. Where a complainant meets the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, URS delivers suspension for the registration term, not transfer. The WIPO filing fee for URS is substantially lower than a full UDRP complaint. When the evidence is overwhelming and speed matters more than ownership transfer, URS is often the sharper instrument.

This case study walks through the situation, the strategic choice, the evidence, and the outcome.

The Situation: A Typosquat on a Registered Mark

In autumn 2025, a brand owner in the consumer-goods sector came to us with a .info registration that had been active for several months. The domain substituted a single vowel in the brand's name. The registrant – anonymous in the registrar's RDDS records – was running a parked page displaying advertisements for competing products, generating click revenue on consumer confusion.

The brand owner held a registered trademark predating the domain registration by several years. No licensing arrangement existed. The registrant had not responded to a cease-and-desist letter sent through the registrar's privacy relay service. The evidence package was compact but strong: a trademark certificate, RDDS records, a timestamped page capture showing the sponsored links, and a declaration of no authorized use.

The client's primary goal was to stop the revenue bleed quickly. A permanent transfer would have been preferable in the long run, but the client accepted that URS suspension – which lasts for the remaining registration term – would neutralize the harm immediately and at significantly lower cost than a UDRP filing at WIPO or the Forum.

Why URS Rather Than UDRP for This .info Domain?

The URS applies to new gTLD domains, and .info is within scope. It demands a higher threshold than the UDRP – the complainant must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence, a standard that sits above the UDRP's preponderance-of-evidence approach. That higher bar is real. It means URS suits cases where the abuse is self-evident: the domain is nearly identical to a registered mark, there is no plausible innocent use, and the registrant's conduct is unambiguous.

What does the complainant gain in return? Speed and cost. A URS determination can arrive in a matter of weeks rather than the roughly two months typical of a standard UDRP case. The filing fee is lower than the USD 1,500 WIPO charges for a single-member UDRP panel covering one to five domains. And the suspension mechanism is immediate once a finding is made.

What does the complainant forgo? Ownership. URS suspends the domain for the remaining registration term; it does not transfer the domain to the complainant. If the registrant simply re-registers the same name at the end of the term, the brand owner must file again – or, by then, a UDRP may be necessary. For clients who need permanent title rather than temporary removal, UDRP is usually the right tool. Here, the client understood the trade-off and accepted it.

A second consideration is the evidentiary standard. Because the bar is higher, any ambiguity in the fact pattern creates risk. Had this registrant held even a weak arguable basis for the registration – a common surname, a prior business association with the brand – URS would have been the wrong route. We assessed the record, found no credible defense available to the registrant, and proceeded.

For a read on whether the three URS elements are met for your .info or other new gTLD domain, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

Strategy and Evidence: What Decided the Outcome

The core URS test maps closely to the UDRP's three elements, though applied to the higher standard. The complainant must show: (1) the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (2) the registrant has no legitimate rights or interests; and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

On the first element, a one-character transposition of a registered word mark is classically confusing. Panels applying the URS and UDRP alike have consistently held that typosquats – minor misspellings that retain the phonetic identity of the mark – satisfy the similarity requirement. The trademark certificate, issued years before the domain was registered, disposed of this element quickly.

On the second element, the anonymized registrant had no apparent connection to the mark, operated no business under the name, and had ignored the cease-and-desist relay. Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors – a bona fide offering before notice, being commonly known by the name, legitimate noncommercial use – were not available on these facts.

On bad faith, the pay-per-click landing page told most of the story. Panels have consistently treated use of a domain confusingly similar to a trademark to generate advertising revenue as classic bad-faith use within the meaning of the Policy's Paragraph 4(b) factors. The page captures, properly timestamped and authenticated, were central to the file.

We also noted the privacy proxy registration, the prior unresponsiveness to correspondence, and the absence of any business identity associated with the registrant in any public record. Taken together, the record was clean enough to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard.

Outcome and Lessons for Brand Owners

The URS examiner found for the complainant. The .info domain was suspended within weeks of filing. The client's brand stopped appearing in competitor advertising served through its own misspelled domain name. The cost was a fraction of a UDRP proceeding.

Several lessons follow. First, when your evidence is overwhelming – registered mark, clear typosquat, no plausible innocent use, active monetization – URS is worth pricing against UDRP before defaulting to the longer route. Second, the suspension-only remedy is a real limitation. If you need title to the domain, plan for a UDRP from the start or follow the URS suspension with a UDRP before the registration term expires. Third, the clear-and-convincing standard means ambiguous cases should go to UDRP, where the preponderance standard is more forgiving of gaps in the evidence record.

In our practice, we see brand owners default to UDRP for every new-gTLD abuse without considering whether URS delivers faster, cheaper relief in the subset of cases where the evidence is airtight. The analysis takes minutes. The cost difference can be substantial.

To assess whether URS or UDRP is the right route for your domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• URS and new gTLD dispute services – suspension and full UDRP across new extensions
• Case: protecting a brand at a new gTLD launch across multiple zones globally
• Guide: recovering a domain after a failed private buyback attempt