Case study: choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .info dispute

Case study: choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .info dispute. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your case.

A brand owner found its registered trademark parked at a .info domain. The registrant had no apparent connection to the mark. A demand letter produced no response — only a counter-offer: a five-figure sum to transfer the domain. The question was not whether to file a UDRP complaint. The question was where to file one, and how quickly the evidence could be assembled to win.

The .info zone is governed by the UDRP in full. Any accredited provider — including WIPO and the Forum — may administer a .info complaint. To prevail, a complainant must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity to a mark, no legitimate registrant interest, and registration and use in bad faith. A standard case resolves in roughly two months, with the registrant given 20 days to file a response once the proceeding commences.

Below is an anonymized account of how this matter was assessed, filed, and decided.

What Was the Situation?

The client — a mid-size technology company — had held a registered trademark for several years before a third party registered the corresponding .info domain. The domain resolved to a pay-per-click parking page displaying links to the client's direct competitors. The registrant's WHOIS record showed a privacy proxy, and the registration date post-dated the trademark by more than three years.

Those facts aligned closely with Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP: registration apparently designed to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark. The complainant had not licensed the .info name. No other relationship between the registrant and the mark could be identified. The three elements looked strong on paper. Execution was the remaining variable.

How Did We Choose Between WIPO and the Forum?

Choosing the right UDRP provider is a strategic decision, not a default. Both WIPO and the Forum apply the same Policy and the same Rules. The differences lie in filing mechanics, fee structure, and, to a degree, panel selection dynamics — none of which the Policy itself mandates. For a single .info domain with a single registrant, both forums were formally eligible.

The WIPO filing fee for a single-domain, single-member panel case is USD 1,500. The Forum's entry fee begins at approximately USD 1,300 for one or two domains under a single-member panel. On cost alone, the difference was modest. The client's priority was speed and a predictable process. WIPO's case management infrastructure — and the breadth of its panelist pool for technology-sector matters — made it the stronger choice for this dispute. We filed with WIPO.

In our practice, the Forum is often preferred when a complainant has multiple domains to pursue in a single proceeding, when a US nexus is relevant, or when prior Forum filings involving the same registrant already exist on record. Neither provider is categorically superior; the facts and the portfolio shape the choice.

To weigh UDRP against a court action for your case, or to assess which provider fits your specific domain and mark, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

What Strategy Did the Filing Follow?

We assembled the evidentiary record in three layers. First, we documented the trademark — its registration date, the goods and services covered, and the length of continuous use — to satisfy Paragraph 4(a)(i). Second, we built the legitimate-interest analysis: a reverse WHOIS search showed no business activity or commonly known identity tied to the disputed string; the registrant had made no bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute. Third, we catalogued the bad-faith indicators under Paragraph 4(b): the post-mark registration date, the pay-per-click competitor links, and the five-figure resale demand sent before any complaint was filed.

The complaint was drafted to address each element separately, with supporting annexes for each layer. Panel decisions in comparable .info cases — where a parking page displays competitor links after a mark-holder's registration — have consistently resulted in transfer orders. We referenced that consensus reasoning rather than any specific case number, because the pattern is well-settled across the UDRP record. The respondent received the standard 20-day window to file a reply once WIPO formally commenced the proceeding.

What Was the Outcome?

The respondent did not file a response. The panel appointed by WIPO reviewed the complaint on the papers. Within roughly eight weeks of filing — a typical timeline for a single-domain default — the panel issued a transfer order, finding all three Paragraph 4(a) elements satisfied. The .info domain was transferred to the complainant through the standard registrar-implementation process that follows a WIPO transfer order.

In a comparable matter from early 2026, we handled a parallel situation involving a .info domain and a different industry sector. The registrant there did file a response — arguing a generic descriptive use — but the pay-per-click evidence and the mark's distinctiveness overcame the defense. Transfer was again ordered, on a slightly longer timeline of approximately ten weeks. Both outcomes illustrate the same principle: the strength of the parking-page evidence, combined with a clear post-mark registration date, typically decides .info disputes of this pattern regardless of whether the respondent participates.

For an assessment of your domain dispute — whether your mark is .info, .com, or another zone — contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP Domain Recovery — full service overview for complainants across gTLDs
• Case: filing a UDRP complaint for a .biz domain — situation and strategy
• Analysis: domain due diligence and portfolio risk for brand owners