FAQ: reverse an unauthorized transfer of a .info domain

When can I reverse an unauthorized transfer of a .info domain?

A reversal is available when you can show that the transfer was made without your authorization – typically through an account compromise, a phishing attack against your registrar credentials, or a fraudulent transfer-authorization code submitted by a third party. UDRP Paragraph 4(a) provides a path to reclaim the domain where the new registrant also lacks any legitimate interest and is using the domain in bad faith. In a pure theft scenario, however, the UDRP may not be the primary tool: because the UDRP is designed for abusive registration disputes rather than outright theft, a registrar escalation under the losing-registrar's transfer-dispute procedures can sometimes achieve a faster reversal at lower cost.

The first step in either path is documenting ownership. Gather WHOIS/RDDS history, purchase records, invoices, correspondence with the original registrar, and any evidence – email headers, login logs, authentication tokens – showing the transfer was unauthorized. This record is the foundation of every route that follows. Do not delay: most registrar and ICANN inter-registrar transfer dispute windows are short, and the longer the new registrant holds the domain, the harder a consensual reversal becomes.

Does WIPO or a court decide a .info dispute?

.info is a gTLD that operates under the UDRP, which means WIPO, the Forum, the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), and the ADNDRC are all available forums. WIPO handles the large majority of .info proceedings and is the most common choice for complainants seeking a transfer order. A standard WIPO case for a single domain costs USD 1,500 for a single-member panel and typically concludes in about two months. That speed and cost make it the default first option for most clients whose dispute fits the UDRP's three-element test.

A court action – most commonly a US anticybersquatting proceeding where the stolen .info domain resolves in the United States – may be preferable when you need monetary damages, when the bad actor is a known party who can be served, or when a prior UDRP finding was unsuccessful or unenforceable. Courts can order damages and permanent injunctive relief that the UDRP cannot. We coordinate that route with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. The choice between arbitration and court is driven by what you actually need: fast transfer versus enforceable damages versus both.

For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met for your .info dispute, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

What evidence decides whether a reversal succeeds?

Panels and registrar dispute teams both look at the same core record: proof that you owned the domain before the disputed transfer, and proof that the transfer was not authorized by you. Strong evidence includes timestamped WHOIS/RDDS screenshots predating the transfer, registrar invoices or renewal confirmations in your name, email logs showing a phishing attempt or credential-compromise event, and any communications in which the new holder demands payment or refuses to cooperate. The more complete this record, the faster a registrar's inter-registrar transfer dispute procedure or a UDRP panel can act.

Under UDRP Paragraph 4(b), a pattern of abusive registrations by the same actor, or evidence that the domain was registered to be sold back to you at a profit, constitutes bad faith – and that element weighs heavily when a panel must decide. Conversely, if the new registrant can show any colorable legitimate use, the UDRP outcome becomes less certain, which is one reason a court route is sometimes more direct for clear theft cases. In our practice, we have seen matters where combining registrar escalation with a parallel UDRP filing produced a faster overall resolution than either route alone.

What if the registrant does not respond?

A default – where the new registrant files no response – does not automatically mean you win, but it removes the primary obstacle. Under the UDRP, a panel will still review the complaint on its merits; it will not grant transfer simply because no one objected. What a default does is prevent the respondent from invoking the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors that might otherwise evidence a legitimate interest. Panels have consistently held that, in a default, they draw reasonable inferences from the complainant's factual record – so the quality of your own evidence still determines the outcome.

At WIPO, approximately 15% of disputes settle before a decision is reached; many of those involve a registrant who initially defaults but later engages when formal proceedings begin. A default also eliminates the possibility that a three-member panel is requested by the respondent – which in turn avoids the USD 4,000 three-member fee at WIPO. Practically, default cases tend to resolve on the standard two-month timeline or faster, since there are no supplemental filings or panel-composition disputes to manage.

Who can reverse an unauthorized transfer of a .info domain?

The person or entity whose name, trademark, or documented ownership interest was in the .info domain before the unauthorized transfer has standing to pursue recovery. Under the UDRP, the complainant must hold rights in a trademark or service mark – either registered or, in appropriate cases, unregistered common-law rights – that is identical or confusingly similar to the domain. In a straightforward theft scenario where the domain was taken from a legitimate registrant who holds such a mark, standing is usually clear.

Where the domain is owned by a corporate entity, ensure that the filing is brought in the name of the actual rights-holder – a mismatch between the trademark owner and the UDRP complainant is a procedural vulnerability that a respondent or panel can exploit. If the theft victim is an individual who lacks a registered mark, a court route under applicable anticybersquatting legislation may provide a more direct standing basis than the UDRP. We regularly advise registrants and brand owners on which entity should be the complainant, and when, before a filing is made.

What is the deadline once a case starts?

Once a UDRP complaint commences at WIPO, the respondent has 20 days to file a response. That window runs from the date of formal commencement, not from the date you filed the complaint. Missing the response deadline means a default, with the consequences described above. On the complainant side, there is no strict limitations period embedded in the UDRP itself – but delay weakens your case on bad faith and can create complications if the new registrant begins building a plausible legitimate use during the interval you waited.

For registrar-level inter-registrar transfer disputes, ICANN's inter-registrar transfer policy imposes its own procedural deadlines – these vary by registrar but are typically short, measured in days rather than months. Missing them may force you to the UDRP or court as the only remaining paths. The governing registrar agreement, the ICANN Transfer Policy, and the registry's own procedures for .info all interact here. The practical rule: treat the day you discover the unauthorized transfer as day one, and begin documenting and escalating immediately.

Can the decision be appealed or challenged?

A UDRP panel decision is not a court judgment and is not enforceable as one. It instructs the registrar to transfer or cancel the domain, but a respondent who disagrees has a window – typically 10 business days after the decision – to file a court action in a competent jurisdiction to suspend the transfer. If such an action is filed, the registrar holds the domain pending that proceeding. This mechanism is sometimes called the "appeal window," though it is really a separate court proceeding, not an appeal of the UDRP decision itself.

From the complainant's perspective, if the UDRP decision goes against you, the same court route is available: you can litigate the underlying dispute in a competent court without being bound by the panel's conclusion. Panels have also recognized that a prior unsuccessful UDRP is not a bar to a fresh complaint if new evidence or a materially changed set of facts warrants re-examination. However, refiling without new grounds risks a finding of abuse of the procedure. We have defended registrants against abusive refiled complaints and have also helped complainants build the additional record needed to justify a second filing where it was warranted.