FAQ: choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .shop dispute

What does it mean to choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .shop dispute?

It means selecting your accredited dispute-resolution provider before you submit a UDRP complaint. Both WIPO and the Forum are recognized by ICANN and authorized to administer UDRP cases over .shop, which is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) operated under the standard UDRP framework. The substantive legal test is identical whichever forum you choose — a complainant must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity to a mark the complainant holds, no legitimate interest on the respondent's part, and registration and use in bad faith. What differs is the filing fee, the panel pool, procedural culture, and in some cases the speed of appointment. Neither forum is universally "better." The right choice depends on the number of domains, your budget, the geography of the dispute, and sometimes your prior experience with a particular panel tradition.

For a practical comparison of the UDRP process and when to file at each provider, see our UDRP domain recovery service page.

How does the UDRP apply to .shop domains specifically?

The .shop registry has adopted the UDRP as its mandatory dispute-resolution mechanism, which means any registrant of a .shop domain is contractually bound by the Policy through the registration agreement. That is the same posture as .com, .net, and .org. A complainant therefore has access to any ICANN-accredited UDRP provider, including WIPO and the Forum, without needing to meet additional registry-specific eligibility criteria. No special .shop-only rule applies; the complaint lives or dies on the standard three UDRP elements. What this means practically: a brand owner who has successfully run a .com UDRP at WIPO will find the .shop process structurally familiar.

One nuance worth flagging is that .shop is a new gTLD. Panels in new-gTLD disputes occasionally examine whether the complainant's trademark rights predate the registration — not because the rule changes, but because respondents sometimes argue that a newer zone signals a different sphere of use. That argument rarely succeeds where the mark is strong and well-known. But it is a reason to assemble clear priority evidence when filing.

What does it cost to choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .shop dispute at WIPO?

The current WIPO filing fee for a single-panel UDRP case covering one to five domains is USD 1,500. A three-member panel over the same range of domains costs USD 4,000. If you file for six to ten domains, the single-panel fee rises to USD 2,000 and the three-member fee to USD 5,000. If a case is withdrawn or terminated before panel appointment, WIPO typically refunds a portion of that fee — commonly around USD 1,000 of the USD 1,500 base fee.

The Forum's filing fee begins at approximately USD 1,300 for one to two domains before a single-member panel. That makes the Forum slightly less expensive at the entry level. The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) starts lower still — around USD 500 to 800 — though it handles a much smaller share of global UDRP volume. WIPO and the Forum together account for roughly 97% of all UDRP proceedings. Legal fees are separate from the forum filing fee and are not set by the provider; they depend on the complexity of the matter and the counsel you engage.

For an assessment of your domain dispute and the forum that fits your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

How long does it take to choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .shop dispute?

The selection itself takes only a matter of minutes — you designate the provider in the complaint. What takes time is the proceeding that follows. Once a case commences at either forum, the respondent has 20 days to file a response. A standard single-panel case at either WIPO or the Forum is normally completed within approximately two months. WIPO also offers an expedited option for single-panel cases covering up to five domains, targeting a decision in roughly one month — useful where interim harm, such as phishing or customer diversion, makes speed a priority.

Procedural detours add time. A respondent's request for a three-member panel, a supplemental filing request, or a suspension for settlement talks each extends the timeline. Neither forum can guarantee a fixed delivery date, but the two-month estimate holds reliably for straightforward cases where no extensions are granted.

What evidence is needed to choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .shop dispute?

The evidence you prepare must support all three UDRP elements regardless of which forum you select. For the first element — confusing similarity — you need proof of trademark rights: a registration certificate, a file wrapper showing the priority date, or evidence of common-law rights where the mark is unregistered. For the second element — no legitimate interest — you document what the respondent does (or does not do) with the domain: a parking page, pay-per-click links pointing to your competitors, an impersonation site, or simple passive holding with no bona fide use. For the third element — bad faith — you piece together the registrant's intent: prior knowledge of your mark, the timing of registration relative to your brand's prominence, a pattern of abusive registrations, or an unsolicited offer to sell the domain at a price far exceeding registration costs.

Forum choice does not change what evidence you need. It may, however, affect how evidence is organized and presented. WIPO's submission process is fully online, document-centric, and tends to attract panelists familiar with international trademark practice. The Forum processes a high volume of cases efficiently and its panel pool is also experienced and well-regarded. In our practice, the evidence package — trademark registration, WHOIS records, a screenshot archive of the domain's use, and any correspondence with the registrant — is assembled the same way regardless of which provider handles the case.

For a deeper look at evidence strategy in multi-domain recovery matters, see our analysis of recovering multiple domains in the technology sector.

Can I choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .shop dispute for more than one domain at once?

Yes — a single UDRP complaint may cover multiple domains, but only if all the domains are registered to the same registrant of record. That condition is the consolidation rule under the Policy. If you have five .shop typosquats all registered to the same entity, one complaint covers all five. If three belong to one registrant and two to another, you need two separate complaints. Filing jointly saves both filing-fee tiers and counsel time.

The volume thresholds matter for budgeting. At WIPO, one to five domains before a single panelist costs USD 1,500; six to ten raises the fee to USD 2,000. Spreading domains across multiple single-registrant complaints rather than consolidating can therefore increase your total outlay. We regularly advise brand owners running portfolio enforcement campaigns to audit WHOIS data — and RDDS records where WHOIS privacy is active — before deciding how many complaints to file and where to file them.

A note on the respondent's right to request a three-member panel: even if the complainant selects a single panelist, the respondent may request a three-member panel after receiving the complaint. In that case, the parties generally split the higher three-member fee, which adds cost on both sides. That risk exists at both WIPO and the Forum.

What are the possible outcomes when you choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .shop dispute?

The UDRP offers two substantive remedies: transfer of the domain to the complainant, or cancellation of the registration. No monetary damages are available. No costs award is issued. The forum you select does not change the remedy menu. If the complaint succeeds, the registrar implements the transfer or cancellation after a standard waiting period following the decision — unless the registrant seeks to stay the order by filing a court action in the relevant jurisdiction within that window.

A complainant who fails to prove all three elements will see the complaint denied. That is not merely a loss — it creates a public record that can inform future proceedings and, in some cases, support a claim by the respondent that the complaint was brought in bad faith. That finding is called Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). An RDNH finding carries no monetary penalty, but it is reputationally significant and publicly recorded. For respondents facing overreaching complaints over .shop domains, a structured defense can pursue that finding as a meaningful outcome. Our respondent defense and RDNH service page sets out how that defense is built.

If you are weighing whether to file a .shop UDRP at WIPO or the Forum, or if you have received a complaint and need to respond within the 20-day window, email info@cognomenlaw.com for an initial read on the facts.