Step-by-step: prove a registrant has no legitimate interest in a .inf…

Step-by-step: prove a registrant has no legitimate interest in a .inf. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your c…

A brand owner finds its name registered as a .info by a stranger. The site either sits parked with pay-per-click ads or redirects to a competitor. The domain is commercially useless to anyone but the brand owner — yet the registrant shows no sign of giving it up. That is the moment when the second element of a UDRP complaint becomes everything.

To prove a registrant has no legitimate interest in a .info domain under the UDRP, a complainant must demonstrate that the registrant has no bona fide use, is not commonly known by the name, and derives no legitimate noncommercial or fair-use benefit from the domain. The standard applies identically on .info as on .com: all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) must be met, and the second element is where complaints most often stall or succeed. A standard WIPO proceeding runs approximately two months from filing to decision.

This guide walks each step, the trap hidden inside it, and the evidence that decides the outcome at a WIPO panel.

Why .info and the UDRP: the governing rules that apply to this zone

.info is a generic top-level domain fully subject to the UDRP, the same Policy that governs .com, .net, and .org. Disputes are filed before an ICANN-approved provider — most commonly WIPO — and the substantive test is identical across those gTLDs. The complainant must satisfy all three Paragraph 4(a) elements: confusing similarity to a mark, no registrant rights or legitimate interests, and registration plus use in bad faith.

The only remedies available are transfer or cancellation of the domain. There is no monetary award. There is no injunction compelling the registrant to stop using the name on a website. If a complainant also needs damages, that requires court action — a different process handled with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

The trap in this step: some brand owners treat .info as a lower-stakes zone and file with less preparation than they would for a .com. Panels do not grade by zone. A thin complaint on .info fails just as a thin complaint on .com fails. Preparation standards are identical.

In our practice we routinely file .info complaints at WIPO where the mark is registered and the evidence of bad faith is clear. We have also seen well-intentioned complaints collapse at the second element because the complainant assumed that an empty .info parking page was self-evidently illegitimate. Panels require a positive showing, not an inference.

What does "no legitimate interest" actually mean under Paragraph 4(a)(ii)?

The second UDRP element asks whether the registrant has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain. That phrase has a specific meaning under the Policy. Paragraph 4(c) enumerates three safe harbors the registrant may invoke: a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute; being commonly known by the domain name; and legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent to mislead for commercial gain.

If none of those safe harbors applies, the registrant has no legitimate interest for UDRP purposes. The key doctrine is that the complainant need not prove a negative in absolute terms. The consensus view under the Policy is that the complainant makes a prima facie showing — typically by demonstrating that the registrant is not authorized, is not commonly known by the name, and has no plausible non-infringing use — and the burden then shifts to the registrant to come forward with evidence of legitimacy.

That burden-shift matters enormously on .info because many registrants default. They never respond. A default is not automatic victory — the panel still examines whether the prima facie case is made out — but a defaulting registrant cannot invoke the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors, and panels regularly transfer domains where the prima facie record is complete.

The trap: complainants sometimes read the burden-shift as doing the work for them. It does not. If the complaint itself does not close off each safe harbor, a panel can find for the registrant even in a default, citing an incomplete record.

For an assessment of whether your evidence closes each Paragraph 4(c) safe harbor in your .info dispute, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

How do you build the prima facie record: a step-by-step approach?

Building the prima facie record is a sequenced exercise. Each step addresses one safe harbor and supplies the evidence that forecloses it. The steps below follow that sequence; skip one and a panel will notice.

Step 1: Establish that the registrant is not authorized. Start with your own records. A signed license agreement, a franchisee list, an authorized-reseller register, or an internal authorization policy — any of these shows who may legitimately use the mark as a domain name. Document that the registrant is not on any such list. A declaration from the brand's IP or marketing team is usually sufficient. The trap: if your brand has hundreds of distributors and your authorization records are incomplete, a panel may not be fully satisfied. Audit before you file.

Step 2: Establish that the registrant is not commonly known by the domain name. Pull the WHOIS/RDDS record and screenshot it. Look at the registrant name — not just the organization field, but the admin and technical contacts. If those show no connection to the domain string, say so explicitly in the complaint. Also look at the registrant's other domains if available, and at whether any publicly visible business trades under the domain name. The trap: "commonly known by" is not limited to a registered trademark. A registrant with a genuine business trading under the name for years may invoke this safe harbor even without registration. Check whether the registrant has any prior business identity associated with the string before filing.

Step 3: Establish that the site has no legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Take timestamped screenshots of the domain's live content. Use a web-archiving service screenshot to capture what the site displayed before the complaint was filed — registrants sometimes clean up the site after they receive notice. If the site is parked with pay-per-click links, that is commercial use, not noncommercial use. If it resolves to a competitor's site, that is commercial use. If it is completely inactive (passive holding), that is still usable evidence against legitimate noncommercial use when combined with other bad-faith indicators. The trap: a site with generic keyword links that happen to match the domain's dictionary meaning can generate a safe-harbor argument. Panels have accepted a legitimate-interest defense where the domain is a common descriptive term, even where it also matches a brand. Assess the dictionary strength of your mark before relying solely on parking-page evidence.

Step 4: Account for the registration date relative to your mark. A registrant cannot have a legitimate interest in a mark-holder's brand if the mark predates the registration and the registrant had constructive or actual notice. Pull the domain's creation date from WHOIS/RDDS and compare it to the earliest date of your trademark registration. If your mark predates the domain, state that explicitly. The trap: if the domain was registered before your mark — even by a short period — the second element alone will not carry the complaint. The complainant must hold rights in the mark at the time the domain was registered for the third element to function, and without a properly established first element, the second element analysis may be moot.

What evidence is most decisive at a WIPO .info panel?

Panels evaluating a .info UDRP complaint weigh the same categories of evidence they weigh in any gTLD case. But the quality and completeness of that evidence has a compounding effect: strong evidence on all three elements produces faster, cleaner decisions, while gaps invite dissents or unexpected respondent wins.

The most decisive evidence on the second element is a combination of: (a) a clear authorization audit showing the registrant is unknown to the brand; (b) a WHOIS/RDDS printout showing no corporate or personal name matching the domain string; and (c) site screenshots showing no independent business use. Together, those three items close all three Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors in sequence.

Supporting evidence that strengthens the overall case includes domain acquisition histories (resale listings, broker correspondence), communications from the registrant demanding payment, and evidence of a pattern of similar registrations by the same registrant across multiple gTLDs. The last item — a pattern — is listed in Paragraph 4(b) as a non-exhaustive bad-faith indicator. While it technically relates to the third element, panels view it as contextual and it colors the reading of the second element as well.

In a recent matter — a .info typosquat, spring 2025 — we assembled a five-item evidence package that closed every safe harbor explicitly. The registrant defaulted. The WIPO panel transferred the domain approximately eight weeks after filing, with no supplemental filing required. The combination of a clean authorization record and archived pay-per-click screenshots produced the result without any back-and-forth.

The trap: complainants regularly submit "everything available" without organizing it around the three elements. A panel of one or three members works through dozens of cases per month. An unstructured exhibit bundle forces the panel to construct the argument on your behalf. Do not rely on that. Map each exhibit to the element it addresses.

How does the 20-day response window affect your strategy?

Once a UDRP complaint is formally commenced, the respondent has 20 days to file a response. That window is not merely procedural — it shapes the complainant's entire evidence strategy. A registrant who files a substantive response can put the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors squarely in play: they can claim a business history, a pre-existing trade name, or a legitimate-use purpose that the complaint never anticipated.

That means the complainant's initial evidence package must be complete enough to survive a response. Filing a bare-bones complaint and hoping for a default is a strategy that fails when a registrant responds with business records the complainant cannot rebut without a supplemental filing — and supplemental filings are not a right under the UDRP Rules. Panels admit them rarely and at their discretion.

What does this mean in practice? Anticipate the best response a sophisticated registrant could make and preempt it in the complaint itself. If the domain string has a dictionary meaning, address it. If the registrant has another domain in the same industry, address that. If there is any ambiguity in the authorization record, address it. The complainant who prepares for a response rarely needs to worry about one.

The trap: some complainants time the filing to coincide with a product launch or a fundraising announcement, hoping for a fast panel decision before the launch date. UDRP timelines are not controllable by the parties. A standard case takes approximately two months. WIPO offers an expedited option — roughly one month — for single-panel cases involving up to five domains, but that option still requires a properly prepared complaint.

What is the realistic cost and what does it buy you?

A WIPO single-member panel proceeding for a single .info domain carries an official filing fee of USD 1,500. That fee is separate from legal preparation costs, which in the market typically fall in the USD 3,000–7,000 range for a straightforward case. Total spend for a clean one-domain .info dispute therefore commonly sits between approximately USD 4,500 and USD 8,500, depending on complexity and evidence volume.

A three-member panel costs more: the WIPO fee rises to USD 4,000, and the legal preparation cost increases because three panelists require a more complete record and a more detailed argument. When should you request three members? Where the domain has significant commercial value, where the registrant's response is likely to raise novel arguments, or where you have reason to believe the single panelist pool might not be favorable to your industry. Requesting a three-member panel is a judgment call, not a default.

If the domain is a .info but there is also a parallel .com registration by the same registrant — a common scenario — a single UDRP complaint can cover both provided the registrant is the same holder. That consolidation is cost-efficient: one USD 1,500 filing fee covers up to five domains under a single-member panel at WIPO. Address both in one complaint rather than filing two separate proceedings.

The trap: complainants sometimes compare UDRP cost to the domain's current market value and decide the dispute is uneconomic. That misses the commercial reality. The domain's value to the brand — in customer confusion avoided, in organic search traffic recovered — is the right benchmark, not its secondary-market resale price. We have seen registrants hold a USD 200 domain that was generating five figures per year in misdirected business inquiries.

To weigh UDRP against a court action for your .info case, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

When is a court action better than the UDRP for a .info domain?

The UDRP is the right tool for most .info disputes where the complainant holds a registered trademark, the registrant has no legitimate claim, and the goal is transfer or cancellation. That covers the large majority of cybersquatting scenarios. Court action becomes relevant in four situations.

First, where the complainant needs monetary damages — lost sales, corrective advertising costs, or statutory damages under anticybersquatting legislation in the relevant jurisdiction. The UDRP cannot award money. Second, where the complainant's trademark rights are not strong enough to meet the first UDRP element but the registration is still unlawful under applicable national law. Third, where the registrant has mounted a successful UDRP defense and the brand owner wants a second look from a court applying a different evidentiary standard. Fourth, where the registrant operates in a jurisdiction with a court system that can provide injunctive relief faster than arbitration timelines allow — unusual, but not unknown.

The decision matrix in brief: if the goal is transfer and the mark is registered, UDRP at WIPO is fastest and most cost-efficient. If the domain is a .info but also the anchor of a broader cybersquatting campaign spanning multiple zones — .com, .net, national ccTLDs — a court action coordinated with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction may provide broader relief. For .de domains in the same campaign, for example, the UDRP does not apply at all, and a DENIC DISPUTE entry is the first move while litigation is prepared.

In a different matter — a multi-zone dispute covering a .info and two ccTLDs, autumn 2024 — we filed the UDRP for the .info while coordinating with local litigation counsel to pursue the national ccTLDs simultaneously. The .info transferred under UDRP approximately nine weeks after filing. The ccTLD proceedings ran on their own separate tracks and resolved later. The sequencing mattered: securing the .info early removed the most commercially damaging redirect while the national proceedings worked through longer timelines.

The trap: assuming that a UDRP transfer decision automatically binds a court, or that a UDRP loss bars a court claim. Neither is correct. UDRP decisions are not binding on courts. A brand owner who loses a UDRP case may still pursue court action. Equally, a brand owner who wins a UDRP transfer may still face a court challenge from the registrant within the post-decision window — which is why monitoring the domain after transfer is a prudent step.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP domain recovery — full-service UDRP complaint filing and strategy across WIPO, the Forum, and CAC
• Recover a domain after a failed buyback — strategy and filing where buyback negotiations have stalled or failed
• Recover a hijacked domain in the UAE — court-coordinated recovery and registrar escalation for account-compromise cases