Step-by-step: recover a .info domain after a failed buy-back negotiation

You reached out, offered a fair price, and were turned down – or quoted a number that only made sense if your brand was hostage. The buy-back has failed. Now the question is whether the domain can be recovered through the UDRP, and what it actually takes to win one for a .info registration.

The .info top-level domain operates under the UDRP, administered by accredited providers including WIPO and the Forum. To recover a .info domain you must prove all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: confusing similarity to a mark you hold, no legitimate interest on the registrant's part, and registration and use in bad faith. A standard case runs approximately two months from filing; the WIPO single-panel filing fee starts at USD 1,500, separate from any legal fee. The only remedies are transfer or cancellation.

This guide walks each step of the recovery process, flags the trap inside each one, and explains how a failed negotiation feeds directly into your evidence record.

Step 1: Understand why .info is a UDRP domain – and what that means for recovery

The .info registry operates under ICANN's mandatory dispute-resolution rules, which means the UDRP applies in full regardless of where the registrant is located. That is useful. You do not need to match the registrant's jurisdiction to bring a claim, and you do not need a court action to compel a transfer.

The procedure is administrative, not litigious. A panel of one or three qualified neutrals reads the submissions and issues a binding decision on transfer or cancellation – nothing more. There are no monetary damages and no injunction remedy. If what you need is financial compensation for past harm, the UDRP is the wrong instrument; a court action would need to run alongside or instead. For most brand owners who simply want the domain pointing at their own servers, the UDRP is the correct and faster route.

One practical note: .info domains are sometimes held through registrars in jurisdictions that make court action expensive or slow. That is exactly why the UDRP's registrar-agnostic transfer mechanism matters. Once a panel orders a transfer, the registrar must comply regardless of where it is based.

The trap at this step is assuming the procedure is informal. It is streamlined, but panels apply the same doctrinal standards as they would to a contested trademark case. Sloppy evidence at filing cannot be corrected after the complaint is submitted.

How does a failed buy-back negotiation affect the three UDRP elements?

A failed buy-back attempt is not just a frustrating preliminary; it is evidence. The sequence of the negotiation, the price demanded, the timing relative to your mark's registration, and the communications themselves all speak to the three elements a panel must assess under Paragraph 4(a).

Element one: confusing similarity. This is normally the easiest element. If the .info domain reproduces your registered trademark – exactly, or with a minor addition such as a hyphen, a generic suffix, or a misspelling – confusing similarity will ordinarily be found. The panel compares the domain to the mark as registered, ignoring the .info extension itself. The trap here is relying on an unregistered mark. Panels will consider unregistered or common-law trademark rights, but the evidentiary bar is higher. You will need to show long use, secondary meaning, and commercial recognition – documentation that is far harder to assemble after a dispute has started than before.

Element two: no rights or legitimate interests. The registrant may assert it had a plan to use the domain for a bona fide business unrelated to your brand. Or it may say nothing at all, which is common. A demand letter quoting a price well above registration costs is inconsistent with a bona fide use plan, and panels take that inconsistency seriously. We regularly see complainants who, once they attach the buy-back correspondence to the complaint, find that it substantially answers element two for them.

Element three: registration and use in bad faith. This is the element where buy-back negotiations do the most work. Paragraph 4(b) expressly lists registration primarily for the purpose of selling the domain to the trademark owner for consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs as a paradigm bad-faith circumstance. A demand for a five-figure sum, sent after the registrant had clearly searched for the mark owner, is a textbook illustration. The trap is assuming any demand price is enough. Panels look at the totality: was the domain registered after your mark became known? Did the registrant have actual knowledge of your brand? Is the domain being used – even passively, with pay-per-click advertising – in a way that exploits confusion? All of that matters.

The procedure above is the standard path. Your evidence – particularly the buy-back correspondence – and the registrant's conduct decide whether each element is met. For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met in your specific situation, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

Step 2: Gather the evidence before you file

Evidence gathering is the make-or-break step – and the one most often rushed. A complaint cannot be amended after filing without the panel's permission, which is rarely granted. What you submit at the start is, in almost all cases, what decides the outcome.

Assemble the following before drafting the complaint:

• Trademark records: certificates for all registered marks (jurisdiction, class, registration date). If you also rely on unregistered rights, prepare evidence of prior use: advertising spend, press coverage, dated samples of the mark in commerce.
• Domain registration history: a WHOIS or RDDS search showing the current registrant and, if available, the registration date. Historical WHOIS data, where accessible, can show whether the domain was registered after your mark became publicly known.
• Buy-back correspondence: every email, message, or brokerage communication, exported and timestamped. This is your best bad-faith evidence. Preserve it in its original form; forwarded emails stripped of headers are weaker.
• Website captures: screenshots of the domain's landing page, taken on multiple dates using a browser with no cookies or VPN interference. If the site shows pay-per-click links to your competitors or your own category, that is live bad-faith use evidence.
• Evidence of the registrant's awareness: anything showing the registrant knew of your mark before registering – references to your brand name in correspondence, registration dates that post-date a well-publicized launch, or the registrant's own marketing materials.

The trap at this step is failing to capture timestamped screenshots. Panels require evidence of use at the time of the complaint, not just at some earlier point. Take fresh captures within a day or two of filing.

Step 3: Choose your forum and understand the cost structure

For .info domains, the recognized UDRP providers are WIPO, the Forum, the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), and the ADNDRC. In practice, WIPO and the Forum handle the overwhelming majority of cases.

WIPO charges USD 1,500 for a single-panel case covering one to five domains, or USD 4,000 for a three-member panel in the same range. The Forum's entry-level filing fee starts at around USD 1,300 for one to two domains with a single panelist. The CAC offers the lowest entry point, beginning around USD 500–800, though it handles a smaller share of filings. These are forum fees only; legal fees are a separate and additional cost.

Which forum should you choose? WIPO has the deepest published case archive and is often preferred where the legal arguments are nuanced or the domain is commercially significant. The Forum is a reasonable alternative, particularly for straightforward mark-identical cases. For a .info recovery after a failed buy-back – where bad faith evidence is usually explicit – either major provider is defensible.

A single-panel case at WIPO takes approximately two months from filing to decision. WIPO also offers an expedited option delivering a decision in roughly one month, available for single-panel cases of up to five domains – useful if the domain is actively causing harm to your business while the case is pending.

The trap here is anchoring on the filing fee and ignoring the total cost. Legal preparation for a UDRP complaint – reviewing the mark, analyzing the three elements, drafting the complaint to the required standard – is a separate investment. Market rates for a straightforward complaint are commonly in the USD 3,000–7,000 range, depending on complexity. That cost is not recoverable in a UDRP; there are no cost awards. Factor it in before deciding whether the domain's value justifies the proceedings.

Step 4: Draft the complaint and avoid the common filing errors

The complaint must follow the provider's formal requirements: party identification, legal basis (the UDRP and the applicable Supplemental Rules), trademark evidence, the domain in issue, and the specific remedies sought. Most experienced practitioners follow a structure that mirrors the three elements – one section per element, each with the applicable standard and the evidence meeting it.

Several errors appear repeatedly in complaints that fail or provoke an RDNH finding against the complainant:

• Overreaching on the mark: claiming rights broader than the registered mark actually covers. A panel will identify this and it weakens credibility on all three elements.
• Conclusory bad-faith argument: asserting bad faith without walking through the evidence. "The registrant clearly registered this domain in bad faith" is not an argument; it is an assertion. The complaint must tie each piece of evidence to a specific bad-faith factor under Paragraph 4(b).
• Ignoring the "registered AND used" requirement: element three requires both. If the domain was registered with bad intent but the registrant has since genuinely repurposed it for an unrelated business, the analysis is more complex. Address both limbs.
• Attaching too much or too little: panels read submissions carefully but are not obligated to search through hundreds of pages of exhibits. Curate the evidence; flag the key documents explicitly.

In a recent matter – a .info brand-match case, spring 2025 – we filed a complaint for a client who had received a six-figure buy-back demand. The panel transferred the domain in under eight weeks. The key factor was that the buy-back correspondence, attached in full, showed the registrant had referenced the brand owner's own press coverage when justifying the price. That single exhibit answered elements two and three without supplemental argument.

The trap at this step is treating the complaint as a formality. Panels in contested cases write reasoned decisions. A complaint that does not engage with the likely counter-arguments leaves the panel without a framework for rejecting them.

If a prior filing produced an adverse outcome or a refused transfer, a focused review of the original complaint can identify the element that was not fully supported. Email info@cognomenlaw.com to discuss a re-assessment.

Step 5: Manage the 20-day response window and the panel appointment

Once the provider commences the case, the registrant has 20 days to file a response. Many registrants in buy-back scenarios default – they do not respond at all. Default does not mean automatic transfer; the panel still applies the three-element test and must be satisfied on the evidence. But a default response does remove any affirmative defense the registrant might have raised.

Where a registrant does respond, the most common defenses in failed-buy-back cases are:

• The domain was registered before the complainant's mark achieved notoriety (attacking element three).
• The complainant initiated negotiations, implying the domain has independent value unrelated to the mark (attempting to reframe bad faith).
• The price quoted was a market-rate domain appraisal, not a demand targeting the mark owner specifically.

Each of these defenses can be anticipated and pre-empted in the complaint itself. The timeline of the mark's registration and public visibility matters enormously. A domain registered the week after your brand was announced in trade press is very difficult to defend as a coincidence.

Panel appointment follows the close of the response window. For a single-panel case at WIPO, the panelist is appointed from WIPO's roster; for a three-member panel, each party nominates candidates and the provider appoints. Either party may request a three-member panel; if the complainant requested a single panelist but the respondent requests three, the parties generally split the higher three-member filing fee.

What evidence decides a .info UDRP case after a failed buy-back?

Evidence, not legal argument, almost always turns contested .info cases. Panels seeing a close factual record look to specific categories of material to break the tie.

The buy-back price relative to registration costs. A sum that exceeds the cost of domain registration plus legitimate business development expenses is a Paragraph 4(b) bad-faith marker. Document this explicitly. Registration of a .info domain costs a few dollars per year. A demand for tens of thousands of dollars is self-evidently not a cost-recovery figure.

Timing of registration. Was the domain registered before or after your mark became publicly associated with you? Historical WHOIS data, archived web pages, and dated press coverage help establish the chronology. If the domain was registered a day after your product launch was covered in industry media, that sequence speaks clearly.

The registrant's use of the domain. A parked page with pay-per-click advertising in your product category is bad-faith use. A site genuinely developing unrelated content is a complication. Passive holding – pointing the domain nowhere – does not automatically defeat a bad-faith finding; panels have consistently held that passive holding can constitute bad faith where the surrounding circumstances make any good-faith use implausible.

Pattern of conduct. If the registrant holds other domains that match other brands, that pattern is a Paragraph 4(b) factor. Evidence from WHOIS showing a portfolio of brand-matching registrations is worth including.

In a second matter we handled – a .info passive-holding case, summer 2025, where the registrant had made no public use of the domain but had declined several below-market offers – the panel transferred the domain, finding that the circumstances collectively left no plausible good-faith use. The decisive exhibit was a WHOIS portfolio showing the registrant held approximately a dozen brand-matching domains across multiple registries.

Step 6: After the decision – implementation and what happens next

A transfer order does not move the domain instantly. The panel issues a written decision. The provider notifies the registrar. There is then a brief implementation period – typically around ten business days – during which either party may seek court relief to stay the transfer. In practice, stays are rare and require a court in a competent jurisdiction to act quickly. Most registrants in buy-back disputes do not pursue a court stay.

Once the stay period passes without challenge, the registrar executes the transfer. The domain moves to a registrar of your choice, and you become the registrant of record. From that point, you control the DNS, the content, and any future renewal.

What if the panel denies the complaint? A failed UDRP does not preclude re-filing if materially different or new evidence is available, though panels are skeptical of serial complaints without changed circumstances. More practically, a failed complaint opens the door to a court action in a jurisdiction with competent authority over the domain or the registrant. That route is slower and more expensive, but it reaches remedies the UDRP cannot: damages, injunctions, and discovery.

A panel may also find reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) – a finding that the complaint was brought in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant. An RDNH finding carries no monetary penalty, but it is a public reputational mark against the complainant. Cases where the complainant filed knowing element three was not met, or filed primarily to pressure a sale rather than to vindicate a genuine right, are the ones that attract RDNH findings. This is not a theoretical risk in buy-back cases: where the complainant was the party that initiated negotiations, panels scrutinize the motive for filing with particular care.

• How to prove no legitimate interest in a .info dispute – the evidence and the element in detail
• COGNOMEN UDRP recovery service – how we assess, file, and manage a UDRP complaint
• URS vs. UDRP for new gTLDs – when the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure may suit instead

Author: Cordelia Roe — UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery; domain transactions and brand protection. Meet the team.

Speak with Cognomen Law

For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter

Domain in disputeYour sideI want to recover a nameI received a complaint — I need a defensePortfolio / brand protectionWhat happenedEmailI agree to the processing of my enquiry as described in the privacy policy.Assess my case

No obligation. Confidential. We reply within two hours in business hours.

Related

• UDRP Domain Recovery: a complete practitioner guide
• Step-by-step: prove a registrant has no legitimate interest in a .info domain
• How to choose between URS and UDRP for a .biz domain

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.