Step-by-step: recover a lapsed .info domain that was re-registered
Step-by-step: recover a lapsed .info domain that was re-registered. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your case.
Your brand's .info domain expired during a registry billing cycle. Before the grace period closed, a third party registered it – and now it points to a competitor's site or a pay-per-click parking page, and the new registrant is asking a five-figure sum to sell it back. This situation is more common than most brand owners expect, and the path to recovery under the UDRP is well-charted.
To recover a lapsed .info domain that was re-registered, you must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP: confusing similarity to a mark you hold, no legitimate interest on the registrant's part, and registration and use in bad faith. The .info zone is administered under the standard UDRP, with WIPO and the Forum as the primary providers, and a straightforward case runs approximately two months from filing to decision. The only remedies available are transfer or cancellation – not damages.
This guide takes you through each decision a brand owner must make, step by step, and flags the trap that hides inside each one.
Step 1: Is .info covered by the UDRP – and does your trademark qualify?
The .info generic top-level domain is subject to the standard UDRP in full. WIPO and the Forum both accept .info complaints, and their published filing fees apply without modification for this zone. That is the straightforward part. The trap in this first step is assuming that any trade name or brand identity automatically qualifies as a "trademark in which the complainant has rights" under Paragraph 4(a)(i).
Panels require either a registered trademark or, in some circumstances, a well-established unregistered mark supported by evidence of secondary meaning. A lapsed domain registration is not itself a trademark right. If your only claim to the name rests on prior use of the domain – rather than on a registered mark or documented common-law rights – you face an evidentiary problem before you even reach the bad-faith question. Check your trademark portfolio first. If gaps exist, addressing them now, or building a common-law rights file, will materially affect whether a complaint can proceed.
The confusing-similarity limb is generally the easiest of the three to satisfy: panels compare the domain to the mark and disregard the .info suffix as a technical necessity. A domain that appends a generic word (for example, "brand-info.info" or "infobrand.info") may still be held confusingly similar if your mark is recognizable within the string. Document that analysis before filing.
Step 2: What does chain-of-title tell you about the registrant's intent?
Before filing anything, run a full chain-of-title investigation. The registrant's intent at the moment of re-registration is the core of the bad-faith element, and the registration history of the domain is often the most reliable evidence of that intent.
RDDS (WHOIS) records, archive captures, and prior UDRP or court history for the domain will tell you several things. Who held it before the lapse? Was it registered in your brand's name or by a licensee? Was it simply allowed to expire through an administrative oversight – or was there a dispute, a transfer, or a deletion order in its recent past? A domain that was previously cancelled or transferred by panel order and then re-registered by the same or a connected party carries a strong inference of bad faith. Panels treat prior UDRP history as a material fact.
The trap here is assuming that a clean RDDS record means a clean registration history. Current RDDS data is often privacy-masked under applicable data-protection rules. You will need archived WHOIS captures – from sources maintained in the public record – and Wayback Machine or similar archive evidence of what the domain resolved to during and immediately after the lapse window. In our practice, we regularly advise brand owners that the month immediately after a domain lapses is the most evidentially rich period: parking page content, email harvesting activity, and contact with the mark owner during that window all feed directly into the bad-faith record.
For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met on your .info domain, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.
Step 3: How do you choose the right forum – WIPO, the Forum, or a national court?
The choice of forum is a strategic decision, not an administrative one. For .info domains, WIPO and the Forum together handle the substantial majority of proceedings. Each has procedural characteristics that matter in practice.
WIPO charges USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains, and USD 4,000 for a three-member panel in the same range. The Forum's entry point is approximately USD 1,300 for one to two domains, single-member. WIPO also offers an expedited option that can deliver a decision within roughly one month for eligible single-panel cases of up to five domains – useful where the re-registrant is actively trading on the confusion or redirecting traffic now. The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) offers a lower entry-point filing fee but is less frequently used.
What about a national court instead? For .info – a generic TLD – a court action is rarely the first choice. The UDRP provides a faster and considerably cheaper path to transfer. However, if you also need monetary relief – damages for diverted sales or reputational harm – the UDRP cannot award them. In that scenario, a US anticybersquatting action in federal court, or litigation in the registrant's jurisdiction, may run in parallel or follow a successful UDRP transfer. That is a separate cost and complexity calculation, handled with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
A three-member panel costs more and takes somewhat longer. Consider it where the re-registration is sophisticated, where the registrant is likely to argue legitimacy vigorously, or where the case is factually close and you want the additional deliberative weight of three panelists. A split decision from a three-member panel is also less susceptible to attack if the registrant attempts to re-litigate in a court after an adverse UDRP outcome.
Step 4: What evidence do you need to prove the case?
A UDRP complaint succeeds or fails on evidence, not on argument. The policy sets out what a complainant must show; the panel decides whether the evidence meets that standard. For a lapsed .info recovery, the three evidentiary clusters that matter most are rights, the registrant's absence of legitimate interest, and bad faith at the moment of re-registration.
For rights: your trademark registration certificates, the dates of first use, and any evidence of the mark's recognition in the market. For the negative limb (no legitimate interest): the panel will look for whether the registrant has ever been licensed, whether it is commonly known by the name, or whether it was making a bona fide offering before notice of the dispute. The trap here is that a registrant who sets up a rudimentary website offering generic information services under the .info banner may argue a Paragraph 4(c) safe harbor. Panels are skeptical of "sham" uses that appear only after a complaint is filed – document the sequence of events carefully with timed archive captures.
For bad faith, the most useful evidence in a lapsed-domain scenario includes: the proximity between your mark's registration and the re-registration date; any communications from the registrant offering to sell at a price exceeding out-of-pocket costs; PPC or pay-per-click advertising on the domain in categories related to your goods or services; and any prior UDRP history for the same string. Panels have consistently held that registering a domain identical to a well-known mark, immediately after a lapse, with no plausible explanation, supports an inference of opportunistic bad faith even without direct evidence of intent.
We have assembled bad-faith records in matters where the only available direct evidence was a parking page and a WHOIS history gap – and the complaint succeeded. Evidence quality and narrative coherence decide outcomes; a well-organized complaint is not the same as a well-evidenced one.
How long does the UDRP process for .info actually take?
A standard .info UDRP case runs approximately two months from filing to a registrar-implemented transfer, assuming no procedural complications. The registrant has 20 days to file a response after the case formally commences. Panel appointment follows; the panel then deliberates and issues a decision. After a decision ordering transfer, the registrar implements it following a mandatory ten-business-day waiting period – which allows the registrant to seek a court stay if it chooses to escalate.
Where does delay actually arise? The most common sources are: a request for a three-member panel (which extends the timeline and changes the fee structure), a suspension agreed by the parties for settlement negotiations, or a supplemental filing – additional material submitted after the initial pleadings, which panels accept only in limited circumstances. If the registrant defaults – files no response at all – the panel proceeds on the complaint alone, which can slightly accelerate the schedule. Default does not guarantee a transfer; the panel still evaluates whether the elements are met.
WIPO's expedited option is worth considering if the domain is currently causing active confusion or commercial harm. It targets a decision in approximately one month for cases within scope. The standard filing fee applies; the expedited track is not separately priced.
Step 5: How do you avoid acquiring a tainted domain if negotiated purchase is the alternative?
Not every lapsed .info recovery should go straight to a UDRP complaint. In some situations, a negotiated purchase is faster, cheaper, and certain – particularly where the re-registrant holds the domain speculatively with no active bad-faith use, and where your trademark rights are not entirely clear-cut.
The trap in a private purchase is acquiring a domain with a tainted title history. Before completing any transaction, check for prior UDRP decisions against the domain – a transfer order that was later reversed, or a complaint that was decided in the respondent's favor on the merits, can create chain-of-title uncertainty. Check whether the domain was ever subject to a registrar lock, a court order, or a domain-theft incident. A domain recovered through theft and then re-sold carries potential title defects that may surface later. Run due diligence on the domain the same way you would on any intellectual property acquisition.
Escrow is essential for any domain purchase above a minimal amount. A properly structured escrow holds funds until both the domain transfer and WHOIS confirmation are verified. Do not wire funds before the domain is in your account. Do not accept a "push" to your registrar account before confirming that the domain name exactly matches the one agreed in the purchase agreement. These steps sound basic. They are violated regularly, and recovery after a fraudulent domain sale is slow and expensive.
In autumn 2025, we advised on a .info domain acquisition in which the seller's prior UDRP history – a complaint dismissed on legitimate-interest grounds three years earlier – required re-negotiation of the purchase price and escrow terms to account for residual challenge risk. The transaction completed, but only after a chain-of-title review that the buyer had not initially anticipated.
If purchase negotiations stall or the asking price is clearly opportunistic – a five-figure demand for a domain the registrant re-registered for a registration fee – a UDRP complaint is typically the superior route. The complaint process is fully compatible with parallel settlement discussions; many cases settle after filing, before a decision is issued.
To assess your .info domain – UDRP complaint or negotiated purchase – email info@cognomenlaw.com.
Step 6: What happens after you file – and what does the respondent's answer mean?
Once the complaint is filed and formally accepted, the UDRP provider notifies the registrant and commences the 20-day response window. During this period, the domain is placed under a registrar lock – it cannot be transferred, deleted, or materially modified. That lock is a protective measure; it means the re-registrant cannot dispose of the domain while the case is pending.
If the respondent files an answer, it will typically raise one or more of the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors: bona fide use before notice, a claim to be commonly known by the name, or fair or noncommercial use. Your complaint needs to anticipate these defenses in the original filing. A panel will read the complaint and the response as a single adversarial record; you cannot add new argument after the response is in, except in the narrow circumstances where supplemental filings are permitted.
A respondent who also argues that the complaint was brought in bad faith – to deprive a legitimate registrant – may seek a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). An RDNH finding carries no financial penalty, but it is a reputational finding against the complainant. Where the facts are genuinely borderline, this risk should be assessed before filing. We have defended registrants in exactly this position – where a re-registrant had a colorable legitimate interest and the brand owner's complaint was on weak ground.
After the decision, the losing party (registrant, if transfer is ordered) has ten business days to seek a court stay. If no court stay is obtained, the registrar implements the decision. The domain is transferred into your registrar account. At that point, renew it promptly and set an auto-renew mechanism – the administrative lapse that created the problem in the first place should not be allowed to recur.
Step 7: What are the realistic cost ranges and how do they compare?
Cost transparency matters. The two components are the forum filing fee and the legal fee for preparing and filing the complaint. They are entirely separate, and confusing them leads to budget surprises.
For a single .info domain at WIPO, the filing fee is USD 1,500 (single-member panel) or USD 4,000 (three-member). At the Forum, the comparable entry point is approximately USD 1,300 for one to two domains. The CAC's published fee is lower – approximately USD 500–800 – though it is the least-used provider for .info matters. If WIPO grants a partial refund on withdrawal before panel appointment (commonly around USD 1,000 of a USD 1,500 fee), that refund is available only if the case settles before appointment.
Legal fees for a straightforward single-domain UDRP complaint are generally in the USD 3,000–7,000 range in the market, separate from the filing fee. The complexity of the bad-faith record, the number of domains, and the need for a three-member panel all affect the figure. Respondent defense runs in a comparable range and is fact-dependent.
Compare that to a negotiated purchase: if the re-registrant is asking USD 15,000 for a domain worth USD 500 in registration fees, a UDRP complaint at combined costs in the USD 4,500–8,500 range – with a realistic prospect of transfer if the elements are met – may be the commercially rational choice. It is not always so straightforward, but the comparison is worth making explicitly before committing to a purchase price that effectively rewards opportunistic registration.
For a .info dispute that also requires a court action – for instance, where monetary damages are the objective alongside transfer, or where the registrant is actively impersonating the brand – costs increase substantially. Court anticybersquatting litigation is handled with local litigation counsel and is described qualitatively here: it is an hourly-fee engagement of a different order of magnitude from UDRP proceedings.
See our analysis of how to verify chain of title in a domain acquisition for a deeper treatment of due diligence on tainted registrations. For the full range of services available across gTLD and ccTLD disputes, including respondent defense, visit our domain transactions and brand protection practice.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions: recover a lapsed .info domain that was re-registered
When should I recover a lapsed .info domain that was re-registered?
Act as soon as you confirm the re-registration. The longer the new registrant holds the domain, the more opportunity it has to build a use record – even a thin one – that complicates the "no legitimate interest" element. Evidence of opportunistic registration is strongest in the immediate period after the lapse, when the registrant's conduct most clearly reflects its intent. Delay is rarely advantageous for a complainant under the UDRP.
What happens if the other side ignores the case?
If the registrant files no response, the panel proceeds on the complaint alone. Default does not automatically result in a transfer – the panel still applies the three-element test independently. However, an unanswered complaint generally makes it easier for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the record. A well-evidenced complaint filed against a non-responding registrant has a strong procedural position, but the underlying elements must still be met.
How is WIPO different from a national court for .info?
WIPO's UDRP procedure delivers a transfer or cancellation decision in approximately two months, at a filing fee of USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains. A national court action takes considerably longer, costs substantially more, and requires meeting local procedural requirements in the registrant's or registrar's jurisdiction. WIPO cannot award damages; a court can. For most .info recovery scenarios where transfer is the goal, WIPO is the faster and more cost-efficient path.
About COGNOMEN
COGNOMEN is an independent boutique focused exclusively on domain-name disputes. We recover, defend, and transact internet domains across generic and country-code zones, before WIPO, the Forum, CAC, ADNDRC, and national procedures, and in court where arbitration cannot reach. We act for brand owners, domain investors, and registrants – including respondent-side defense and reverse domain name hijacking. Our practice covers .info and all principal gTLD and ccTLD zones. To discuss a domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
Disclaimer: This article is general information about domain-name dispute procedures and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, the zone, and panel or court discretion. For advice on your domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
Speak with Cognomen Law
For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter
Related
This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.