Step-by-step: recover a typosquatted .info domain
A brand owner searches for her company's name online and finds a mirror of it sitting at a .info address – one letter transposed, a hyphen inserted, a suffix swapped. The registrant is anonymous. The address resolves to a pay-per-click parking page or, worse, to a site impersonating the brand. The instinct is to call the registrar and demand removal. That call will not work.
To recover a typosquatted .info domain, a complainant must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP: the domain is confusingly similar to a trademark the complainant holds; the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests; and the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. The .info zone is a gTLD to which the UDRP applies fully. A standard case at WIPO or the Forum runs approximately two months from filing to decision, and the only remedies available are transfer or cancellation.
This guide walks each step of that process, flags the trap concealed in each one, and helps you decide whether UDRP is the right route or whether another path is faster for your situation.
Step 1: Confirm that the UDRP applies to your .info domain
The .info zone is a gTLD administered under the ICANN accreditation system, and every accredited registrar for .info is bound by the UDRP. That means the full procedure – three elements, 20-day response window, transfer-or-cancellation remedy – applies without modification. You do not need to prove anything under national law to invoke it.
The trap in this step is assuming that because .info is a generic extension, it carries less weight than .com. Panels apply identical standards across all gTLDs. A confusingly similar .info typosquat is evaluated by exactly the same three-element test as a .com equivalent. The zone does not change the legal burden.
One practical difference does exist at the level of commercial reality. The .info space attracted significant speculative registrations in its early years, and panels have recognized that typosquatting – registering a deliberate misspelling of a well-known mark to capture misdirected traffic – is among the clearest patterns of bad faith available. That history actually helps a well-prepared complainant.
Before filing, verify the current registrar of record by querying the WHOIS/RDDS for the domain. Confirm the registrar is ICANN-accredited. If the domain has been transferred through multiple registrars recently, note those dates – a transfer shortly before or after your trademark publication can become relevant to the bad-faith timeline later.
Step 2: Establish your trademark rights – the first UDRP element
The first element requires that you hold rights in a trademark or service mark that is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain. Identical here is rare in a typosquat; confusingly similar is the normal finding.
A registered trademark is the cleanest evidence. The UDRP does not require the mark to be registered in the respondent's country or even in any specific country – a mark registered anywhere is sufficient to satisfy this element. Common-law rights based on continuous use can also qualify, but they require substantially more evidence: sales figures, media coverage, consumer recognition, and the geographic scope of the reputation.
The trap here is underestimating what "confusingly similar" actually means at this stage. Panels assess it mechanically: strip the TLD, compare the remaining string to the mark. A one-letter transposition (your brand is ACMEX; the domain is acemx.info) typically satisfies the test. The analysis of confusing similarity at element one is not the same as the likelihood-of-confusion analysis in trademark infringement litigation – it is less demanding, deliberately so, because the real work of the case is done under elements two and three.
Gather your trademark registrations, their filing dates and registration numbers, the classes covered, and any renewal certificates. If you are relying on common-law rights, start assembling the evidence now – it will be needed in the complaint itself.
Step 3: Document why the registrant has no legitimate interest – the second UDRP element
The second element is where many complaints are won or lost in practice. You must show that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Because a complainant cannot prove a negative with certainty, the burden shifts once the complainant makes a prima facie case: the respondent must then come forward with evidence of a legitimate interest.
The three Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors a respondent may invoke are: 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. For a typosquat, none of these safe harbors ordinarily applies. A registrant who deliberately misspelled your brand cannot credibly claim to have been "commonly known" by a slight variation of it. A pay-per-click page monetizing your brand's misdirected traffic is not a bona fide commercial offering.
The trap in this step is failing to document the registrant's actual use of the domain before filing. Take timestamped screenshots of the resolving page. Use a web archive service to capture the history of what the domain has displayed. If the page shows pay-per-click links related to your industry, or impersonates your brand, record that in detail. If the domain is parked but not actively resolving, note that too – passive holding by a registrant with no plausible legitimate interest can itself support a bad-faith finding, particularly for a famous or well-known mark.
For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met in your situation, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.
Step 4: Build the bad-faith record – the third UDRP element
The third element is cumulative: the domain must have been registered and used in bad faith. Both halves must be satisfied. A domain registered in good faith but later used for a parking page targeting a competitor is not enough under the strict reading. Equally, a domain registered in clear bad faith but never used (no active website, no MX records) requires a careful argument that passive holding constitutes bad-faith use in the circumstances.
Typosquatting is one of the strongest bad-faith indicators in the UDRP canon. Panels have consistently held that deliberately registering a misspelling of a well-known mark, with no conceivable legitimate purpose, demonstrates bad faith at the point of registration. The deliberateness of the misspelling is key: a single transposition or addition of a common letter is hard for a respondent to explain as coincidence.
Paragraph 4(b) lists non-exhaustive bad-faith factors. For a typical .info typosquat, the most relevant are: registration primarily to sell the domain to the mark owner at a profit above documented out-of-pocket costs; registration to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark; and a pattern of abusive registrations (if the same registrant holds other typosquats of other brands).
Check whether the registrant owns other obviously similar domains. A pattern of abusive registrations is a standalone bad-faith indicator under the Policy, and it is found by running WHOIS/RDDS searches on the registrant name, email, or name server cluster. In our practice, registrants running organized typosquat portfolios often share infrastructure across dozens of domains – that shared infrastructure is useful evidence.
The trap in this step is treating it as the weakest element because the first two feel stronger. Element three is independently assessed. A panel that is persuaded on elements one and two will still deny the complaint if the bad-faith case is thin. Treat each element as if it were the only one that matters.
Step 5: Choose your forum and prepare the complaint
For a .info domain, WIPO and the Forum are the two dominant UDRP providers, together accounting for roughly 97% of all UDRP proceedings. The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) is an option at lower cost but is the least-used of the four accredited providers. ADNDRC is available but primarily serves Asian-nexus cases.
How should you choose? The decision turns on cost, panel pool, and the profile of the registrant. WIPO's filing fee for a single domain, single-member panel is USD 1,500. The Forum's entry point is approximately USD 1,300 for one or two domains. CAC begins around USD 500–800. The filing fee does not include legal fees, which are a separate engagement.
WIPO publishes a broader set of decisions and its jurisprudential overview is the most-cited reference in the field. For straightforward single-domain typosquat cases, either WIPO or the Forum works well. For multi-domain portfolios held by the same registrant, a single complaint can cover all domains if the registrant of record is the same – that consolidation can significantly reduce the per-domain cost.
WIPO also offers an expedited option delivering a decision within approximately one month, available for single-panel cases of up to five domains. If speed is the priority – for example, if the typosquat is actively diverting customers – that expedited path is worth assessing.
The complaint itself must identify the domain, recite the three elements with evidence, and request transfer or cancellation. Attach as annexes the trademark registration certificates, screenshots of the infringing use, and any prior correspondence with the registrant. Make the annexes self-explanatory; a panel should not need to read the complaint to understand an annex.
The trap in this step is underestimating the complaint drafting task. A complaint that merely recites the elements without tying them to the specific evidence routinely fails. Each factual claim must be supported by a specific exhibit, and the reasoning must connect the exhibit to the legal conclusion.
Step 6: Manage the response window and the panel appointment
Once the forum accepts the complaint and formally commences the case, the respondent has 20 days to file a response. That window runs from the date of commencement, not the date of filing. The distinction matters: commencement requires formal notice to the registrar and confirmation of registrar compliance, which can add a few days to the start of the clock.
Most typosquat registrants default – they do not respond. Default is not an automatic win. The panel still evaluates the complaint on the merits. A default does remove the risk of a respondent's evidence contradicting yours, but a thin complaint will still be denied.
If the respondent does respond, read it carefully before assuming the case is contested. Respondents sometimes submit formulaic or incoherent responses that actually weaken their position. In our practice, we have defended respondents in .info matters where the complainant's complaint was over-reaching; we have also reviewed respondent replies in complainant-side matters and found the response helped rather than hurt the case. The quality of both sides' submissions drives the outcome.
The respondent may request a three-member panel. If the complainant originally requested a single panelist, both sides generally split the higher three-member fee. That cost-sharing dynamic means the complainant's budget may increase mid-case. Plan for it.
After the response window closes, the forum appoints the panel. A standard case is normally completed within approximately two months of filing overall. The panel issues a written decision. If the decision orders transfer, the registrar implements it within ten business days absent a court challenge from the respondent.
Step 7: Understand the realistic outcome and what to do if the complaint fails
The only remedies the UDRP offers are transfer and cancellation. There are no monetary damages, no costs awards, and no injunctions. If you want damages for the harm caused by the typosquat – lost customers, revenue diversion, brand confusion – the UDRP cannot give you that. US anticybersquatting litigation can reach money, but that is a court route handled with local litigation counsel and is substantially more expensive.
What if the panel denies the complaint? A denial does not bar you from filing in court. It does not prevent a future UDRP filing if circumstances change – for example, if the registrant's use of the domain changes or new bad-faith evidence emerges. But it does produce a public record of the denial, and a subsequent panel will be aware of it.
There is also the risk of a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding. RDNH occurs when a panel concludes the complaint was brought in bad faith – for example, because the complainant knew the respondent had a legitimate interest and filed anyway, or because the trademark was registered after the domain. An RDNH finding is reputational rather than monetary: there is no penalty, but it is published and can be cited by future panels. Avoid filing a complaint that is not well-grounded.
In a recent matter (a .info typosquat dispute, spring 2025), we assessed a complaint for a brand owner in the consumer goods sector who had received a five-figure buy-back demand from the registrant. The evidence on all three elements was strong: a registered mark predating the domain, a pay-per-click page with the complainant's branded terms, and a registrant whose portfolio included approximately a dozen similar typosquats across other brands. We filed at WIPO. The panel transferred the domain within the standard timeframe.
Is UDRP the only route to recover a typosquatted .info domain?
No. The right route depends on what you need and how the facts sit. For a .info domain where you want transfer and speed is important, UDRP is almost always the correct starting point. It is faster and less expensive than litigation, and the typosquat fact pattern is among the strongest the UDRP sees.
If the registrant is in the United States and you also want financial compensation for the harm done, US anticybersquatting litigation is the only path that offers damages. That route requires local litigation counsel, is slower, and costs more – but it is available in parallel with or instead of UDRP where the brand owner's priorities warrant it.
If the same registrant also holds a .ca typosquat, note that the Canadian domain procedure operates separately from the UDRP, with its own eligibility rules and a different test. A single UDRP complaint can cover multiple domains only if the registrant of record is the same holder; it cannot bridge the gap between WIPO's UDRP and a CIRA CDRP filing. Those are separate proceedings with separate fees.
For brand owners facing a pattern of registrations – the same registrant holding typosquats across .com, .info, and one or more ccTLDs simultaneously – the correct strategy is a coordinated filing plan, not a single complaint. We regularly advise brand owners on sequencing those filings to maximize efficiency and minimize the risk of an adverse finding in any one proceeding affecting the others.
To weigh UDRP against a court action for your .info typosquat case, email info@cognomenlaw.com.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions
How do I start to recover a typosquatted .info domain?
Begin by confirming your trademark rights and gathering evidence of the registrant's use of the domain. Then select a UDRP provider – WIPO or the Forum for most cases – and prepare a complaint that addresses all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity to your mark, the registrant's lack of legitimate interest, and registration and use in bad faith. The forum's filing fee at WIPO is USD 1,500 for a single domain on a single-member panel. Legal fees are separate. Filing commences the formal process, and the respondent then has 20 days to respond.
What are the realistic outcomes when you recover a typosquatted .info domain?
If the complaint succeeds, the panel orders transfer of the domain to the complainant or cancellation of the registration. Those are the only two remedies the UDRP offers – there are no damages or cost awards. If the complaint is denied, the registrant keeps the domain. The denial is published and creates a record. A well-founded typosquat complaint, supported by evidence of deliberate misspelling and bad-faith use, has strong prospects before a panel, but outcomes depend on the specific facts and panel discretion; no result can be guaranteed.
How do fees split if the case escalates?
If the complainant requests a single-member panel but the respondent requests a three-member panel, the parties generally split the higher three-member fee. At WIPO, a three-member panel for one to five domains costs USD 4,000, so each side would typically contribute half of the increment above the single-member fee. The complainant's legal fees remain a separate engagement and do not change because of the panel-size request. Budget for the escalation scenario when planning the filing.
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
This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.