Transfer rates in the Nominet DRS: what the .uk data shows

In 2024, Nominet reported that roughly 45% of decided .uk DRS cases ended in transfer – a concrete benchmark for anyone weighing whether to file or respond under the Dispute Resolution Service. That figure tells part of the story. The free mediation stage, the "registered or used" abusive-registration test, and the shift in administration since July 2026 shape the other part.

The Nominet DRS governs domain disputes in the .uk zone under a distinct national procedure – not the UDRP. Roughly 45% of decided .uk cases in 2024 resulted in transfer, according to Nominet's own reporting. Since 7 July 2026, new DRS filings are handled by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, though the governing Policy, the expert panel, and Nominet-staffed mediation remain unchanged.

This page sets out what the 2024 data shows, how the DRS procedure produces that outcome, and what changed on 7 July 2026 for parties with a .uk dispute to resolve.

What the 2024 transfer rate tells you

Roughly 45% of decided .uk DRS cases in 2024 ended in transfer – the standard remedy where the complainant proves an abusive registration. That proportion, drawn from Nominet's own reporting, is a useful benchmark. It reflects a procedure that applies a lower evidentiary bar than the UDRP: the DRS reads "registered or used" abusively, not the UDRP's cumulative "registered and used in bad faith."

The remaining decided cases split between dismissals and decisions where the registrant's legitimate interest survived scrutiny. Roughly 15% of WIPO UDRP cases settle before a decision; a comparable settlement pattern exists in the DRS, where Nominet-staffed mediation intervenes at no extra cost to the parties. Many disputes that would otherwise produce a formal expert decision are resolved – or withdrawn – at the mediation stage. The published 45% figure covers decided cases only, so the full rate of outcomes favoring complainants is higher once mediated resolutions are counted.

What does this mean for a brand owner? A .uk dispute is neither a sure win nor a procedural formality. The DRS is efficient and comparatively affordable, but the outcome still turns on evidence – screenshots, trademark registration details, the chronology of registration relative to the mark, and the registrant's conduct after registration.

How does the Nominet DRS procedure work?

The DRS is a distinct national procedure that applies exclusively to .uk domains. It does not apply to .com, .eu, or any other zone. Where a response is filed, the parties are automatically opted into a free mediation stage before any expert fee is incurred.

If mediation succeeds, the case closes without a formal decision. If mediation fails, or if the registrant simply defaults, the complainant pays the expert fee and the case proceeds to a written decision. Nominet's published expert fees are GBP 200 + VAT for a summary (undefended) decision and GBP 750 + VAT for a full expert decision. An appeal goes to a three-expert panel within ten working days; the appeal fee is GBP 3,000 + VAT.

A reasoned case typically concludes in about 8–12 weeks, though the mediation stage can extend or compress that window. The DRS also recognizes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – a panel finding that the complaint was filed abusively. That finding carries a reputational rather than monetary consequence, mirroring the UDRP approach.

The legal test differs meaningfully from the UDRP. Under the DRS, the complainant must show rights in a name and that the registration took unfair advantage of, or was unfairly detrimental to, those rights. The critical distinction: the test reads "registered or used" abusively. A registrant who registered innocently but later deployed the domain in a way that harms the rights holder can still lose under the DRS. The UDRP requires both elements to be present simultaneously.

What changed on 7 July 2026?

Effective 7 July 2026, the Nominet DRS is administered by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. New cases are filed through WIPO's platform. Cases filed before that date stayed with Nominet under the prior administrative arrangements.

The substantive rules did not change. The governing DRS Policy, the independent expert panel, the Nominet-staffed mediation stage, and the published fee schedule all remain as before. WIPO administers the procedure; Nominet remains the registry and the mediation service. For parties used to filing UDRP complaints through WIPO, the intake process will feel familiar – but the governing rules and the test applied are those of the Nominet DRS, not the UDRP.

As of October 23, 2026, this is the operative structure. Verify the current administrative position with the relevant registrar or with counsel before filing.

Who should care about .uk transfer rates?

Two audiences, different stakes. Brand owners with a registered UK trademark and a .uk domain that has been registered by a third party stand to benefit from the DRS's "registered or used" standard – the bar for proving abusive use is lower than under the UDRP. If the registrant is using the domain in a way that is detrimental to the mark, the complainant need not also prove bad faith at the point of registration.

Registrants holding .uk domains face the corresponding risk. A domain legitimately registered can still be challenged if subsequent use is found to take unfair advantage of another party's rights. That asymmetry in the DRS test is the most common surprise for registrants who assumed the UDRP's "registered and used" standard applies in the .uk zone. It does not.

A common assumption in this area is that every country uses the UDRP. Many ccTLDs run their own procedure with materially different rules. For .uk, the difference in the bad-faith test alone can decide a case that would fail under the UDRP and succeed under the DRS – or vice versa. For an assessment of whether your .uk dispute meets the DRS standard, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

What to do now

If you have a .uk dispute – whether as a brand owner or a registrant – the operative question is whether the conduct at issue satisfies the "abusive registration" standard under the Nominet DRS Policy. That analysis begins with the chronology: when was the domain registered, what rights existed at that date, and how has the domain been used since?

Filing through WIPO's platform (for new cases as of 7 July 2026) is the correct channel. The mediation stage is free and automatic where a response is filed. In our practice, the mediation stage produces early settlement in a meaningful proportion of .uk disputes – particularly where the registrant has not invested significantly in the domain and the complainant's trademark position is clear. That outcome avoids the GBP 750 expert fee and the 8–12 week decision timeline.

Where mediation fails, the evidence assembled during the mediation stage becomes the foundation of the expert submission. Preparing that evidence before the mediation starts – not after – is the practice discipline that most affects outcomes.

COGNOMEN focuses exclusively on domain-name disputes, including .uk DRS proceedings, respondent-side DRS defense, and cross-zone matters spanning .uk and .com registrations. To discuss a .uk domain dispute, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• cctld disputes – national zone procedures, filing routes, and ccTLD remedies explained
• Large consolidated UDRP filings: many domains, one complaint – how multi-domain complaints work across a single registrant
• guide cctld transfer remedy sg – when transfer is available in ccTLD zones and how to pursue it

Author: Gabriel Tennison — ccTLD and European procedures (.uk, .eu, .de). 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.