The 'true cancellation' proposal explained
On 2 December 2025, WIPO and the Internet Commerce Association published the first comprehensive review of the UDRP in the Policy's twenty-five-year history. Among its proposals, one has drawn the most immediate attention from brand owners and domain investors alike: a remedy called "true cancellation." Under current rules, a cancellation order returns a domain to the open pool. A good-faith buyer could register it the next day. The proposal would change that result – but it has not been adopted.
The "true cancellation" proposal, as recommended on 2 December 2025, would protect a legitimate third-party registrant from losing a domain it acquired in good faith when a UDRP panel orders cancellation rather than transfer. It remains a recommendation under review, not a rule in force. As of September 20, 2026, verify the current position with counsel before relying on it.
This page explains what the current remedy does, why the proposal matters, and what brand owners and registrants should do in the meantime.
What is the current cancellation remedy, and why does it fall short?
Today, a UDRP panel has exactly two remedies: transfer the domain to the complainant, or cancel it. Transfer is the more common outcome when the complainant holds the stronger trademark claim. Cancellation is ordered where transfer would be inappropriate – for example, where the complainant's own rights are ambiguous, or where a panel finds the dispute is better resolved by returning the name to the pool rather than handing it to the brand owner.
The problem with cancellation is structural. When a domain is cancelled, it re-enters the general registration queue. Any person – including the original respondent operating through a related entity, or an opportunistic third party – can register it again immediately. The brand owner wins the UDRP and then faces the same problem days later. In our practice we have seen complainants obtain cancellation orders and then discover the name was re-registered before the registrar had completed its withdrawal procedures.
The proposal addresses a second scenario too: a registrant who genuinely acquired a domain in good faith after a prior abusive registration was cancelled. That registrant holds the name legitimately. Under current rules, a later complainant could still pursue a UDRP and the panel has no mechanism to protect the innocent acquirer beyond the safe harbors in Paragraph 4(c). "True cancellation" would give the panel a tool to recognize and preserve that good-faith acquisition.
What exactly does the "true cancellation" proposal recommend?
The 2 December 2025 report describes "true cancellation" as a distinct remedy that goes beyond returning a domain to the open pool. The specific mechanism – whether it involves a hold period, a reserved registration for the complainant, or some other protection – is listed among the recommendations agreed in principle but left for further procedural work. The report did not specify the technical implementation, which remains under consideration.
What the report did confirm is the policy objective: preventing a domain from being immediately re-registered by the same bad-faith actor or by an uninformed third party after a cancellation order. Whether that objective is achieved through a registration suspension window, a registrar-level hold, or a first-refusal mechanism for the complainant is a design question the working group has not yet resolved.
The report did NOT recommend a "loser pays" costs regime, monetary damages for complainants, mandatory mediation, or a limitation period. Those requests were considered and declined.
It is equally important to state what the proposal does not do. It does not transform cancellation into a full transfer. A complainant who cannot prove all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) – identical or confusingly similar domain, no legitimate interest, and bad faith registration and use – will not receive a transfer order simply because "true cancellation" is adopted. The remedy operates within the existing three-element structure. It would refine what happens after a cancellation finding, not lower the threshold for reaching one.
Who is affected, and why does this matter now?
Brand owners who rely on the UDRP to clear cybersquatted names will benefit most if the proposal is adopted. For them, cancellation currently offers incomplete relief. A transfer is a clean outcome; cancellation is a temporary one. "True cancellation" would close that gap – at least for the window immediately after a panel order.
Domain investors and registrants face a more nuanced position. A well-settled legitimate interest under Paragraph 4(c) already provides a strong defense: if a registrant acquired a domain before any notice of a dispute, uses it for a bona fide purpose, and is not commonly associated with the complainant's mark, the UDRP's safe harbors protect that registration. The concern is a narrower one – the innocent acquirer who picked up a name after an earlier cancellation without knowing the mark owner wanted it. That registrant stands exposed to a second UDRP on the same name. "True cancellation" could offer a procedural basis for protection, though the details are not yet settled.
For anyone monitoring a domain portfolio or planning a UDRP filing, the timing is significant. WIPO administered 6,282 domain-name cases in 2025 – its highest caseload on record. Panels regularly issue cancellation rather than transfer in disputed-rights situations. The volume means that even a small proportion of cancellation orders generates a meaningful number of names that cycle back to the open pool each year. Whether "true cancellation" is adopted, and in what form, will have practical consequences at scale.
For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met in your situation, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.
What should brand owners and registrants do now?
The proposal has not been adopted. The UDRP, as of September 20, 2026, operates on its existing terms. Verify the current position with counsel before treating any recommendation from the 2 December 2025 report as operative. That caveat applies equally to the other recommended changes in the report – an appeals layer, standardized decision templates, identified dissenting panelists – none of which have been implemented as of this writing.
For brand owners whose domain problem cannot wait for a policy reform, the existing UDRP provides the main route. If the registrant is using the domain to attract users by trading on your mark, Paragraph 4(b) bad-faith evidence can be assembled now. The WIPO filing fee for a single-member panel is USD 1,500, with a standard case completing in roughly two months. Where speed matters, WIPO's expedited option – available since 9 March 2026 for single-panelist cases covering up to five domains – targets a decision in about one month, at a fee of USD 4,000. The choice of forum and procedure depends on the evidence and the zone.
Many brand owners assume that holding a registered trademark guarantees a transfer order. It does not. The panel must be satisfied on all three elements, and cancellation rather than transfer remains a possible outcome on ambiguous facts. Understanding the distinction between the two remedies – and why the December 2025 proposal exists – is a prerequisite to planning any filing strategy realistically.
If a cancellation concern is already part of your current matter, or if you are a registrant who acquired a domain that was previously the subject of a UDRP, contact info@cognomenlaw.com to discuss the specific facts.
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. COGNOMEN handles UDRP matters exclusively, across gTLDs and ccTLDs, and we follow policy developments of the kind described here as they affect filing and defense strategy. To discuss a domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions
What changed and when?
On 2 December 2025, WIPO and the Internet Commerce Association published a comprehensive review of the UDRP recommending a "true cancellation" remedy that would protect good-faith third-party registrants when a panel orders cancellation rather than transfer. That recommendation has not been adopted as of September 20, 2026. The UDRP continues to operate on its current terms – transfer or cancellation to the open pool – until any reform is formally implemented. Verify the current status with counsel.
Who does this affect?
Brand owners who have relied on cancellation orders will be most directly affected if the proposal is adopted, because the current remedy leaves the domain available for immediate re-registration. Domain investors and registrants who acquired a name after a prior cancellation also have a direct interest: "true cancellation" could provide a procedural protection for genuinely good-faith acquirers. Anyone planning a UDRP filing or holding a domain that was previously disputed should understand how cancellation works today and how it may change.
What should I do now?
If your dispute is live or imminent, act on the rules as they stand today: the UDRP requires proof of all three elements of Paragraph 4(a), and the available remedies are transfer or cancellation to the open pool. The proposal is still under consideration as of September 20, 2026. Monitor WIPO and ICANN publications for any formal amendment, and contact a domain disputes specialist to assess your specific facts before filing or responding to a complaint.
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.