What the UDRP review did not recommend, and why it matters

On December 2, 2025, WIPO and the Internet Commerce Association published the first comprehensive review of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy since its adoption in 1999. The report ran to dozens of pages. What it did not recommend turns out to be as significant as what it did.

The review declined to recommend a loser-pays costs regime, monetary damages, mandatory mediation, or a limitation period – the four reforms most frequently proposed by critics of the current system. Those omissions were deliberate, not oversights. They preserve the UDRP's core character: a fast, low-cost administrative procedure that resolves the narrow question of abusive registration without becoming a court. For anyone holding a brand or a domain, understanding why those proposals were rejected shapes how you use the Policy today and what you cannot expect from it.

This page sets out what the review concluded, what it declined to adopt, and what the practical consequences are for brand owners and registrants as of September 23, 2026.

What the December 2025 UDRP review actually recommended

The review produced several unanimous recommendations that panel practice will absorb over time. Panelists who dissent or concur will be identified, rather than producing anonymous single-voice decisions. Decisions will follow a standardized template, making reasoning easier to compare across providers. Settled consensus positions – already reflected in WIPO's Jurisprudential Overview – will be formally codified rather than left to accumulate case by case.

These are real improvements. Identifying dissent gives practitioners and brand owners a cleaner picture of where the law is contested. A standardized template reduces the occasional decision that omits analysis of an element entirely. Codification reduces the risk that a panel in one forum takes a position sharply at odds with settled practice at another.

None of these changes alters the three-element test of Paragraph 4(a), the list of bad-faith indicators in Paragraph 4(b), or the safe harbors of Paragraph 4(c). The substantive law – and its two available remedies of transfer or cancellation – remains exactly as it was when the Policy launched.

Why did the review reject a loser-pays costs regime?

The absence of a loser-pays rule in UDRP proceedings is not an accident. The review examined it squarely and did not recommend it. The reasoning matters: a fee-shifting regime would deter legitimate complainants with strong marks but limited budgets, and it would deter legitimate registrant-respondents from defending equally valid positions. Both effects would distort outcomes in a system that currently decides roughly 85 percent of cases on the merits, with only about 5 percent denied outright.

There is also a structural reason. The UDRP is an administrative proceeding, not litigation. Its filing fee at WIPO starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel. Adding a cost risk proportional to the other side's legal fees would make it functionally equivalent to court in the one dimension – financial exposure – that most distinguishes it. The Policy's design trades remedial breadth for procedural speed. Loser-pays would break that trade.

What the review did note is that the existing Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) mechanism already addresses the most abusive complainant conduct. An RDNH finding is reputational rather than financial, but panels apply it with increasing consistency where a complaint was clearly brought to deprive a legitimate registrant. That finding remains the answer to abusive filings – not a monetary penalty that would chill meritorious complaints.

A stranger holds the domain that matches your brand and is demanding a five-figure payout. If you are weighing whether to file a UDRP complaint, understanding what the Policy can and cannot deliver is the first step. For an assessment of the three UDRP elements on your facts, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

No monetary damages: what that means in practice

The review confirmed what has always been the position: the UDRP produces no monetary remedies. A complainant who wins receives a transfer or a cancellation order. A respondent who prevails – and potentially receives an RDNH finding – receives no damages for business disruption, reputational harm, or the cost of defense. Those claims belong in court, if they exist at all.

This matters most in two scenarios. First, where the registrant is a competitor who has been diverting customer traffic for months: the domain can be recovered, but the revenue loss during the period of diversion is not recoverable through the Policy. A US anticybersquatting action in court is the only route that reaches money. Second, where the registrant has already transferred the domain to a third party or allowed it to expire: the UDRP order cannot unwind that chain, and a court action with broader remedial powers becomes necessary.

In our practice, we regularly advise brand owners who have both a strong UDRP claim and a parallel damages theory. The sensible sequence is usually to pursue the UDRP transfer first – because it is faster and far less expensive – and then assess whether the damages claim justifies the additional cost of litigation. The review's rejection of a damages remedy within the UDRP preserves that two-track logic rather than collapsing it.

No mandatory mediation: the Policy stays adversarial by design

Mandatory mediation was proposed as a way to reduce the caseload and encourage settlements before a decision issues. The review did not adopt it. The reasoning, broadly, is that the UDRP is already fast enough – a standard case runs to about two months – that adding a compulsory mediation stage would introduce delay for the majority of cases where settlement is unlikely.

The Nominet DRS for .uk domains offers a useful contrast. That procedure includes a free mediation stage before any expert decision, and where a response is filed, the parties are automatically opted into mediation. The mechanism works in part because the DRS sees a different mix of cases – many involving business or personal name disputes where the parties have a prior relationship or a shared commercial interest in a negotiated outcome. UDRP disputes typically do not have that character: a brand owner and a cybersquatter rarely have a basis for a deal other than price.

Parties who want to settle a UDRP dispute remain free to do so, and roughly 15 percent of cases resolve before a decision. That figure reflects the organic rate of settlement in a system where both sides retain counsel and assess their positions once the complaint is filed. Mandatory mediation would not materially improve that rate; it would add time and cost for all parties.

No limitation period: what that means for dormant claims

The review also declined to recommend a limitation period – a cutoff after which a complainant could no longer file a UDRP complaint regardless of how old the infringing registration was. This was arguably the most practically significant rejected proposal for registrants who have held domains for many years.

Many assume that owning the trademark guarantees an automatic transfer. It does not – the three elements must all be satisfied. But the absence of a limitation period means that a registration made years or decades ago remains perpetually challengeable if it was made in bad faith at the time. Panels assess bad faith at the date of registration, and the passage of time does not by itself cure a registration that was abusive from the start. A registrant who acquired a name in good faith and has built a legitimate business around it has stronger defenses, but those defenses rest on the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors, not on the age of the registration.

In a recent matter – a .com dispute, spring 2026 – we defended a registrant who had held the name for over a decade when the complaint arrived. The complainant's trademark post-dated the registration by several years. The key evidence was the registrant's contemporaneous business use, not the length of time that had passed. Without a limitation period, that kind of late-arriving complaint is always possible, and the respondent's preparation needs to reflect that.

What remains under discussion after the review

The review left several questions for further work. An appeals layer for UDRP decisions was agreed in principle but deferred. A "true cancellation" remedy – one that would protect good-faith third parties from the consequences of a domain being cancelled and immediately re-registered by someone else – was similarly noted but not finalized. Expedited tracks were raised but the details remain unresolved as of September 23, 2026; verify the current position before relying on any specific timeline or procedural proposal in this area.

What was not left for further work – because it was not recommended at all – is a costs regime, damages, mandatory mediation, or a limitation period. Those rejections are unlikely to be revisited in any near-term amendment cycle. The review was the first comprehensive examination of the Policy in 25 years, and it chose to preserve the administrative character of the procedure rather than re-engineer it as litigation.

If a prior UDRP filing produced a bad outcome, or if a new complaint has arrived and you are unsure what the review's conclusions mean for your defense, email info@cognomenlaw.com for a focused assessment.

COGNOMEN focuses only on domain-name disputes – recovery, defense, and transactions. We work across gTLDs and ccTLDs, 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. To discuss a domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• udrp recovery – recover a domain through the UDRP complaint process
• Transfer rates in the Nominet DRS: what the .uk data shows – how often .uk disputes result in a domain transfer
• guide recover passive holding pl – how to recover a domain held passively without active use

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.