How to check eligibility to recover a .in domain
Your brand name is registered as a .in domain by someone who has no connection to your business. They are parking it, redirecting traffic, or demanding payment to sell it back. You want to know whether you can recover it – and what the actual process looks like. The .in country-code zone has its own dispute procedure, the IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP), which operates independently of the UDRP but borrows its three-element structure. Knowing whether you meet the threshold before you file is the difference between a clean transfer order and a procedural dead end.
To check eligibility to recover a .in domain, a complainant must establish all three INDRP elements: that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain; and that the domain has been registered or is being used in bad faith. The INDRP is administered by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), and cases are decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of India. Filing fees are published by NIXI and are distinct from legal fees.
This page covers the eligibility test element by element, what evidence decides the outcome, how the INDRP differs from the UDRP in ways that matter, and what a realistic first step looks like if you are ready to act.
What is the INDRP and who administers .in disputes?
The INDRP is the mandatory dispute-resolution policy attached to every .in domain registration, administered by NIXI – the National Internet Exchange of India – through an arbitral process, rather than through the accredited UDRP provider model. That procedural choice has consequences. INDRP disputes are governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act applicable in India, meaning the arbitrator's decision carries the legal weight of an arbitral award, not simply an administrative panel decision. Enforcement, appeal, and any challenge to a decision all follow Indian arbitration law rather than the UDRP's narrow review mechanism.
Practically, this means that when you check eligibility to recover a .in domain, you are not just running the UDRP checklist. You are entering a domestic arbitral procedure with its own timelines, its own arbitrator pool, and its own enforcement backbone. WIPO and the Forum, the two dominant UDRP providers, have no role here. A complaint is filed directly with NIXI, which then appoints an arbitrator from its panel. Parties may request a single or three-member arbitral tribunal, with fee consequences either way.
One structural difference from the UDRP is worth flagging at the outset. The INDRP bad-faith element reads "registered or used" in bad faith – not the UDRP's cumulative "registered and used." That single-word change opens the door for complainants whose mark was registered after the domain was created, provided the registrant's use is itself abusive. In our practice advising brand owners across ccTLD zones, we find that difference is the most underestimated feature of the Indian procedure.
What trademark rights qualify under the INDRP eligibility test?
The first INDRP element requires rights in a trademark or service mark; without that anchor, no complaint can proceed. Registered trademark rights are the clearest basis. An Indian trademark registration is the strongest single document, but the INDRP does not require the mark to be registered in India specifically. Rights established under the law of any jurisdiction are recognized, provided the complainant can demonstrate that those rights exist and that the domain corresponds to them.
Unregistered or common-law trademark rights are also available, following the same permissive approach used under the UDRP. Where a complainant relies on reputation or use rather than registration, the evidence burden rises. Demonstrating secondary meaning – through sales figures, advertising spend, press coverage, or third-party recognition – becomes the central task. We regularly advise brand owners who have traded under a name for years without registration that the eligibility question is not closed; it is merely harder to satisfy on the first element alone.
The mark and the domain must be identical or confusingly similar. Generic top-level domain extensions are typically disregarded in the comparison, and so is the .in extension itself. A domain that adds a descriptive word to a distinctive mark, or swaps a character in a recognizable brand, ordinarily satisfies this limb. Panels – or arbitrators – applying the INDRP have generally followed the UDRP consensus that this is a low bar: the threshold filters out only domains that bear no plausible connection to the mark at issue.
For a read on whether the three INDRP elements are met on your specific facts, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.
Does the registrant have rights or legitimate interests – and how do you show they do not?
The second element is where many INDRP complainants encounter unexpected friction. The burden starts with the complainant, who must make a prima facie showing that the registrant lacks any rights or legitimate interests. Once that showing is made, the burden shifts – the registrant must come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest, or risk a finding against them by default.
The INDRP, following the UDRP model, enumerates three safe harbors that a registrant can invoke: a bona fide offering of goods or services under the domain name before any notice of the dispute; being commonly known by the domain name; and legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent to mislead or divert traffic. If none of those safe harbors applies on the facts, the complainant's position is substantially strengthened.
In practice, the second element turns on what the domain is actually doing. A parking page generating pay-per-click revenue from keywords drawn from the complainant's mark is the clearest negative signal. A domain that redirects to a competitor's site, hosts counterfeit goods listings, or simply resolves nowhere after a lengthy registration period are further patterns that support the conclusion that the registrant holds the domain not for any legitimate purpose but to extract value from the brand.
What about a registrant who argues they registered the name as a common dictionary word, or as their own initials, or for a planned but not yet launched business? Those arguments are available. Arbitrators applying the INDRP weigh them against the overall context: the registrant's conduct since registration, whether any genuine preparatory steps were taken, and the timing of the registration relative to the mark's prominence. A registrant who can produce credible evidence of genuine preparations has a real defense. One who cannot – and who defaulted in the proceedings – will almost always lose the second element.
How does "registered or used in bad faith" work under the INDRP?
This is the element where the INDRP most meaningfully diverges from the UDRP. Under the UDRP, the complaint must show that the domain was both registered in bad faith and is currently used in bad faith – a cumulative test that has tripped up complainants whose marks post-date the registration. The INDRP requires the domain to have been registered or to be used in bad faith. The disjunctive reading creates a separate path for complainants whose mark became famous after the registration date, if current bad-faith use can be demonstrated independently.
The INDRP enumerates circumstances evidencing bad faith that closely track the UDRP's Paragraph 4(b) list: an offer to sell the domain to the mark owner for excess of out-of-pocket costs; a pattern of abusive registrations; registration to disrupt a competitor; and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain by creating confusion with the mark. These are illustrative, not exhaustive. Arbitrators have applied the INDRP to find bad faith in cases of passive holding where no active use occurs but the domain has no plausible legitimate purpose.
Passive holding is worth examining carefully. Under the UDRP, the consensus view is that passive holding can constitute bad faith use if surrounding circumstances – the distinctiveness of the mark, the absence of any credible good-faith use, the registrant's failure to respond – make active use of the domain for a legitimate purpose implausible. INDRP arbitrators have adopted that reasoning. A registrant who holds a domain incorporating a well-known Indian brand, does nothing with it, and refuses all contact will find that position difficult to defend.
In a recent matter – a .in domain corresponding to a mid-sized Indian consumer goods brand, spring 2025 – we assessed a potential INDRP complaint and identified that the registration pre-dated the trademark filing by roughly six months. Under the UDRP that timing gap could have been fatal. Under the INDRP's disjunctive bad-faith standard, current use of the domain as a pay-per-click landing page drawing from the brand's keywords provided an independent basis to proceed. The complaint was filed on the "used in bad faith" limb, and the transfer order followed.
How does the INDRP procedure actually run – and how long does it take?
The complaint is submitted directly to NIXI, which checks it for administrative compliance before forwarding it to the respondent. The respondent then has an opportunity to file a response within the time limit set by NIXI's rules. If no response is filed, the arbitrator proceeds on the record of the complaint alone – a default scenario that is common and not inherently decisive in the complainant's favor; the arbitrator must still be satisfied on all three elements.
After the response period, NIXI appoints an arbitrator. The arbitrator may request additional submissions, hold a hearing, or decide the matter on the papers. Once a decision is issued, NIXI implements the outcome – a transfer of the domain to the complainant, cancellation, or a finding for the respondent. The full timeline varies. Cases decided on the papers without supplemental proceedings are typically resolved more quickly than those where the arbitrator requests a hearing. Compared to UDRP proceedings, which routinely conclude within roughly two months at WIPO, INDRP timelines are less standardized; parties should plan for the process to take somewhat longer in contested matters.
Appeals from an INDRP decision follow Indian arbitration law rather than a bespoke policy-level review mechanism. That is a structural feature that distinguishes the INDRP from the UDRP, where a dissatisfied party's primary avenue is a court action in the registrant's or registrar's jurisdiction. Under the INDRP, the framework for challenging an award is the applicable domestic statute on arbitration, with all the grounds that entails – but also all the procedural requirements.
To assess your eligibility and plan the INDRP filing strategy, email info@cognomenlaw.com.
What evidence do you need to build an INDRP complaint?
An INDRP complaint lives or dies on its evidence package. The arbitrator receives the record the parties produce; there is no discovery mechanism. Assembling the right documents before filing is the single most controllable factor in the outcome.
For the first element – trademark rights – the core documents are the trademark registration certificate or, for unregistered rights, a body of evidence showing prior use: sales data, invoices, dated advertising materials, press coverage, distributor agreements, or any combination that establishes when the mark acquired distinctiveness and in which markets. If the mark is registered in India, include the registration extract and certificate. If the registration is foreign, include a certified copy and consider whether to provide a brief note on recognition of that right in an Indian context.
For the second element – no rights or legitimate interests – the evidence is often what is absent from the registrant's profile. A WHOIS or RDDS lookup showing the registrant is not commonly known by the disputed name; screenshots demonstrating the domain is used as a parking page, a redirect, or an inactive holding; and a record of any correspondence in which the registrant demanded payment all build the complainant's case without requiring proof of a negative in the strict sense.
For the third element – bad faith – the most useful materials are: screenshots of the domain's current and historical use (the Wayback Machine is a standard source); records of any demand made by the registrant; evidence of a pattern of similar registrations by the same holder; and, where passive holding is alleged, a showing that the mark is sufficiently well-known to make any good-faith use implausible. Dating all screenshots with URL metadata and capture timestamps is a basic requirement that is often overlooked.
In a recent matter – a .in domain held by a foreign-based registrant, late 2024 – we advised a complainant that a single undated screenshot of a parking page would not be sufficient. We rebuilt the evidence record using archived captures across an eighteen-month window, showing consistent PPC monetization of the brand's keywords throughout. That chronological record was what the arbitrator cited in the transfer order. Evidence quality, not complaint volume, is what moves the outcome.
How does the INDRP compare with other routes for .in recovery?
The decision about which route to pursue is the core strategic question every brand owner should answer before committing to a filing. Three routes are in practice available for .in domain disputes, and they serve different situations.
The INDRP is the standard administrative route. It is faster and less expensive than court litigation, produces a binary outcome (transfer or cancellation, on one side; dismissal, on the other), and – critically – offers no monetary remedy. If the value you are trying to recover is the domain name itself, the INDRP is generally the right starting point. If you also need damages, account for wrongfully diverted traffic, or require interim injunctive relief to stop ongoing harm during the proceedings, the INDRP alone cannot deliver those remedies.
Indian court action is the alternative where broader remedies are needed. A court can issue an injunction, award damages, and order discovery – none of which the INDRP provides. The trade-off is time and cost: court proceedings are substantially more resource-intensive and unpredictable in duration. For most cases where the primary objective is return of the domain name, the INDRP's streamlined procedure is preferred. Where the infringement is serious and ongoing harm is measurable, a parallel or sequential court action may be warranted, handled by local litigation counsel in India.
A third scenario arises when the same bad actor has registered both the .in domain and a corresponding .com or other gTLD domain. In that situation, separate proceedings may be necessary in parallel: the INDRP for the .in, and a UDRP complaint before WIPO, the Forum, or the Czech Arbitration Court for the gTLD. A single UDRP complaint cannot cover a .in domain – the UDRP applies only to gTLDs and those ccTLDs that have adopted it, and .in has not adopted the UDRP in place of the INDRP. Planning both proceedings simultaneously, with aligned evidence packages, is more efficient than sequential filing.
What are the realistic costs of an INDRP proceeding?
INDRP costs have two distinct components: NIXI's official filing and arbitrator fees, and the legal fees charged separately by counsel preparing and prosecuting the complaint. These must not be confused.
NIXI's published fees are set by the registry and are payable at filing. They cover the administrative process and the arbitrator's appointment. Those fees are separate from – and typically lower than – the WIPO filing fee of USD 1,500 for a single-member UDRP panel on one to five domains. For the current NIXI fee schedule, confirm the figures directly with NIXI before filing, as published schedules can be updated. Legal fees for preparing an INDRP complaint depend on the complexity of the trademark evidence, the number of domains involved, and whether the matter is contested. Market ranges for administrative domain-dispute complaints – across all procedures, not specific to the INDRP – commonly run in a range comparable to similar UDRP work, though the INDRP's domestic arbitral character and the evidence burden involved may affect the time required.
There is no costs award in INDRP proceedings in the ordinary case. Neither a winning complainant nor a prevailing respondent recovers legal fees from the other side. That structural feature is shared with the UDRP. The only monetary dynamic to account for is the filing fee itself and the potential for a three-member tribunal if the respondent requests one – a scenario that increases the arbitrator fee. COGNOMEN publishes transparent pricing ranges for ccTLD dispute work, available on request, rather than obscuring fees behind a "price on application" screen.
What should a respondent do when facing an INDRP complaint?
Not every INDRP complaint is well-founded. Brand owners sometimes file against domain registrants who have entirely legitimate interests – who were commonly known by the name before the trademark arose, who have used the domain for a genuine business for years, or who hold a mark of their own in the same space. A registrant who receives an INDRP complaint has a real opportunity to defend, and defaulting is almost always the worst outcome.
The first step is to assess the complaint on its merits – specifically, whether any of the INDRP's recognized defenses is available. Legitimate-interest evidence is the core of any respondent defense: documentation of prior use, a business registration in the name, correspondence showing a good-faith relationship with the domain, or a registered mark of the respondent's own. The earlier in the registration history that evidence can be anchored, the stronger the defense.
Where a complaint appears to have been filed with no plausible legal basis – to harass a legitimate registrant or to weaponize the procedure against a domain investor who acquired the name before the complainant's mark was in use – the respondent should document that pattern carefully. While the INDRP does not replicate the UDRP's express Reverse Domain Name Hijacking mechanism by name, the principle that a complaint filed in abuse of the procedure can be addressed on the record is available, and an arbitrator who finds the complaint meritless on all three elements has made a finding that the complainant's case was without foundation. We regularly advise registrants on respondent-side defense in INDRP and parallel UDRP proceedings; that work is a core part of our practice, not a secondary service.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions about checking eligibility to recover a .in domain
Is it worth it to check eligibility to recover a .in domain?
Yes, in almost every case where you hold trademark rights and the domain corresponds to your mark. An eligibility check costs little time and clarifies whether the three INDRP elements are met before any fees are committed. A domain held by a bad-faith registrant costs your business traffic, credibility, and customer trust for every day it remains out of your control. The INDRP's disjunctive bad-faith standard – "registered or used" – also means that cases that would fail the UDRP's stricter "registered and used" test may still succeed. Assess the elements first; the strength of your position on each limb determines whether filing is the right move.
What are the most common mistakes when you check eligibility to recover a .in domain?
The three most common errors are: relying on a single undated screenshot as the bad-faith evidence; assuming that an Indian trademark registration is required when foreign marks qualify; and overlooking the "used in bad faith" limb when the registration date pre-dates the mark. A fourth error specific to the INDRP is conflating it with the UDRP and applying UDRP-only case reasoning to an INDRP filing. The INDRP is a distinct procedure under Indian arbitration law, and the evidence and argument must be tailored accordingly.
Can a three-member panel change the outcome?
A three-member arbitral tribunal under the INDRP can produce a different result than a sole arbitrator, particularly in close cases where the bad-faith or legitimate-interest elements are genuinely contested. Parties may request a three-member tribunal, with the higher arbitrator fee applying. In cases where the legal question is genuinely uncertain – for example, where the mark acquired distinctiveness only recently, or where the registrant has produced some evidence of legitimate use – the three-member option is worth evaluating. In straightforward matters, a sole arbitrator is typically sufficient and produces the faster result.
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 – including the INDRP for .in – and in court where arbitration cannot reach. We act for brand owners, domain investors, and registrants, including respondent-side defense and cases involving procedural abuse. Our practice covers gTLD and ccTLD zones across six continents. To discuss your .in domain or any other dispute, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
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.