How to request a three-member panel to defend a .info domain

How to request a three-member panel to defend a .info domain. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your case.

A UDRP complaint lands on your .info domain. The complainant chose a single panelist. You have 20 days to respond – and a decision to make immediately: accept that selection or invoke your right to a three-member panel. That decision can shape the entire proceeding.

To request a three-member panel to defend a .info domain, a respondent must submit the request within the response deadline and pay the additional panel fee difference. Under the UDRP, which governs .info just as it does .com and .net, a respondent who requests three panelists triggers a cost-split: the parties generally share the higher three-member fee, with the complainant covering its portion. The only remedies available are transfer or cancellation – no damages, no injunction – which makes the panel composition a genuine strategic lever, not a formality.

This page covers when the three-member route is right for a .info defense, how to build the legitimate-interest record that wins panels over, when a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding is realistic, and what the process looks like from the moment you request that panel.

Why .info domains fall under the UDRP – and why that matters for your defense

.info is a generic top-level domain governed by the UDRP at ICANN-accredited providers, primarily WIPO and the Forum. The same three-element test that applies to .com applies here: the complainant must show the domain is confusingly similar to a mark it holds, that you have no rights or legitimate interests, and that you registered and are using the domain in bad faith. Those elements are cumulative – all three must be proven – and a respondent who defeats any single element defeats the complaint in full.

That structure matters for strategy. A .info registrant defending a domain does not need to disprove everything the complainant alleges. One solid, documented safe harbor under Paragraph 4(c) is ordinarily enough. In our practice, the element most commonly left thin by complainants is the second – legitimate interest – which is also the element most effectively rebutted by a respondent with a coherent factual record.

Unlike ccTLD procedures, there is no mediation phase before a UDRP complaint proceeds to decision. There is no automatic opt-in to a settlement channel. The respondent's response is often the only substantive submission the panel reads in full. That is why the quality of the response – and the composition of the panel reading it – carries such weight.

When should you request a three-member panel for a .info defense?

A three-member panel is strategically appropriate when the case presents a genuine legal or factual ambiguity that a single panelist might resolve differently on a different day. The request is not always the right call. But in several recurring situations, the three-member option is plainly worth the additional fee.

First, when the domain has real value and the complainant's mark rights are contestable. A brand that was registered after your domain, that covers a different class of goods, or that exists only in a jurisdiction remote from your operation gives the complainant less than it may appear. Three panelists applying independent judgment to that ambiguity produce a more durable outcome.

Second, when the record supports a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding. RDNH – a panel determination that the complainant brought the complaint in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant – is a reputational sanction available under the UDRP. Three panelists are more likely to reach and articulate such a finding than a single appointed panelist who may prefer a narrow outcome. We regularly build RDNH cases in parallel with the substantive defense, and the three-member format gives that argument a fuller hearing.

Third, when prior UDRP decisions on similar facts split. The UDRP has no binding precedent. Panels sometimes reach different conclusions on nearly identical evidence. A three-member panel tends to produce a more considered synthesis of those divergent lines – and a more considered outcome for your domain.

If you are weighing whether to request a three-member panel for a .info domain you have received a complaint against, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com before your response deadline closes.

How do you actually make the request? Step-by-step procedure

Making the request is procedurally straightforward, but it must be done correctly and within the 20-day response window. Missing that window means the single panelist appointed by the provider proceeds without your input on composition.

1. Confirm the forum. Check the complaint to identify which UDRP provider was selected – most often WIPO, sometimes the Forum. Each provider has its own online filing portal and supplemental rules. The substantive UDRP rules are the same; the procedural forms differ.
2. File your response with the three-member election clearly stated. In your response submission, indicate that you elect a three-member panel. At WIPO, this is done through the WIPO ECAF portal; at the Forum, through its online system. The election is a checkbox in the filing interface, but it must be accompanied by the fee payment or a confirmed fee arrangement.
3. Submit your panelist nominations. Each party to a three-member proceeding nominates one panelist from the provider's approved list. The provider appoints the presiding panelist independently. You do not choose the presiding panelist – your nomination fills one of the two party-appointed slots.
4. Pay the fee difference. If the complainant filed for a single panelist at the USD 1,500 WIPO rate and you request three panelists, the three-member fee at WIPO is USD 4,000 for one to five domains. The parties generally split that fee. Confirm the exact split with the provider at the time of filing; the provider invoices each party separately.
5. File the substantive response simultaneously. The election and the response are submitted together within the deadline. Requesting a three-member panel does not extend the response period.

In a recent matter – a .info domain held by a domain investor, winter 2025 – we filed the three-member election and a full substantive response within ten days of receiving the complaint, with a complete RDNH argument alongside the Paragraph 4(c) safe-harbor analysis. The panel found for the respondent on two independent grounds and included an RDNH finding in the decision. The domain was retained.

What evidence decides a .info defense?

The Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors are the evidentiary target. The UDRP lists three: a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute; a showing that you are commonly known by the domain name; or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent to mislead or divert consumers.

Each safe harbor requires its own type of evidence. For the bona fide offering ground, the record must show that the offering predated your receipt of the complaint – screenshots, monetization records, email correspondence, or development files with verifiable dates. For the "commonly known by" ground, documentary evidence of name use in commerce is essential: business registrations, correspondence headers, invoices. For the noncommercial fair-use ground, the content itself and the absence of any competing commercial use are the record.

Beyond those three safe harbors, panels also look at the totality of the circumstances: the relationship between the domain registration date and the complainant's trademark filing date; whether the domain was registered through a pattern of related registrations; whether the domain has been offered for sale at a price clearly exceeding registration costs; and whether the WHOIS data (or RDDS record under current ICANN policy) was masked without explanation in a way that suggests concealment rather than routine privacy use.

Good-faith registration is documented, not merely asserted. A respondent who can show that at the time of registration the complainant's mark was obscure, unregistered, or confined to a different geographic market stands on far stronger ground than one who relies solely on the absence of obvious bad-faith conduct. We build that contemporaneous record from whatever the respondent can produce – and we are direct about the cases where the record is thin.

One further dimension: .info was launched in 2001 as an unrestricted generic TLD. Many .info registrations predate the mark rights that complainants now assert. That chronology can be the single most important fact in the case. If your registration predates the complainant's trademark, the "registered and used in bad faith" element of Paragraph 4(a) faces an immediate logical obstacle that no amount of complainant briefing can fully overcome – because a domain cannot be registered in bad faith toward rights that did not yet exist.

Building the RDNH argument alongside your defense

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a finding that the complaint was filed in bad faith to wrest a legitimately held domain from its registrant. It is the UDRP's only reputational sanction for overreaching complainants. The finding carries no monetary penalty, but it is public, appears in the provider's database, and can deter repeat filers.

An RDNH finding requires more than a losing complainant. Panels look for active bad faith: knowledge that the respondent had a legitimate interest before filing, a timeline showing the complainant's mark clearly postdates the registration, or a complaint advanced primarily to intimidate rather than to vindicate genuine trademark rights. A complainant represented by counsel who should have known better weighs in favor of the finding, though panels vary in how explicitly they say so.

In our experience, RDNH arguments perform best when the three elements are combined: the complainant's mark postdates the domain; the complainant is sophisticated and had access to the registration date before filing; and the complaint's bad-faith evidence is conclusory rather than factual. Three-member panels tend to engage with RDNH arguments more thoroughly than single panelists, which is one practical reason to couple an RDNH strategy with the three-member election.

What is the realistic ceiling? RDNH findings are granted in a minority of cases – panels apply a high threshold. But where the record supports it, failing to plead it leaves a legitimate tool unused. We assess RDNH potential in every respondent matter we handle, and we tell clients honestly when the record does not reach the threshold.

For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met – and whether an RDNH finding is realistic on your facts – reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

Cost structure: what the three-member election actually costs

Forum filing fees and legal fees are entirely separate. Understanding both is essential before deciding whether to elect three panelists.

At WIPO, the standard single-member fee for one to five domains is USD 1,500. The three-member fee for the same range is USD 4,000. When a respondent requests three panelists after a complainant filed for one, the parties generally split the higher fee. The complainant's portion stays at USD 1,500; the respondent pays the USD 2,500 difference. Confirm the exact split and payment instructions with WIPO at the time of filing – the provider invoices each party separately and the amounts can shift by case configuration.

At the Forum, the base filing fee for one to two domains on a single-member panel starts around USD 1,300; the three-member premium is additional and should be confirmed with the Forum directly, as supplemental fees can differ from WIPO's schedule.

Legal fees for a respondent defense are a separate line. Market rates for UDRP respondent work – building the Paragraph 4(c) safe-harbor record, drafting the response, preparing the RDNH argument, nominating a panelist – run in a range broadly comparable to complainant-side work on a similarly complex case. We present our fee structure transparently, in writing, before any engagement begins. That is a practice point we hold to regardless of the size of the case.

Is the three-member premium worth it? For a domain with meaningful value – commercial utility, investment upside, or strategic significance to your business – the additional cost is typically modest relative to the alternative of an adverse transfer. For a low-value domain with a weak respondent record, it may not change the outcome. We help clients make that calculation before committing.

How the .info zone compares to other dispute routes

The right route depends on the zone and the goal. Because .info is a gTLD governed by the UDRP, the path is clear: a UDRP proceeding at WIPO or the Forum, with the respondent's option to elect three panelists. There is no mediation phase, no separate ccTLD procedure, and no eligibility restriction on who can hold a .info domain.

Contrast that with a .uk domain dispute. The Nominet DRS for .uk domains includes a mandatory free mediation stage before any expert proceeds. The substantive test differs from the UDRP – the DRS requires the complainant to show "abusive registration," and the abusiveness can be established by registration or use, a lower cumulative bar than the UDRP's "registered and used in bad faith." The .uk procedure also uses different fee tiers and a different panel structure. A registrant managing both a .info and a .uk version of the same name may face two simultaneous proceedings under two different rulebooks.

For a .de domain, neither the UDRP nor Nominet applies. German domain disputes typically proceed through national courts, with a DENIC DISPUTE entry available to block transfer while litigation proceeds. Court action in Germany involves substantially different timelines and cost structures.

If the domain theft or unauthorized transfer is the issue rather than a trademark-based complaint, the path shifts to registrar escalation, account-compromise documentation, and transfer reversal – a distinct track from UDRP defense even if the domain is a .info. That scenario is addressed separately on our domain investment defense resource.

One cross-zone point worth flagging: if a brand owner files a UDRP against your .info and simultaneously sends a demand letter or files a URS against a new gTLD variant you also hold, each proceeding is independent. A UDRP respondent can defend each forum on its own record. A three-member panel election in one proceeding does not bind the other.

For a broader overview of COGNOMEN's respondent-side services across zones and procedures, see our respondent defense and RDNH practice page.

A common misconception – and what the record actually shows

The most common myth we encounter among .info respondents is that a UDRP is effectively an administrative formality that brand owners always win. That is inaccurate. The UDRP requires a complainant to prove all three elements on the specific record before a specific panel. Complainants who overestimate their position – particularly where the respondent's registration predates the trademark or where the domain is genuinely descriptive – do not automatically prevail.

Panels have consistently held that a descriptive or generic domain used in connection with the goods or services that the terms describe can satisfy the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbor, even where the complainant holds a registered mark in those terms. The consensus view is that trademark registration does not confer exclusive rights over every domain that incorporates a descriptive term. That distinction is where many .info respondents have legitimate defenses that a non-specialist might miss or fail to document correctly.

What the three-member option adds is not a presumption of success. It adds a more deliberate, collegial reading of an ambiguous record – and, where the RDNH facts are present, a greater likelihood of that finding appearing in the published decision.

For more on how URS suspension proceedings in the .info zone interact with UDRP defense, see our case study on URS in .info.

Related at COGNOMEN

• Respondent defense and RDNH – full practice overview across gTLDs and ccTLDs
• Defending a domain investment against a US-based UDRP complaint
• URS suspension in .info – case study on the higher evidentiary standard