How to structure escrow for a .info domain purchase

How to structure escrow for a .info domain purchase. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your case.

You have identified a .info domain that fits your brand, your product, or your portfolio. The seller wants to move quickly. Before any money changes hands, one question overrides everything else: does this domain come with clean title, or does it carry a dispute history that could unwind the deal after closing?

Structuring escrow for a .info domain purchase means pairing a three-stage payment-hold with a pre-acquisition due-diligence sweep that confirms chain of title, prior UDRP history, and trademark exposure before funds are released. The .info zone is an ICANN-accredited generic top-level domain, so all three UDRP elements under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy govern any dispute after transfer — meaning a prior complainant could pursue the incoming registrant as readily as the current one. A properly drafted escrow arrangement gives the buyer a release condition tied to that clean-title confirmation.

This page sets out the escrow structure, the due-diligence checks specific to .info, the evidence that decides whether a domain is safe to acquire, and the realistic steps to close the transaction securely.

Why .info escrow demands more than a standard domain purchase

The .info zone attracts brand-owner complaints at a disproportionate rate relative to registrations, because the extension was marketed early to informational portals and was quickly adopted by both legitimate operators and opportunistic registrants. That history leaves a longer dispute trail than many buyers expect.

When you acquire a .info domain, you step into the registrant's seat. UDRP panels have consistently held that the transfer of a domain to a new registrant does not reset the clock on a bad-faith analysis if the new registrant had constructive notice of the prior trademark exposure. Constructive notice is not difficult to establish. A UDRP complainant pointing to a prior dispute record, a pre-existing cease-and-desist letter in WHOIS history, or a trademark registration that predates the domain's creation date has a significant head start on element three of the Policy. That risk falls on the buyer — not the seller — once the transfer completes.

Standard domain-marketplace escrow handles the payment mechanics. It does not assess whether the asset being sold is legally defensible. COGNOMEN structures the escrow contract so that the buyer's obligation to release funds is conditional on a satisfactory due-diligence result, not merely on the registrar confirming that the push completed.

To assess a .info domain you are considering acquiring, contact info@cognomenlaw.com before agreeing to any purchase price.

What does a chain-of-title check cover for a .info domain?

Chain-of-title due diligence for a .info domain covers the registration history, every recorded UDRP or URS proceeding touching the domain, the current trademark landscape in the domain's primary descriptive meaning, and any WHOIS or RDDS data that signals prior disputes or registrant misuse.

The specific items we review in our practice:

• UDRP and URS filing history. WIPO and the Forum publish searchable decision archives. A prior panel decision — whether the complainant won, lost, or withdrew — is a red flag that requires explanation. A withdrawal before decision sometimes means a settlement in which the prior registrant made a commitment that would bind their successor.
• Creation date versus trademark priority. If a registered trademark predates the domain's creation date in the same descriptive field, a future complainant clears element one of the UDRP test by pointing to the WHOIS record alone. The buyer needs to understand whether any senior trademark holder exists before closing.
• RDDS and prior-registrant patterns. The domain's WHOIS/RDDS data, together with archived snapshots of the domain's prior use (parking pages, pay-per-click configurations, misdirection to competing sites), supplies the evidence a panel would use for element three. If the prior registrant used the domain in a way that a panel would characterize as bad faith, the buyer may inherit that record in the eyes of a sophisticated complainant.
• Registrar-level encumbrances. Registrar locks, pending transfer holds, and UDRP-related registrar locks must be confirmed as lifted before any escrow can close. A domain under an active registrar lock cannot be pushed to a new registrar or account. That is not a technicality — it is a dealbreaker until resolved.
• Portfolio context. If the seller holds a large portfolio, the domain of interest may be registered alongside others that a court or panel has already adjudicated as abusive. A pattern-of-conduct finding under Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP can reach a buyer who takes title with knowledge of that pattern.

For a deeper treatment of the verification process across technology-sector domains, see our analysis at chain-of-title verification for tech-sector domain acquisitions.

How should the escrow structure be drafted for a .info transaction?

A sound escrow structure for a .info domain purchase has three defined stages, each with a hard release condition. Skipping any stage leaves the buyer exposed after the transfer completes and the seller is no longer reachable.

Stage one – execution of the purchase agreement. The buyer deposits the agreed consideration with a neutral escrow agent. Release is explicitly blocked pending satisfactory completion of due diligence. The purchase agreement should identify, at minimum: the domain name, the current registrar, the agreed transfer mechanism (registrar push or auth code), and the conditions for fund release. The agreement should also state which party bears the cost of the due-diligence review — in most arm's-length transactions, the buyer absorbs that cost, because the benefit runs to the buyer.

Stage two – due-diligence review. Before the transfer initiates, the parties instruct that the domain's UDRP and dispute history, trademark exposure, and registrar-lock status be reviewed. This is where the legal assessment happens. If the review reveals an unacceptable risk — an open UDRP proceeding, a prior decision that was settled under undisclosed terms, or a senior trademark of record — the buyer has a contractual basis to terminate or to renegotiate the price to reflect the litigation exposure. In a recent transaction (a .info domain in the consumer-products field, spring 2025), that due-diligence stage identified a prior ceased UDRP proceeding that had never produced a panel decision. The parties renegotiated a price adjustment that reflected the residual dispute risk, and the deal closed on revised terms.

Stage three – transfer verification and fund release. Once the domain push or auth-code transfer is confirmed at the gaining registrar — and the gaining registrar has updated the WHOIS/RDDS record to reflect the buyer as registrant — the escrow agent releases funds. The delay between transfer initiation and RDDS update can run several days. The escrow release condition should reference the RDDS update, not merely the registrar's push confirmation, to ensure the buyer has actual legal control before the seller is paid.

A side letter or escrow addendum should address two additional scenarios: what happens if a UDRP complaint is filed against the domain during the escrow period (before transfer completes), and what representations the seller makes about the absence of any pending dispute or trademark dispute notice. The first scenario triggers an immediate escrow hold pending resolution; the second gives the buyer a warranty claim if a prior dispute surfaces post-closing.

To weigh the escrow structure against the specific risk profile of a .info domain you are acquiring, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

Which escrow agents and transfer mechanics apply to .info?

The .info zone is a generic top-level domain under ICANN's authority, meaning any ICANN-accredited registrar can hold a .info registration. That flexibility makes registrar selection a genuine decision point, not an administrative formality.

Several commercial escrow platforms specialize in domain transactions. They hold funds between buyer and seller and release on a transfer-confirmation trigger. What they do not do is assess whether the domain carries a legal risk. The commercial platform and the legal-due-diligence layer are separate functions. The escrow contract drafted around a commercial platform's mechanics is the document that ties the two together.

Transfer mechanics for .info follow the standard ICANN inter-registrar transfer policy: the seller generates an authorization code (EPP auth code) at the current registrar, provides it to the buyer, and the buyer initiates the transfer at the gaining registrar. The gaining registrar typically completes the transfer within five to seven days, subject to the 60-day lock that applies after a registrar change. That 60-day registrar-change lock does not prevent the buyer from managing the domain; it prevents a further inter-registrar transfer for 60 days. Parties to a .info acquisition who plan to consolidate into a portfolio registrar should factor that window into the escrow timeline.

One dimension that buyers sometimes overlook: if the .info domain is also registered as a national ccTLD equivalent — a .info.pl, a .info.tr, or a similar structure in a national registry — the acquisition strategy may need to address both registrations separately. Those national registries operate under their own rules. The UDRP does not automatically reach them. See our broader discussion at domain transactions services for the cross-zone considerations that arise when a brand spans multiple extensions.

What UDRP exposure survives the transfer of a .info domain?

A UDRP complaint filed after a domain transfer names the current registrant. If you have just closed escrow on a .info domain and a brand owner files a complaint the following month, you are the respondent — not the prior registrant who sold you the domain.

The UDRP does not operate a bona-fide-purchaser-for-value defense in the way property law does. A panel considering element three of Paragraph 4(a) may look at the entire registration history, including prior-registrant conduct, if it bears on whether the domain was registered in bad faith. Panels have consistently found that acquiring a domain with constructive notice of a trademark dispute does not neutralize the prior bad-faith record — it can compound it.

What protects a buyer is the independent legitimate-interest record the buyer builds after acquisition. Under Paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP, a registrant who demonstrates a bona fide offering of goods or services, a demonstrable business connection to the domain string, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, before notice of a dispute, has a safe-harbor argument. That argument is strongest when the buyer can show the acquisition itself was preceded by formal due diligence, a legitimate business plan, and an escrow process that demonstrates the transaction was at arm's length and at fair market value.

In a second matter from our practice (a .info domain in the financial-services sector, autumn 2024), a buyer who had closed without a due-diligence review received a UDRP complaint within four months of acquiring the domain. The prior registrant had operated a pay-per-click page targeting the trademark owner's product. We were engaged to defend. The defense rested on the buyer's demonstrated business purpose and the fact that the pay-per-click use had ceased immediately on transfer. The file was strong enough to mount a legitimate-interest defense, but the UDRP proceeding added cost and delay that a pre-acquisition review would likely have avoided entirely.

How does the .info UDRP process compare to a court route or a ccTLD procedure?

The right protection mechanism after acquiring a .info domain — whether you need to enforce against a third party or defend a complaint — depends on the zone, the remedy you need, and the timeline available.

For .info specifically: the domain is a gTLD, so the UDRP at WIPO, the Forum, or CAC governs. If a brand owner files against your newly acquired .info domain, you respond under the UDRP within 20 days of commencement. The WIPO filing fee for a single-domain single-member panel is USD 1,500; the Forum starts around USD 1,300. The proceeding typically concludes in roughly two months. Those timelines and costs are set by the Policy and the Rules — not negotiable. The only remedies are transfer or cancellation; no money damages are available in the UDRP track.

If you are the buyer and you discover, after transfer, that the seller misrepresented the domain's dispute history, a UDRP panel cannot award you damages against the seller. That is a contract claim. It runs through the courts of the governing jurisdiction under the purchase agreement. This is precisely why the escrow contract should include a representations-and-warranties clause: if the seller warranted that no prior UDRP complaint existed and one surfaces post-closing, the buyer has a contractual remedy, even if the UDRP panel has no power to grant it.

If the domain also has a counterpart in a ccTLD — say, a .uk or .eu registration that the same registrant holds — a parallel UDRP proceeding can cover multiple domains in a single complaint only if the registrant of record is the same holder. Cross-zone enforcement where registrant identity differs requires separate filings or, in some cases, court action with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For the trademark-conflict dimension that can arise when a .info acquisition involves a confusingly similar third-party mark, our alert at confusingly similar trademark determinations addresses the analytical approach panels apply to that question.

One scenario worth mapping: if the domain you are acquiring is a defensive registration — you are a brand owner buying a .info variant to prevent a competitor from holding it — the acquisition itself is a valid UDRP-avoidance strategy, and no dispute procedure is needed. The due-diligence work in that scenario focuses not on protecting yourself from a complaint, but on confirming the acquisition price reflects the domain's actual market value and that no registrar-level encumbrance prevents the transfer.

What evidence decides whether a .info acquisition is clean?

The evidence that determines whether a .info domain is safe to acquire falls into three categories, each corresponding to one element of the UDRP test that a future complainant would need to satisfy.

On the first element — confusing similarity to a trademark — the relevant evidence is the trademark register. A buyer should search both national and international trademark databases in the domain's descriptive field before closing. If a senior registered trademark exists for the identical or confusingly similar string, element one is likely met for any future complainant. That does not mean the acquisition is barred; it means the buyer must be prepared to mount a legitimate-interest defense if a complaint arrives.

On the second element — absence of legitimate interest — the evidence runs in both directions. Adverse evidence includes a prior-registrant parking page, misdirection to a competitor site, or pay-per-click revenue generated from the trademark owner's brand terms. Favorable evidence includes a documented business purpose for the domain, a genuine pre-registration use of the name, or a corporate entity whose name corresponds to the domain string. Buyers should document their own legitimate-interest basis at the time of acquisition — not after a complaint arrives.

On the third element — bad faith — the evidence that most directly affects the buyer is the prior-registrant conduct record. Archived pages, prior UDRP decisions, cease-and-desist correspondence, and the domain's monetization history are all discoverable. A buyer who reviewed this evidence and acquired the domain anyway faces a harder legitimate-interest argument than a buyer who had no reason to know of any dispute. That distinction is why the due-diligence review is not an optional step; it is the document trail that demonstrates good-faith acquisition.

Related at COGNOMEN

• Domain transactions services: purchase, sale, escrow, and portfolio due diligence
• Chain-of-title verification for technology-sector domain acquisitions
• Confusingly similar trademark determinations: how panels approach the first UDRP element