How to recover a .info domain confusingly similar to your trademark

How to recover a .info domain confusingly similar to your trademark. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your cas…

Someone has registered a .info domain that matches your brand. They are parking it, pointing it at a rival's site, or sitting on it until you make an offer. You want it back. The question is whether the UDRP is the right mechanism – and what the case actually requires.

To recover a .info domain confusingly similar to your trademark, you file a UDRP complaint before WIPO, the Forum, or another accredited provider. The .info registry has adopted the UDRP in full, so the standard three-element test under Paragraph 4(a) applies: confusing similarity to a mark you hold, no legitimate interest on the registrant's part, and registration and use in bad faith. A standard case resolves in roughly two months, and the WIPO filing fee starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel. The only remedies are transfer or cancellation – no damages, no costs.

This page covers the legal test, the evidence that decides outcomes, the process from filing through transfer, and the choice of forum for a .info recovery.

Why the UDRP applies to .info domains – and what that means for complainants

The .info registry has operated under the UDRP since the zone's launch, meaning the same rules that govern .com and .net apply directly to your .info dispute. There is no separate national procedure to exhaust first, no local court prerequisite, and no eligibility restriction on the complainant. Any trademark owner with a qualifying mark – registered or, in some circumstances, established through use – can file a UDRP complaint against a .info registrant, regardless of where either party is located.

That global reach is significant. The registrant may be in a jurisdiction where local litigation is costly or slow. Under the UDRP, the forum adjudicates the case on documentary evidence alone. There is no oral hearing, no discovery phase, and no ability to stall proceedings through jurisdictional arguments. The respondent has 20 days to file a response once the case commences; if they do not, the panel decides on the complaint alone.

In our practice, .info disputes follow the same doctrinal patterns as .com complaints, because the Policy text is identical. What differs is tactical: .info is a generic top-level domain with less commercial prestige than .com, which means some respondents register .info names defensively rather than to redirect consumer traffic. That context affects the bad-faith analysis, and it is one of the first things we assess when reviewing a new matter.

What are the three UDRP elements you must prove to recover a .info domain?

A complainant must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP before a panel will order transfer or cancellation. Failure on any single element ends the case – regardless of how compelling the other two appear.

Element one: confusing similarity. The domain must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. Panels apply a low, largely technical threshold here. The comparison is between the mark and the second-level domain label, ignoring the .info suffix. Common variations – adding a generic word ("buy", "official", "shop"), transposing letters, or substituting a numeral – typically fail to distinguish the domain from the mark. The complainant must show it holds rights in the mark; a registration with a national or regional office is the cleanest evidence, though common-law mark rights based on use are also recognized where the complainant can document them.

Element two: no rights or legitimate interests. The complainant bears the initial burden of making a prima facie case that the registrant lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the domain. The burden then shifts. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three safe harbors the respondent may invoke: a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute; being commonly known by the domain name; or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. A registrant who purchased the .info domain after your mark became known, and who uses it only to display pay-per-click links, will struggle to invoke any of these safe harbors.

Element three: registered and used in bad faith. This is the cumulative test – both registration and use must be tainted. Paragraph 4(b) lists non-exhaustive circumstances that constitute bad faith: registering primarily to sell to the mark owner for profit; disrupting a competitor's business; attracting users by creating confusion as to source or sponsorship; and establishing a pattern of abusive registrations. Panels have also consistently held that passive holding – where a domain is not pointed at any active website but simply sits idle – can satisfy the use limb when combined with other factors, such as the distinctiveness of the complainant's mark or the absence of any credible good-faith purpose the registrant could assert.

For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met in your .info case, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the UDRP process work for a .info domain, step by step?

The process has five stages, each with its own decision point. Understanding where cases stall – and why – is as important as knowing the formal steps.

Stage one: pre-filing preparation. Before drafting the complaint, gather trademark registrations or evidence of common-law use, RDDS/WHOIS records showing registration date and current registrant details, screenshots of the domain's current use, and any communications from the registrant (including demands to purchase). The strength of this evidence package determines both which forum you choose and whether a single-member or three-member panel is appropriate.

Stage two: forum selection and filing. For .info, the four ICANN-accredited UDRP providers are all available: WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC. WIPO and the Forum together handle approximately 97% of all UDRP proceedings. WIPO tends to attract the largest and most complex cases; the Forum is also well-regarded and widely used by brand owners. The CAC offers the lowest entry-level filing fee – beginning around USD 500–800 – but is less frequently used. If budget is a constraint and the case is straightforward, CAC is a legitimate option. If the respondent is likely to contest vigorously and you want panel depth, WIPO is the standard choice.

Stage three: commencement and the response window. Once the provider formally commences the case, the respondent has 20 days to file a response. A default – where the respondent files nothing – does not guarantee a transfer; the panel still reviews the complaint on its merits. But a well-evidenced complaint against a non-responsive registrant ordinarily proceeds to a transfer order.

Stage four: panel appointment and decision. Either party may request a three-member panel. If the complainant filed for a single member but the respondent requests three, the parties generally split the higher three-member fee. Decisions are delivered to the provider, who notifies the registrar. The total elapsed time from filing to decision is typically around two months in an uncontested or modestly contested case.

Stage five: registrar implementation. After a transfer decision, there is a mandatory ten-business-day implementation pause during which the respondent may seek a court stay. If no court action is commenced, the registrar transfers the domain to the complainant. The .info registry follows standard ICANN registrar accreditation rules, so this stage is procedurally routine.

In a recent matter – a .info cybersquatting complaint, spring 2025 – we filed on behalf of a European brand owner, the respondent defaulted, and the domain was transferred roughly eight weeks from the date of filing. No court action was sought in the implementation window.

What evidence decides whether a .info UDRP complaint succeeds or fails?

Evidence is the determinative variable in any .info UDRP case. The complaint is decided on documents alone – there is no cross-examination, no witness statement procedure, and no opportunity to obtain documents from the other side through discovery. What you file is what decides the case.

For confusing similarity, the most reliable evidence is a trademark registration certificate. It should show the mark, the owner, the date of registration, and the goods or services covered. If you rely on common-law rights, provide screenshots of sustained commercial use over time, press coverage, sales figures, or other indicia of acquired distinctiveness – the evidentiary bar for unregistered marks is considerably higher.

For no legitimate interest, document the absence of any association between the registrant and your brand. RDDS records showing no legitimate connection, screenshots of pay-per-click or parking pages, and evidence that the registrant has no business bearing the mark's name all support this element. Where the registrant is an individual rather than a corporate entity, a search of corporate registrations, social media, or trade directories showing no relevant trading history under the domain name strengthens your position.

For bad faith, the most powerful evidence is direct: a demand to sell the domain for an amount exceeding registration costs; a pattern of registering multiple brand-matching domains; content on the domain that trades on the trademark's goodwill; or timing – registration shortly after your mark became publicly known. Circumstantial bad faith is also recognized. A highly distinctive mark, a domain registered with no plausible legitimate purpose, and passive holding with no credible explanation together can satisfy the third element even without a smoking-gun demand email.

What sinks cases? Weak trademark rights – particularly an unregistered mark in a crowded field. A descriptive domain label where the mark itself is generic. Evidence of the registrant's actual prior business use of the name, even informally. And communications from your own side that make the complaint look like an attempt to capture a domain the other party legitimately holds – the posture that panels call reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH).

We regularly advise complainants on the strength of their evidence before filing. A case that looks strong at first glance sometimes carries an RDNH risk that only surfaces on a closer read of the registrant's history. Identifying that risk before filing – not after – is where early legal input matters most.

If you have already gathered evidence and want a second read before filing, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does .info compare to .com and other zones – and when should you look beyond the UDRP?

The right route depends on the zone, the remedy you need, and whether money damages matter to you. For .info, the analysis is straightforward at the top level – but the cross-zone picture requires a decision.

If the infringing registrations span both a .info and a .com held by the same registrant, a single UDRP complaint can cover multiple domains in one proceeding, provided the registrant of record is identical. That is a cost-efficient option: one forum filing fee rather than two, and one panel decision addressing all named domains.

If the registration is a new-gTLD domain and you only need it suspended quickly – not transferred – the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) is available and carries a lower filing fee. The URS requires a "clear and convincing" standard of proof, which is higher than the UDRP's preponderance approach, and the remedy is suspension for the registration term rather than a permanent transfer. For most brand owners seeking ownership rather than mere suspension, the UDRP remains the better fit.

If the domain is a country-code TLD such as .uk, .eu, or .de, the governing procedure changes entirely. A .uk dispute goes before Nominet under its Domain Registration Service rules, which test for "abusive registration" rather than the UDRP's "bad faith" formulation – and notably reads the test as "registered or used" abusively, a lower threshold than the UDRP's cumulative standard. A .eu dispute proceeds through the ADR.eu platform administered by the Czech Arbitration Court. A .de dispute has no arbitral equivalent; the standard route runs through the German courts, with a DENIC DISPUTE entry available to block transfers while the claim is pursued.

If you want monetary damages on top of a domain transfer – for example, where the infringing use has caused measurable revenue loss – neither the UDRP nor URS can reach that remedy. Those procedures offer transfer or cancellation only. A US anticybersquatting court action is the mechanism for damages; it is handled with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction and involves substantially higher cost and longer timelines than arbitral routes.

In a recent matter involving a brand that had been squatted across a .info and a .co domain (autumn 2024), we coordinated a dual-domain UDRP complaint and secured transfer of both names in a single proceeding. The registrant had listed both domains for sale at five-figure prices; neither survived the bad-faith analysis.

What does it cost to recover a .info domain through the UDRP?

UDRP costs divide cleanly into forum filing fees and legal fees. They are separate lines, and confusing them is a common source of budget surprises.

Forum filing fees (official, APPENDIX A rates): At WIPO, the fee for a single-member panel covering one to five domains is USD 1,500. A three-member panel at WIPO for one to five domains is USD 4,000. The Forum begins at approximately USD 1,300 for a single-member panel covering one to two domains. The CAC begins at approximately USD 500–800. These are the fees paid directly to the forum; they do not include the respondent's panel-sharing cost on a three-member request.

Legal fees are separate from forum fees. For a straightforward single-domain .info complaint, the market range for legal representation is commonly in the USD 3,000–7,000 range, depending on complexity, the number of domains, the evidence preparation required, and whether the matter is contested. A heavily litigated three-member-panel case with multiple supplemental filings falls above that range.

Cost calibration matters at the outset. If the domain is a modest typosquat with thin bad-faith evidence, the cost of a full UDRP complaint may not be proportionate. If the domain is redirecting your customers to a competitor or being used in phishing, the cost calculus shifts decisively toward filing. We discuss cost-to-outcome proportionality in every initial review.

WIPO also offers a partial refund of approximately USD 1,000 of the USD 1,500 filing fee if the complaint is withdrawn or terminated before panel appointment – useful to know if a settlement is reached early in the process.

What if the registrant files a response – or claims legitimate interest?

A contested .info UDRP case is not lost simply because the respondent responds. The merits still govern. What changes is the depth of analysis the panel applies and, often, the case for a three-member panel.

Respondents who invoke Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors typically rely on one of two arguments: that they were making a bona fide offering of goods or services before learning of the dispute, or that they are commonly known by the domain name. Panels scrutinize both claims carefully. A respondent who can produce evidence of an active pre-notice business using the name – invoices, contracts, web analytics, corporate registration – stands in a materially different position from one who assembles a paper record after receiving the complaint. Panels have consistently held that post-notice evidence of use carries reduced weight.

The RDNH risk runs in the opposite direction. If the complainant's mark is descriptive, the registrant holds a plausible legitimate interest, and the complaint appears designed to seize a domain the registrant legitimately registered, a panel may make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. An RDNH finding carries no monetary penalty, but the reputational consequence – a published panel decision declaring that you brought the case in bad faith – is significant for brand owners who litigate frequently. We raise RDNH risk explicitly in our pre-filing review, and where it is present, we counsel whether to file, what to argue, and how to frame the submission to avoid that outcome.

A well-prepared respondent defense follows a parallel structure: document registration-date evidence, establish the pre-notice business record, and – where the complaint is genuinely abusive – build the RDNH argument. COGNOMEN handles both sides of that ledger. We act for respondents as well as complainants, and we approach the UDRP process from both perspectives.

What is the realistic next step if you want to recover your .info domain?

The fastest path from identification to transfer runs through a structured pre-filing review. That review covers three things: whether your mark qualifies, whether the evidence on all three elements is sufficient to file with confidence, and which forum – WIPO, the Forum, or CAC – best fits the facts and budget.

The review also flags risk. An RDNH exposure, a registration that predates your mark, or a respondent with a plausible prior business use are all situations where the filing strategy needs to be adjusted or reconsidered before the complaint is submitted. Identifying those issues before filing costs far less than managing a failed or RDNH-marked complaint afterward.

For complainants who have already filed and received a poor outcome, a focused second read of the decision can identify the element that was missed and assess whether the same facts support a follow-on court action or a ccTLD complaint in a related zone. Consult our guide on proving bad faith for a deeper treatment of the evidence framework, and our page on recovering a hijacked domain where the dispute has moved beyond a standard UDRP scenario.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP Domain Recovery – complaints before WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC
• How to prove bad faith in a UDRP complaint – the evidence guide
• Recover a hijacked domain – registrar escalation and transfer reversal