How to choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .info dispute

How to choose between WIPO and the Forum for a .info dispute. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your case.

A stranger registers your brand as a .info domain, parks it on a competitor's ad feed, and responds to your inquiry with a five-figure buy-back demand. You want the name transferred. The question is which forum – WIPO or the Forum – gives your complaint the best chance, fastest path, and clearest cost structure.

Both WIPO and the Forum are ICANN-accredited UDRP providers, and both handle .info disputes under the same three-element test in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The filing fee at WIPO starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel on one to five domains; the Forum starts at roughly USD 1,300 for one to two domains. The choice between them turns on timeline preferences, panelist pool tendencies, and procedural features specific to your fact pattern.

This page covers what the UDRP requires for a .info complaint, how the two providers compare in practice, what evidence decides the outcome, and how to move from assessment to filing.

Why .info domains fall under the UDRP – and what that means for complainants

The UDRP applies to all ICANN-accredited registrars across generic top-level domains, and .info is fully within that scope. Any brand owner holding a trademark – registered or, in some circumstances, established through use – can file a UDRP complaint against a .info registrant without filing in any national court. The Policy exists because .info was introduced as an unrestricted gTLD, meaning anyone could register it, and abusive registrations followed quickly.

The UDRP's only remedies are transfer or cancellation of the domain. There is no monetary award, no injunction beyond the domain itself, and no cost order against the losing party. That scope defines the decision: if your goal is to recover the .info name, the UDRP delivers it efficiently. If you also want damages – for example, after a sustained phishing campaign using the .info address – a UDRP transfer and a parallel court action are the tools, handled through local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

The .info zone sits alongside .com and .net as one of the original unrestricted gTLDs. Panels adjudicating .info complaints apply the same consensus doctrine as .com panels. There is no eligibility restriction on who may hold a .info domain, which means complainants cannot rely on a registrant's ineligibility as a shortcut; the full three-element case must be built.

What are the three UDRP elements a .info complainant must prove?

To win a .info UDRP complaint, you must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy – not two of three, not a balance of probabilities on the whole – all three, each on its own footing. Missing any one element results in denial, regardless of how compelling the others are.

The first element is confusing similarity between the domain and a trademark in which you hold rights. For .info, this is usually the most straightforward element: panels compare the second-level label (the part before ".info") to your mark, disregarding the TLD suffix itself. A domain that reproduces your mark exactly, adds a generic word, or introduces a common typo typically satisfies this element. What it does not address is whether the registrant knew your mark; that question belongs in the third element.

The second element requires you to show the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The Policy places the initial burden on the complainant, but a prima facie case – the registrant is not your licensee, is not commonly known by the name, and has made no bona fide offering of goods or services under it before notice of the dispute – is enough to shift the burden of production to the respondent. In our practice, the second element is often conceded by default when the registrant fails to respond, but a contested case demands documentary proof that no authorized connection exists.

The third element is the most litigated: the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. Both limbs must be met. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out non-exhaustive bad-faith indicators, including registration to sell to the mark owner at above-cost price, registration to disrupt a competitor, and use that intentionally attracts users by confusion for commercial gain. Passive holding – a domain that resolves to a blank or parked page – can satisfy the use limb where the registrant's awareness of the mark at the time of registration is clear and no plausible legitimate use exists. Panels have consistently held that awareness plus the implausibility of any good-faith use suffices, even without active deception.

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

How do WIPO and the Forum compare on fees, timelines, and panelist pools for .info disputes?

Both providers operate under the same Policy and Rules, and a decision from either carries identical weight with the registrar. The differences are procedural and practical – and for a reader ready to file, they matter.

On fees, WIPO charges USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains; the Forum begins at roughly USD 1,300 for one to two domains. For a three-member panel at WIPO, the fee rises to USD 4,000. If you requested a single panelist and the respondent demands a three-member panel, the parties generally split the higher fee – a cost variable worth anticipating in the budget. WIPO also offers a partial refund of approximately USD 1,000 if the case is withdrawn or terminated before panel appointment, which matters if settlement is a realistic possibility after filing.

On timeline, both providers complete a straightforward case within roughly two months of filing. WIPO additionally offers an expedited option – available for single-panel cases covering up to five domains – that targets a decision within about one month. For a .info name actively being used to divert your traffic or impersonate your brand, the expedited path is worth the evaluation even if it carries stricter eligibility conditions.

On panelist pools, WIPO and the Forum maintain large, experienced rosters. WIPO's pool is internationally diverse, with significant depth in European and Asian IP practice. The Forum's panel is weighted toward North American practitioners. Neither advantage is absolute for a .info case, but if your mark is a European or Asia-Pacific registration and the factual nuances involve that context, WIPO's panelist breadth is a practical argument for selecting it as provider.

We regularly advise complainants at the forum-selection stage. The honest answer is that neither provider is categorically superior for .info; the right choice depends on the number of domains, the realistic chance of settlement, the jurisdiction of your trademark, and whether speed is the overriding priority.

What evidence actually decides a .info UDRP complaint?

A complaint that recites the three elements without concrete evidentiary support will fail even in an uncontested case; panels require proof, not assertion. The evidence needed tracks each of the three elements.

For the first element, submit the trademark registration certificate or, for unregistered marks, evidence of acquired distinctiveness: sales figures, advertising records, third-party references to the brand. The mark must predate the domain registration for most bad-faith arguments, though a respondent who registers in anticipation of a mark application is also vulnerable under the consensus doctrine of "nascent" rights.

For the second element, a WHOIS or RDDS record showing the registrant is not affiliated with your business is a start. More useful is the absence of any web presence under the registrant's claimed identity prior to the dispute, no authorisation correspondence in your records, and – where the registrant has asserted a fair-use or nominative-use defense – the specific facts that defeat that claim. Panels apply the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors carefully: a bona fide offering of goods or services under the domain before notice of the dispute is a real defense if documented.

For the third element, the evidentiary core of most .info complaints, gather: archived screenshots of the domain's resolving page (a parking page with competitor pay-per-click links is strong bad-faith evidence), any correspondence in which the registrant offered to sell the domain, evidence of a pattern of abusive registrations across other domains by the same registrant, and WHOIS history showing the registration date in relation to when your mark became well known. In a recent matter – a .info typosquat, spring 2025 – we assembled a complete bad-faith record from archived parking-page screenshots and a registrant's email offering the domain at a price well above registration cost, and the panel transferred the domain to our client within standard timeline. No fabricated evidence is needed where the registrant has been active; the registrant's own conduct usually provides the case.

When does a court action outperform the UDRP for a .info dispute?

The UDRP is fast and cost-bounded, but it is not always the right tool. Four situations push a .info dispute toward court.

First, if you need damages – revenue you can trace to the registrant's conduct, costs from a phishing incident, or statutory damages under anticybersquatting legislation – the UDRP cannot help you. The only UDRP remedy is the domain itself. A US anticybersquatting action, for example, can reach monetary damages if the registration and use occur in a US context; that route requires local litigation counsel and carries substantially higher costs and timelines, but it is the only path to compensation.

Second, if the registrant holds a registration for the .info domain in a jurisdiction that allows a defensive court proceeding to block the UDRP transfer, a court filing may be needed to hold the remedy in place or to resolve conflicting trademark claims that the UDRP cannot adjudicate. The UDRP expressly does not prevent either party from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction before, during, or after the proceeding.

Third, if the registrant has a colorable claim to the domain – a registered trademark of their own in the label, or a substantial legitimate-use history – the UDRP may result in denial, and the complexity of the factual dispute may require the full evidentiary machinery of a court. Panels work on written submissions alone; cross-examination and discovery are not available.

Fourth, if the same name is disputed across both a .com and a .info, a court action can address both simultaneously, where the UDRP would require separate complaints against the same registrant or a consolidated filing under the same-registrant rule.

The right route depends on the goal. If you want the .info name transferred quickly at a bounded cost, the UDRP at WIPO or the Forum is the standard path. If you want money or a resolution that binds a court record, litigation is the route, coordinated with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

To weigh UDRP against a court action for your .info case, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

What happens if the respondent files a bad-faith complaint to take your .info domain?

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) is the finding a UDRP panel may make when a complainant has brought a complaint in bad faith – typically to deprive a legitimate registrant of a name the complainant simply wants for commercial reasons, without a genuine case under the three elements. The finding carries no monetary penalty but is a public reputational mark against the complainant.

If you are the registrant of a .info domain and you receive a UDRP complaint, you have 20 days from the date the case commences to file a response. Missing that window does not automatically result in a transfer – panels still apply the three-element test – but a default significantly reduces the practical ability to mount a legitimate-interest defense.

Respondent-side defense in a .info case requires building the legitimate-interest record: evidence of registration and use in good faith before notice of the dispute, the Paragraph 4(c) safe-harbor facts, and – where the complaint is clearly abusive – an affirmative RDNH argument. In a recent matter (a .info domain held by a small software business, autumn 2024), we successfully defended against a complaint by a large brand that had attempted to claim confusion with a generic label the respondent had registered years before the brand even launched in that market. The panel denied the complaint and, on our submission, made an RDNH finding. The respondent retained the domain.

COGNOMEN acts on both sides of the UDRP. Where the evidence supports it, we pursue RDNH findings as part of the respondent defense. Transparent fee ranges for respondent work are available on request.

How to assess your .info case before filing

A pre-filing assessment has three objectives: confirm all three elements are provably met, identify the evidence gaps that need closing before the complaint is filed, and choose between WIPO and the Forum on the specific facts.

Start with the trademark record. A registered mark in a relevant jurisdiction, predating the domain registration, is the strongest first-element foundation. An unregistered mark based on substantial prior use is usable but demands more evidence at the first element and complicates the bad-faith analysis.

Next, examine the domain's current and historical use. Archived screenshots from web-archiving services can establish what the domain has resolved to over time. A history of parking pages with competitor links, a prior sale attempt, or references to your brand in the domain's content all contribute to the bad-faith record.

Then assess the registrant. A registrant with a documented pattern of abusive registrations across multiple brands is a stronger bad-faith case than an isolated registration. The same-registrant rule allows a single complaint to cover multiple domains held by the same party, which can consolidate a sprawling .info typosquat campaign into a single proceeding.

Only after that analysis is the forum choice genuinely productive. If you have one .info domain, a clear mark, and a parking-page registrant, the choice between WIPO and the Forum is largely a cost and speed question. If you have multiple domains, a complex trademark situation, or a respondent likely to contest aggressively, the panelist-pool and procedural differences between providers become more significant.

We assess the three UDRP elements, assemble the bad-faith evidence, select the forum, and file the complaint. That is the scope of what a .info UDRP instruction involves from day one.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP recovery services – the full complainant and respondent practice across gTLD zones
• How to recover a domain in a passive-holding case – evidence and strategy
• Serial cybersquatter disputes – pattern evidence and consolidated .uk filings