How to suspend a .info domain through URS

How to suspend a .info domain through URS. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .info. Email the firm to assess your case. Transparent fees, respo…

A .info domain is parked at a pay-per-click page. It matches your brand exactly, the registrant has no connection to your business, and traffic that should reach you is landing there instead. You want it stopped – quickly, without the cost of full arbitration. The Uniform Rapid Suspension system exists for precisely this situation.

The Uniform Rapid Suspension system (URS) applies to all ICANN-accredited gTLDs, and .info qualifies. A successful complaint results in suspension of the domain for the remainder of its registration term – not a transfer of ownership. The evidentiary standard is clear and convincing evidence, higher than the UDRP's balance-of-probabilities approach. At WIPO, one of the designated URS providers, a determination is typically issued within weeks of filing. The only remedies are suspension or denial.

This page covers how the URS applies to .info, when it outperforms a UDRP complaint and when it does not, what evidence drives the outcome, and what the process looks like start to finish.

What is the URS and how does it apply to .info domains?

The URS is a rapid, low-cost suspension mechanism created by ICANN as part of the new gTLD program and extended to legacy gTLDs including .info. Where the UDRP is the standard arbitration path for recovering a domain by transfer, the URS is designed for clear-cut cases where the brand owner wants the domain neutralized quickly and at lower cost than full UDRP proceedings. The domain stays suspended – pointed to a URS notification page – until the end of its current registration term.

The URS does not produce a transfer. That distinction matters. If you need to take title to the domain – not just disable it – the UDRP or, in appropriate cases, court action is the route to pursue. But if the harm is the live use of the domain (the phishing page, the competing pay-per-click site, the impersonation risk), suspension eliminates the harm almost as effectively as transfer, and often faster.

.info has operated under ICANN's gTLD regime since its launch and is fully subject to the URS. WIPO administers URS cases among other providers. In our practice, brand owners frequently overlook the URS as an option for .info, defaulting to the UDRP even when the conduct is so obvious that the clearer standard is not the barrier – the timeline is.

How does the URS standard differ from the UDRP, and does that affect .info cases?

The URS requires clear and convincing evidence on all three substantive grounds – not merely a balance of probabilities. That higher bar is the central trade-off: the process is faster and cheaper, but the examiner will deny the complaint if the case is close or turns on credibility. UDRP panels routinely grant transfer in cases where the evidence is good but the bad faith is inferred. A URS examiner may not.

In practice this means the URS is well-suited to .info cases involving exact-match cybersquatting, pay-per-click pages on a registered trademark, or blatant impersonation where the registrant's intent is obvious from the domain itself and the content it resolves to. It is less suited to cases where the respondent has a plausible legitimate-interest argument, where the mark is descriptive rather than distinctive, or where the registration predates the complainant's rights.

What does that look like on the ground? Consider two scenarios. First: a domain that is letter-for-letter identical to a federally registered mark, registered the week your product launched, pointing at a page selling competitive goods. That is a URS case. Second: a domain containing a common dictionary word plus your brand, registered five years before your mark was granted, with an active blog the registrant has run since registration. That is not a URS case – and arguably not even a UDRP case without additional facts. Understanding where the line sits is the first decision any brand owner should make before filing anything.

For a read on whether the three URS grounds are clearly met in your .info matter, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

What are the three grounds you must establish to suspend a .info domain through URS?

The three URS grounds track the UDRP's three elements closely, but the evidentiary weight required on each is higher. You must show, by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which you have rights; (2) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests; and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

On the first ground, a registered trademark is the strongest foundation. Examiners accept national and international registrations. A pending application or a common-law mark can establish rights, but the case is harder to frame as "clear and convincing" if the mark is unregistered. For .info cases, we regularly advise clients to file the URS after a trademark registration has issued, not during the application period, specifically because the first element needs to be airtight.

On the second ground, the complainant must show the registrant has no connection to the name – no prior use, no business commonly known by the domain, no bona fide service launched before the dispute. Default cases (where the registrant files no response) often satisfy this element by non-rebuttal, but examiners do not rubber-stamp the complaint: they still require positive evidence that no legitimate interest exists.

On the third ground, the URS lists the same non-exhaustive bad-faith indicators as the UDRP under Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy: offering to sell the domain to the mark owner at a premium, disrupting the complainant's business, attracting users for commercial gain through confusion, and a pattern of abusive registrations. Pay-per-click parking on a trademark term is well-established as bad-faith use. Phishing or impersonation makes the case even clearer.

One point the record must address directly: the "registered AND used" requirement is cumulative, just as it is under the UDRP. A domain parked since registration satisfies the use limb – passive holding combined with bad-faith registration is treated as bad-faith use under the consensus view of both UDRP panels and URS examiners. Do not assume a parked page weakens the case.

How long does it take to suspend a .info domain through URS?

A URS proceeding moves faster than a standard UDRP case by design. After a complaint is filed, the provider reviews it for formal compliance, then notifies the registrant. The registrant has a short window to respond. If no response is filed, the matter proceeds to an examiner on the papers. The overall timeline from filing to a determination is typically a matter of weeks rather than the roughly two-month standard UDRP cycle.

The speed advantage is real but should not be overstated. If the registrant files a response, or if the complaint requires supplemental submissions to address a procedural issue, the timeline extends. In a recent matter – a .info exact-match cybersquatting complaint, early 2025 – suspension was ordered in under four weeks of filing, with no response from the registrant. Where a response is filed, expect the timeline to be longer, though still generally faster than a contested UDRP at the same provider.

One practical note: during the proceeding, the complainant can request a registrar lock on the domain, which prevents the registrant from transferring it away or letting it drop before the case concludes. That step should be taken at the outset.

What evidence decides a .info URS complaint – and what should you collect before filing?

Examiners decide URS complaints on the written record alone. There is no hearing, no oral argument, no discovery. Everything that supports your case must be in the complaint. Evidence assembled carelessly – or evidence omitted because it seemed obvious – can and does lead to denial.

The core evidentiary package for a .info URS case includes: certified copies of your trademark registration certificates (national or international); a timeline of your first use in commerce, including advertising spend and product-launch dates; a printout of the domain's WHOIS or RDDS record at filing; screenshots of the domain's resolving page (dated, showing the infringing content); and any communications in which the registrant attempted to sell the domain, or in which you formally put the registrant on notice.

If the domain is parked and serving generic pay-per-click links, capture the page before filing. Registrants have been known to take the page down when they receive the URS notification – but an examiner can consider the site's historical content if supported by archived evidence from a public archiving service. We routinely include archived captures in the evidentiary record to address exactly this risk.

What about the complainant's own evidence of rights? A trademark certificate is necessary but not sufficient on its own. Examiners want to see that the mark is in active use – that there is a real brand, not a paper registration filed specifically to prosecute the URS. Shipping the brand's website screenshots, press coverage, and any domain history showing the complainant's use of the term strengthens the first element considerably.

To assess the evidence and determine whether your .info complaint meets the clear-and-convincing standard, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

URS vs. UDRP for a .info dispute: how do you choose the right route?

The choice between the URS and the UDRP for a .info dispute comes down to three variables: what you want, how strong the evidence is, and whether cost or speed is the binding constraint.

If you want the domain transferred to you, the UDRP is the only administrative path. The URS suspends; it does not transfer. Brand owners sometimes assume that winning a URS suspension creates a later path to transfer – it does not, at least not automatically. A separate UDRP would be required after the suspension term ends.

If you want the domain neutralized fast – because it is actively harming your brand through impersonation, phishing, or consumer confusion – and the case is clear on all three elements, file the URS. Suspension removes the harm within weeks. The WIPO filing fee is lower than a standard UDRP. And if the case is truly clear-cut, the higher evidentiary standard is not the obstacle it might appear.

If the case involves any meaningful ambiguity – a respondent with a colorable legitimate interest, a mark that is not federally registered, a domain that has been in existence for years without active infringing use – the UDRP's balance-of-probabilities standard gives the complainant more room to win. Filing URS in a case that belongs in a UDRP is a common and costly mistake: the complaint is denied, the respondent is now on notice, and any future UDRP proceeds against a registrant who has had time to construct a defense.

There is a third scenario: the infringement spans multiple zones. If the registrant holds the same abusive name as both a .info and a .com, a coordinated UDRP covering both domains is often more efficient than a URS on the .info plus a separate UDRP on the .com. A single UDRP complaint may cover multiple domains where the respondent is the same holder. That consolidation saves time and cost, though the UDRP filing fee scales with the number of domains included.

A fourth scenario arises where the conduct is deliberate and ongoing and you also want damages. Administrative proceedings – URS or UDRP – cannot award money. US anticybersquatting litigation in federal court is the only path to damages, and it is handled with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For most brand owners, the speed and cost of the URS or UDRP is preferable; court action is reserved for cases where the registrant's conduct is systematic and the damages are substantial enough to justify it.

What does it cost to file a URS complaint at WIPO for a .info domain?

Cost is one of the URS's most cited advantages over the UDRP. The official WIPO URS filing fee is lower than the standard UDRP rate – the URS was explicitly designed as a low-cost rapid option. The WIPO UDRP single-panel fee for one to five domains is USD 1,500; the URS entry point is below that. Verify the current WIPO URS schedule directly with the provider before filing, as fee schedules are updated periodically.

Legal fees for preparing a URS complaint depend on complexity. The evidentiary record must be assembled correctly – the complaint is the whole case – and an error in the complaint cannot easily be corrected. In our experience, the preparation cost for a well-documented URS complaint is meaningfully lower than for a contested UDRP, though still a real investment. The market rate for complaint preparation across the industry for straightforward single-domain URS matters runs below the USD 3,000–7,000 range commonly cited for UDRP complaints, though your specific matter will determine where that sits.

One cost consideration that is easy to miss: if the URS complaint is denied and the brand owner then needs to file a UDRP, the total cost of both proceedings will exceed the cost of a single well-prepared UDRP filed from the start. Choosing the right tool at the outset is itself a cost decision.

What happens after the URS examiner issues a suspension order?

When the examiner finds for the complainant, the registrar implements suspension. The domain resolves to a ICANN-mandated URS notification page rather than any content of the registrant's choosing. The suspension runs for the remainder of the domain's paid registration term. The registrant cannot transfer the domain during suspension.

At the end of the registration term, the domain can be renewed by the registrant – URS suspension does not strip the registrant of renewal rights. That is another meaningful difference from a UDRP transfer, where the complainant becomes the new registrant. If the brand owner needs the domain permanently and wants to take title, the proper path after a URS suspension ends is a UDRP complaint or negotiated acquisition.

The registrant may seek a de novo appeal of a URS determination through a full UDRP proceeding. This is uncommon in clear-cut cases, but it is a right the Policy preserves. A URS suspension finding does not estop the registrant from litigating the same domain in a different forum, though the evidentiary record from the URS proceeding is typically part of any subsequent proceeding's record.

In a second recent matter – a .info phishing domain, summer 2025 – suspension was implemented within days of the examiner's order. The registrant did not appeal. The brand's customer base stopped receiving fraudulent communications from the address within the week. That is the practical value of the URS in its best use case: speed matched to clear-cut facts.

Related at COGNOMEN

• URS and new gTLD dispute services – the full scope of COGNOMEN's rapid suspension practice
• URS analysis for .dev – how the suspension standard applies across new gTLDs
• Verify chain of title before acquisition – pre-purchase due diligence for domain buyers