How to choose between URS and UDRP for a .info domain

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

A brand owner discovers a .info registration that copies its trademark, redirects customers to a competitor's site, and has been live for three months. Two remedies exist under ICANN's accredited dispute system. The question is not simply which is faster – it is which remedy actually solves the problem.

For a .info domain, both the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) are available routes, because .info is a legacy gTLD subject to ICANN's mandatory dispute procedures. URS suspends the domain for its remaining registration term but does not transfer ownership; UDRP transfers or cancels it permanently. The choice turns on how strong the evidence is, whether transfer is the goal, and how quickly the situation demands a result. A standard UDRP case at WIPO runs approximately two months and starts at USD 1,500 in forum fees; URS moves faster and costs less, but the evidentiary bar is higher and the remedy is narrower.

This page sets out the governing rules, the key differences, the evidence that decides each route, and how to select the right path for a .info dispute today.

Why .info sits within the ICANN dispute system – and what that means for you

.info is a legacy gTLD launched in 2001, and like .com and .net it is bound by the ICANN mandatory administrative procedure that every accredited registrar must implement. That means both the UDRP and the URS are available, with no registry-specific carve-out. When you choose between URS and UDRP for a .info domain, you are working within the same rules that govern .com disputes, not a country-code procedure or a bespoke registry policy.

The practical consequence matters. A .info registration cannot hide behind a national eligibility requirement or a domestic-law threshold that differs from the global standard. The complainant does not need an EU nexus (as with .eu) or Canadian presence (as with .ca). If you hold a trademark – registered or, in some circumstances, unregistered – and the three UDRP elements are met, the Policy applies cleanly.

The flip side is also true for the registrant. A .info respondent faces the full weight of the UDRP's bad-faith analysis, without any jurisdictional buffer. In our practice, .info domains appear frequently in multi-domain cybersquatting campaigns because the extension was historically associated with informational content and attracted speculative registrations in the early gTLD era. That history is relevant: panels have consistently held that passive holding of a domain identical to a well-known mark, with no active use, can satisfy the bad-faith use element under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

For the complainant, the gateway question is therefore not whether these rules apply, but which mechanism within them produces the right outcome efficiently. That analysis is the subject of the rest of this page.

How does the URS work, and when is it the right choice for .info?

The URS is a faster, lower-cost suspension mechanism introduced with the new gTLD round – but it was extended to legacy gTLDs including .info. Its core feature is speed: the process is designed to conclude in days, not months. The trade-off is exacting: the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence, a higher bar than the UDRP's preponderance standard. And the only remedy is suspension – the domain goes dark, but title does not move to the complainant.

When does that trade-off favor the brand owner? Three scenarios make URS the sharper tool for a .info dispute.

First, when the evidence is overwhelming and the complainant does not need permanent transfer right now. If a .info domain is reproducing the complainant's registered trademark letter-for-letter, pointing at a phishing page, and the registrant is clearly not known by the name, the URS examiner can act quickly. The site goes dark. The threat is neutralized pending a fuller UDRP proceeding if transfer is later pursued.

Second, when the harm is immediate and reputational. A phishing page, a fake customer-service portal, or a site distributing malware under a brand's name needs to be suspended before users are deceived. URS timelines outpace even WIPO's expedited option.

Third, when budget is genuinely a constraint. URS official fees are lower than UDRP forum fees, and because the examiner's review is formulaic, legal preparation is lighter. For a brand owner managing a portfolio of infringers across many domains, URS on the clearest cases and UDRP on the contested ones is a rational triage strategy.

The risk of getting this choice wrong is concrete. If you choose URS and the evidence is not clear and convincing on every element, the case fails – and the registrant retains the domain with a finding that may complicate a subsequent UDRP. We regularly advise complainants who filed URS cases on marginally strong evidence and faced exactly that complication. The evidentiary threshold is not academic; it decides outcomes.

To assess whether the evidence in your .info dispute meets the URS clear-and-convincing standard, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the UDRP work differently for a .info domain, and when should you choose it?

Under the UDRP, a complainant must prove all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark; the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests; and the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. That cumulative requirement – registration and use, not merely one – is the Policy's defining structural rule. If a .info domain was registered in bad faith but the registrant has since developed a legitimate associated business (rare but not impossible), the use element may not be met as a matter of consensus doctrine. Panels analyze both limbs.

The UDRP's remedies are superior to URS in one decisive respect: the panel can order transfer. The complainant leaves the proceeding as the domain's registered owner. That is the outcome most brand owners want, and URS cannot deliver it.

UDRP is the right instrument for a .info domain in four common situations.

First, where the complainant wants legal title to the name. Transfer is permanent; URS suspension expires when the registration term ends.

Second, where the evidence is strong but not overwhelming. The UDRP's preponderance standard is easier to meet than URS's clear-and-convincing bar. A domain that redirects to a competitor's site, is held by a registrant with no plausible connection to the name, and was registered shortly after the complainant's trademark filing is exactly the kind of case UDRP handles daily across all gTLDs.

Third, where the registrant is likely to respond and contest. A three-member panel provides credibility and depth of analysis that can withstand challenge. At WIPO, the fee for a three-member panel on a single domain is USD 4,000. That investment is often justified where a contested respondent is expected.

Fourth, where cancellation is preferable to transfer. If the domain is one the complainant does not need commercially, cancellation releases it rather than adding it to a portfolio. Panels can order either remedy, and the complainant's preference is typically noted.

In a recent matter involving a .info domain used to impersonate a financial-services brand (spring 2025), we assessed the evidence, filed a UDRP complaint at WIPO with a single-member panel, and secured a transfer order. The registrant had pointed the domain at a pay-per-click parking page bearing the brand's own competitors' advertisements – a fact pattern panels have long treated as a textbook Paragraph 4(b) bad-faith registration.

What evidence decides the outcome – URS or UDRP for .info?

Evidence assembly is where most .info disputes are won or lost, regardless of which procedure is chosen. The elements are the same in substance, but the threshold for each differs, and the document record must be tailored accordingly.

For the trademark element, a registered mark in any jurisdiction is sufficient; a pending application is generally not. Unregistered or common-law rights require evidence of use in commerce, geographic reach, and recognition – trade press, sales figures, advertising spend, consumer testimony. The stronger and older the mark, the easier this element is to satisfy, and the harder it becomes for a registrant to argue it registered the domain without knowledge of the brand.

For the lack of legitimate interest element, the complainant must make out a prima facie case; the burden then shifts to the registrant to produce evidence of bona fide use, a name it is commonly known by, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Common indicators that this element is met: the registrant has no registered trademark of its own, no known business operating under the name, no website content connecting the domain to a recognizable enterprise, and the WHOIS/RDDS record does not reflect the name.

For bad faith, the Paragraph 4(b) list is non-exhaustive. A .info domain pointed at advertising for the brand's competitors, or a site offering the domain for sale to the brand owner at a price clearly exceeding registration cost, or part of a pattern of registering marks as domains – each of these is a recognized bad-faith indicator. Passive holding of a domain identical to a famous mark, with no active use whatsoever, also qualifies under settled panel consensus.

Under URS, these same elements must be present, but each must be established at the clear-and-convincing level. In practice, examiners look for the most egregious cases: exact-match domains with no conceivable legitimate purpose, active phishing or fraud, or large-scale squatting campaigns against well-known marks. Close calls go against the complainant.

In a second matter (a .info domain campaign targeting a technology brand, summer 2025), we defended a registrant facing a URS filing that should have been brought as a UDRP. The complainant's evidence was substantial but not clear and convincing on the bad-faith element – the domain had been held for several years before any commercial activity by either side. The URS examiner denied suspension. The registrant retained the domain. That outcome was the direct consequence of the complainant selecting the wrong mechanism for its evidence level.

If a prior filing produced a bad result, or if you are unsure which standard your evidence meets, a focused review of your record can identify what was missed. Contact info@cognomenlaw.com to discuss.

How do you choose between URS and UDRP for a .info domain? A practical decision matrix

The choice is not abstract. It maps onto a small set of concrete variables, and working through them in order produces a defensible answer in most .info disputes.

Start with the goal. If you need legal title to the .info domain – because you want to operate under it, sell it, or prevent anyone from re-registering it after expiry – UDRP is the only route. URS suspension expires with the registration term. Transfer is a UDRP remedy.

Next, assess the urgency. If an active phishing page, a malware distribution site, or a fake customer portal is live today under your brand's .info address, URS's speed advantage is decisive. The domain goes dark fast. You can follow with UDRP for transfer after the immediate threat is neutralized.

Then, evaluate the evidence honestly. Can every element be established at the clear-and-convincing level? Exact-match domain, no legitimate-use argument, active fraud use – that set supports URS. A strong case with a colorable registrant argument, or a passive-holding situation requiring doctrinal analysis of bad faith – those cases belong in UDRP, where the standard is preponderance and the panel has discretion to work through the nuances.

Consider the cost and forum. A single-domain URS costs less than a WIPO UDRP single-member filing at USD 1,500. For a portfolio of identical .info typosquats held by the same registrant, a single UDRP complaint can cover multiple domains. For a mixed portfolio where some domains are URS-grade and others require transfer, a split strategy is common.

Consider the cross-zone picture. If the same infringer holds both a .com and a .info version of your brand name, a single UDRP complaint covering both (they share a registrant) is almost always more efficient than parallel URS and UDRP filings. WIPO and the Forum both permit multi-domain complaints against a common registrant. CAC – the Czech Arbitration Court – offers the lowest entry-level UDRP filing fees and handles .info matters; for straightforward cases on a budget, that option is worth a comparison against WIPO's service offering.

Finally, consider the respondent-side risk. A failed URS does not bar a subsequent UDRP, but it creates a record. Panels examining a UDRP complaint on a domain where URS was denied may want to understand why the earlier standard was not met. If the answer is "the evidence was not overwhelming," that is distinguishable. If the answer is "an examiner found no bad faith," the complainant faces a harder argument. Filing sequence matters.

Choosing the right forum within UDRP – WIPO, the Forum, or CAC for .info

Once UDRP is selected, the complainant chooses the filing forum. WIPO and the Forum together handle approximately 97% of all UDRP proceedings. For a .info dispute, all three major forums – WIPO, the Forum, and CAC – are available, and the choice affects cost, panel pool, and in some cases speed.

WIPO is the most widely used and the most internationally visible forum. Its panel pool is large and experienced across all gTLDs. The USD 1,500 single-member panel fee is the standard market rate, with a partial refund typically available if the case settles or is withdrawn before panel appointment. WIPO also offers an expedited procedure, delivering a decision in approximately one month for single-panel cases covering up to five domains – a meaningful option when urgency matters but the evidentiary record is too complex for URS.

The Forum (formerly the National Arbitration Forum) is the second major provider and handles a large volume of .com and .info cases. Filing fees begin at approximately USD 1,300 for one to two domains on a single-member panel. Many brand owners with US-based legal operations default to the Forum because of familiarity with its procedures and panel decisions.

CAC – the Czech Arbitration Court – is the lowest-cost entry point, with fees beginning approximately in the USD 500–800 range. It is the least-used of the three and carries a smaller panel pool. For a .info dispute where cost is a primary constraint and the facts are not complex, CAC is worth evaluating.

For .info specifically, there is no forum-shopping advantage in the legal standard – the Policy is identical at every accredited provider. The decision rests on cost, panel familiarity with the specific fact pattern, and the complainant's operational preference. We work across all three forums and advise on selection based on the specific case record.

What about a national court for a .info dispute – and when does court action make sense?

The UDRP and URS are not the only available routes. They are the fastest and cheapest, but they are not comprehensive. A complainant who needs monetary damages – the economic cost of the diversion, the harm to brand reputation, or the conversion of sales to a fraudulent site – cannot recover them through UDRP or URS. Those procedures produce only transfer, cancellation, or suspension.

US anticybersquatting litigation – available where the domain is managed through a US-based registrar or the registrant has a US nexus – can reach damages and can be used in combination with a UDRP filing or after a UDRP transfer order. The two routes are not mutually exclusive, and a UDRP panel decision may be entered as evidence in subsequent litigation. However, court proceedings are substantially more expensive and slower than WIPO arbitration.

If the .info domain dispute has a German dimension – for example, a German-market brand with a .de companion domain – the German courts are the route for that ccTLD, since .de has no UDRP equivalent. DENIC's DISPUTE entry can block transfer of the .de while litigation proceeds, but the court proceeding is the primary mechanism. That work is handled with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For the .info component, UDRP runs in parallel without interference.

The cross-zone picture – .info handled through UDRP at WIPO, .de handled through German court proceedings, .eu handled through ADR.eu – is one we encounter regularly. Understanding how those three tracks fit together, and how a decision in one affects the others, is part of what COGNOMEN advises on from the outset.

For a deeper analysis of how court action compares with administrative procedures in cross-border scenarios, see our guide on court action for .de cybersquatting.

The respondent's perspective: defending a .info URS or UDRP complaint

Not every .info domain dispute is legitimate. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – a panel or examiner finding that the complainant brought the proceeding in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant of a domain it lawfully holds – is a recognized outcome under both the UDRP and its associated procedures. The finding carries reputational consequence, not a financial penalty, but it is on the record and is publicly searchable.

A registrant who holds a .info domain for a genuine business purpose, or who registered it before the trademark in question achieved its current prominence, has a real defense. The Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors – bona fide use before notice of the dispute, being commonly known by the name, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use – are not merely procedural; they have decided cases where the complainant overreached.

The 20-day response window under the UDRP is not forgiving. A registrant who receives a UDRP complaint has twenty days from commencement to file a response. Default does not mean automatic loss – panels still examine the complaint on its merits – but a considered response, building the legitimate-interest record and documenting the good-faith registration, is almost always superior to silence.

URS defaults favor the complainant more starkly. Under the URS, if no timely response is filed, the examiner may proceed on the complainant's papers alone, and suspension can follow quickly. A registrant who has a legitimate-interest defense must file it.

We have defended .info registrants in both UDRP and URS proceedings. In contested cases, the registrant's contemporaneous records – registration history, business use, communications preceding the dispute – are the evidence that decides the outcome. We build that record from the first consultation.

For a full overview of COGNOMEN's respondent-defense and URS practice, visit our URS and new gTLD disputes service page.

Related at COGNOMEN

• URS and New gTLD Disputes – suspension and recovery across the gTLD namespace
• New gTLD Launch Protection – brand strategy for the next expansion round
• Court Action for .de Cybersquatting – when arbitration cannot reach the remedy you need