Assess my case

Bad-faith evidence checklist for a UDRP complaint

By Cordelia Roe, UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery ·

A stranger holds the domain that matches your brand and is demanding a five-figure payout. You believe you have a strong trademark. That belief alone will not transfer the domain. The UDRP requires you to prove bad faith – and proof means evidence, organized against the specific circumstances that panels recognize under Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

This checklist maps the evidence categories that matter in a UDRP bad-faith determination: the four Paragraph 4(b) circumstances, passive holding doctrine, and identity concealment. Work through each item before you file. The stronger your evidence stack across these categories, the more defensible the complaint becomes. Owning the trademark is necessary but not sufficient – panels decide cases on the full record, not the registration certificate alone.

The sections below explain what each item tests and why panels weight it. Use the checklist first, then read the explanations to understand where your file is strong and where it needs work before filing.

How to use this bad-faith evidence checklist

Run through each item and mark it if you have that evidence in hand or can obtain it before filing. Items you cannot check point to gaps in your record. A few unchecked boxes rarely defeat a complaint on their own. A whole category left blank is a different matter – panels do assess the cumulative weight of the evidence, and a thin file on bad faith is the most common reason a complaint fails when the trademark element is strong.

This tool does not predict a panel's decision. No checklist can do that. Facts that look strong in isolation can be reframed by a skilled respondent. Facts that look weak can be decisive if they combine with other evidence. What the checklist gives you is a structured way to see your file before a panel does.

Every item here is grounded in the text of the Policy and the consensus view among UDRP panels. The data underlying the tool reflects the Policy as in force and WIPO's published procedures as of August 5, 2026. Confirm current WIPO filing fees and procedural rules before filing.

The bad-faith evidence checklist

Work through all six categories. Each item is a checkable statement. The pipeline adds checkboxes and a progress counter to the block below; if the interactive version has not loaded, read through each item and note which apply to your situation.

  • Paragraph 4(b)(i) – Offer to sell: The registrant or their agent has made a direct offer to sell or transfer the domain to you or a competitor, and the price demanded exceeds documented out-of-pocket registration costs.
  • Paragraph 4(b)(i) – Demand documentation: You have in writing the specific sum demanded – an email, a broker message, a listing on a domain marketplace – with the date and the amount stated.
  • Paragraph 4(b)(ii) – Pattern of registrations: You have identified other domain registrations by the same registrant that correspond to third-party trademarks, suggesting a pattern of abusive registration rather than an isolated event.
  • Paragraph 4(b)(ii) – Prior UDRP decisions: At least one prior UDRP decision has found this registrant to have registered a domain in bad faith (verifiable through the WIPO case database or the Forum's published decisions).
  • Paragraph 4(b)(iii) – Competitor disruption: The registrant is a direct competitor of yours, and the domain registration prevents you from reflecting your mark in a corresponding domain name, or the registrant is using the domain to redirect your customers or disrupt your business.
  • Paragraph 4(b)(iii) – Evidence of disruption: You have screenshots, traffic analytics, or customer complaints showing that the domain's use has caused actual disruption to your business operations or customer relationships.
  • Paragraph 4(b)(iv) – Confusion for commercial gain: The domain resolves to a page that displays advertising, affiliate links, or competing goods and services in a way that creates a likelihood of confusion with your mark as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
  • Paragraph 4(b)(iv) – Dated screenshots: You have dated, full-page screenshots of the domain's resolving page, with the URL and date visible, capturing the commercial content that creates the confusion.
  • Passive holding: If the domain does not resolve to any active website, you have documented the passive use – the RDAP/WHOIS record, the registration date relative to your mark's priority date, and the absence of any plausible good-faith explanation for holding the domain inactive.
  • Registration timing and mark awareness: The registration date post-dates your trademark's first use in commerce or its registration, and you have evidence that your mark was known in the relevant market before the domain was registered (press coverage, sales volume, registered trademark certificate with the priority date).
  • Identity concealment: The registrant's RDAP record shows a privacy service or proxy with no disclosed beneficial owner, and you have noted this in your evidence record along with the date of your lookup.
  • Rejected or unanswered correspondence: You sent a cease-and-desist or purchase inquiry before filing, the registrant did not respond or responded with a higher demand, and you have dated copies of all communications.

What each category tests – and why panels weight it

The four Paragraph 4(b) circumstances are illustrative, not exhaustive. A panel may find bad faith from a combination of facts that does not fit neatly into any single subparagraph. Understanding what each circumstance actually tests helps you frame the evidence you have – and identify the circumstance your evidence best supports.

Paragraph 4(b)(i) targets registrations made specifically to sell the domain to the mark owner or a competitor. The key is that the price demanded must exceed out-of-pocket registration costs. A registrant who paid USD 15 to register a domain and then demands USD 50,000 from the mark owner has a significant evidentiary problem – the profit motive is embedded in the demand itself. Panels look at the amount, the audience for the demand, and whether the offer was unsolicited.

Paragraph 4(b)(ii) targets serial abusers. A pattern does not require dozens of domains. Two or three prior findings against the same registrant, or a portfolio of registrations that all correspond to well-known marks, can establish the pattern. This circumstance rewards investment in registrant research before you file.

Paragraph 4(b)(iii) is narrower than it reads. It applies where the registrant is a competitor. If the registrant has no apparent competitive relationship with you, this circumstance is not the right hook – but the disruption facts may still support a finding under the general bad-faith analysis outside Paragraph 4(b).

Paragraph 4(b)(iv) is the most commonly invoked circumstance and covers pay-per-click parking, affiliate pages, and competitive advertising. The confusion must be about source or affiliation, not merely that users might end up at the wrong site by accident. Panels look at whether the registrant knew of the mark – typically inferred from the domain itself matching a distinctive mark – and whether the page monetizes that association.

Passive holding and identity concealment: how panels treat them

Not every cybersquatter puts up a monetized parking page. Some simply hold the domain and wait. UDRP panels have long recognized that passive holding can constitute bad faith when the surrounding circumstances make it implausible that the registrant has a legitimate use in mind. What matters is the combination: the distinctiveness of the mark at registration, the absence of any credible explanation for the registration, and any conduct that suggests awareness of the complainant's mark.

Identity concealment – using a privacy or proxy service – is not bad faith on its own. Panels treat it as one factor, typically weighted against a registrant who also has no apparent reason to hold the domain. The practical point for evidence: when your RDAP lookup returns a privacy service rather than a named registrant, document that fact with a dated record. It becomes part of the cumulative picture you present to the panel.

The shift from WHOIS to RDAP is worth noting here. As of January 28, 2025, ICANN no longer requires registrars to operate WHOIS services; RDAP is now the standard source of registration data, and individual registrant data is routinely redacted under data-protection law. If the public RDAP record does not identify the registrant, you may need to use ICANN's Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) – a formal channel for requesting disclosure from the registrar. Disclosure is not automatic, and the registrar's response timeline is outside your control. Documenting the attempt matters even when disclosure is delayed.

For guidance on identifying a hidden registrant before you file, contact info@cognomenlaw.com or review the RDAP and WHOIS lookup guide: identifying a hidden registrant for a step-by-step approach.

What this checklist cannot tell you

The checklist tells you what evidence you have. It cannot weigh that evidence the way a panel will. Several factors sit entirely outside this tool.

First, the respondent's defense. You do not know whether the registrant will file a response or what legitimate-interest argument they will make. A Paragraph 4(c) safe harbor – a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute, commonly known by the name, or fair use – can neutralize strong bad-faith evidence if the panel finds it credible. Second, forum selection matters. WIPO and the Forum decide the same policy, but panels are individuals and records show variation in how closely they scrutinize thin evidence files. Third, the domain zone shapes the rules. A .com UDRP and a .uk Nominet DRS proceeding test different standards – the UDRP requires registration and use in bad faith cumulatively, while the .uk DRS reads "registered or used" abusively, a materially lower threshold.

Many complainants also assume that owning the trademark guarantees the domain transfers automatically. It does not. The UDRP is not a trademark enforcement tool in the general sense. It is a narrow procedure with a specific three-element test. A complaint that succeeds on the trademark element but fails on bad faith produces no remedy – not a transfer, not a cancellation, nothing. The checklist focuses your attention on the element that fails most often.

Finally, this tool does not address multi-domain filings, consolidation of multiple respondents, or the URS – a different procedure for new-gTLD domains that carries a higher evidentiary standard. If your situation involves a large portfolio of abusive registrations or a new-gTLD domain, discuss the procedural options with counsel before filing.

What to do with the result

A well-checked list points toward a strong bad-faith case. Take these steps once you have worked through it.

  1. Identify any unchecked category and decide whether you can obtain the missing evidence before filing – a supplemental RDAP request, a second round of screenshots, or a registrar inquiry. Filing a complaint with a weak bad-faith record is harder to cure after filing than before.
  2. Select the right forum. WIPO handles the largest share of UDRP proceedings and is the default choice for contested matters. The Forum is the second option. CAC is the most cost-efficient entry point. For a straightforward single-domain case with clear bad faith, a standard WIPO single-member-panel filing costs USD 1,500 in forum fees; where speed matters, WIPO's expedited option – available since March 9, 2026 for single-panel cases of up to five domains – delivers a decision in about one month for a USD 4,000 forum fee.
  3. Prepare a consolidated evidence package: the trademark certificate with its priority date, the RDAP record with its lookup date, dated screenshots of the domain's resolving page or parking content, all correspondence with the registrant, and any pattern-of-registration research. A panel receives what you file; evidence discovered after the complaint is submitted is difficult to add.
  4. Review the respondent's likely safe-harbor arguments against your evidence. If the domain corresponds to a common word or phrase the registrant could plausibly claim as descriptive, your bad-faith evidence needs to do more work than it would for a coined or highly distinctive mark.
  5. Contact COGNOMEN for a case assessment. We assess the three UDRP elements, assemble the bad-faith evidence into a complaint record, select the forum, and file. COGNOMEN's indicative legal fee for a UDRP complaint is USD 2,500–4,000, set after a case assessment and separate from the forum filing fee.

A note on multi-zone situations

When the same registrant holds both a .com and a ccTLD – say, your brand as a .com and as a .uk – a single UDRP complaint can cover multiple domains if the registrant is the same holder. That consolidation can be efficient. But the .uk side of the dispute is subject to the Nominet DRS, which since July 7, 2026 is administered by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. The DRS standard differs from the UDRP, and the two proceedings run on separate tracks with separate fee schedules.

If the same bad-faith evidence covers both zones, the evidence gathering is largely shared – but the legal arguments are not identical, and the remedies and timelines differ. In a recent matter (a dual .com and .uk registration, spring 2026), we filed a UDRP for the .com and a DRS complaint for the .uk in parallel, using a shared evidence package but distinct legal submissions, and secured transfer on both names within approximately three months of the first filing. That approach is not always available or cost-effective. The right structure depends on the zone mix, the strength of the bad-faith record, and the registrant's likely defense.

For a .de domain, neither the UDRP nor the Nominet DRS applies. German court action – with a DENIC DISPUTE entry to prevent transfer during litigation – is the route. That is a materially different process, cost structure, and timeline, and requires local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

To weigh UDRP against a court action for your case, or to plan a multi-zone recovery strategy, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

COGNOMEN is an independent boutique focused exclusively on domain-name disputes. We recover, defend, and transact internet domains across generic and country-code zones, before WIPO, the Forum, CAC, ADNDRC, and national procedures, and in court where arbitration cannot reach. We act for brand owners, domain investors, and registrants – including respondent-side defense and reverse domain name hijacking. COGNOMEN focuses only on domain-name disputes – recovery, defense, and transactions. To discuss a domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

Frequently asked questions

How accurate is this checklist?

The checklist maps evidence to the specific circumstances in Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP and to the consensus doctrines panels apply on passive holding and identity concealment. It is accurate as a framework for organizing your evidence file. It is not a predictor of any particular panel's decision. Panel members are individuals. Outcomes turn on the full record, the respondent's conduct, and the zone-specific rules in play. The checklist tells you where your evidence is strong and where it has gaps – what you do with that information determines the outcome.

What is not included in the result?

The checklist does not assess the first two UDRP elements – confusing similarity and the respondent's lack of legitimate interest. It focuses on bad faith because that element fails most often when a complaint does not succeed. It also does not address URS filings for new-gTLD domains, multi-respondent consolidation, or the different evidentiary standards that apply under ccTLD procedures like the Nominet DRS or EURid's ADR.eu. For a complete picture of your complaint's strength across all three elements, a case assessment with counsel is the next step.

What should I do with the number it gives me?

The progress indicator tells you how many evidence items you have in hand across the six categories. Treat it as a readiness signal, not a score. A high count in a single category is less valuable than solid evidence spread across two or three. If a whole category is empty – no pattern-of-registration evidence, for example, or no screenshots of the resolving page – focus pre-filing effort there. If you have worked through the list and still have significant gaps, contact info@cognomenlaw.com for a case assessment before filing.

Author: — UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery; domain transactions and brand protection. Meet the team.

Speak with Cognomen Law

For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter

No obligation. Confidential. We reply within two hours in business hours.

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.