UDRP Cost Calculator: filing fees and legal fees

A stranger holds the domain that matches your brand and is asking five figures to transfer it. You want to know the real cost of a UDRP complaint before you decide whether to file – not a vague range, but the actual forum filing fee, the legal fee on top, and how those numbers shift depending on the provider, the panel size, and the number of domains. This page gives you that breakdown and a calculator to run the numbers yourself.

A UDRP complaint costs two things at once: a forum filing fee paid directly to the dispute-resolution provider, and a separate legal fee paid to counsel. At WIPO, the filing fee starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains; legal fees in the market run from roughly USD 2,500 upward for a straightforward case. The total is therefore the sum of both, and the two are never bundled. Figures on this page are the published rates as of August 3, 2026; always confirm current rates before filing.

The sections below explain each component, the calculator lets you combine them, and the FAQ at the end answers the three questions we hear most often.

What does a UDRP actually cost – and who charges what?

A UDRP complaint produces two separate invoices. The forum – WIPO, the Forum, CAC, or ADNDRC – charges a filing fee that goes to administering the case and paying the panelist. Counsel charges a legal fee for drafting the complaint, assembling the evidence record, and managing the proceedings. The two costs are entirely independent; paying one does not reduce the other.

WIPO and the Forum together handle roughly 97% of all UDRP proceedings. CAC offers the lowest entry point and is an option worth considering for budget-sensitive matters. ADNDRC serves parties with a preference for an Asia-Pacific seat. The substantive UDRP rules are the same at all four providers; the difference is price, speed, and panelist pool.

Many brand owners assume that holding a registered trademark guarantees an automatic transfer. It does not. The UDRP requires proof of all three elements under Paragraph 4(a) – confusing similarity, no legitimate interest in the registrant, and registration and use in bad faith – and a panel decides each element on its own assessment of the evidence. Filing the complaint is the beginning of that process, not the end.

Forum filing fees by provider, panel size, and domain count

Forum filing fees are set and published by each provider; the figures below are the rates as of August 3, 2026. Confirm current rates at the provider's website before filing, as fees are subject to revision.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is the largest provider by volume. For a single-member panel: USD 1,500 for one to five domains; USD 2,000 for six to ten domains; over ten domains is by individual quote. For a three-member panel: USD 4,000 for one to five domains; USD 5,000 for six to ten domains. Where the complainant requests a single panelist but the respondent requests three members, the parties generally split the higher three-member fee.

WIPO also offers a refund policy (published March 9, 2026): withdrawal before formal notification is refunded except USD 100 (one to five domains); termination after formal notification but before panel appointment is refunded except USD 500 (one to five domains). Once a panel is appointed, there is no refund.

The Forum (formerly the National Arbitration Forum): filing fees begin at around USD 1,300 for one to two domains, single-member panel. Fees increase with domain count; confirm the current schedule at the Forum directly.

Czech Arbitration Court (CAC): the lowest published entry point, beginning around USD 500–800, making it a practical option for single-domain complaints where cost is a primary consideration.

ADNDRC: begins around USD 1,300 for one to two domains, single-member panel. Used most often when parties have an Asia-Pacific nexus.

Fees stated are the published rates as of August 3, 2026. Confirm current rates at the relevant provider before filing. WIPO's fee schedule is at wipo.int; the Forum's is at thedomains.com/forum; CAC's is at adr.eu; ADNDRC's is at adndrc.org.

The WIPO expedited option: a decision in about one month

Since March 9, 2026, WIPO offers an expedited procedure that targets a decision in about one month rather than the standard two. It is available for single-panelist cases covering up to five domains.

The complainant's expedited fee is USD 4,000 – USD 1,000 to WIPO and USD 3,000 to the panelist. That compares with the standard single-panel fee of USD 1,500. A respondent may separately elect to expedite from the response stage for USD 2,500. The expedited route does not change the UDRP's three-element test or the evidence rules; it compresses the schedule. Whether the speed premium is justified depends on the urgency: a brand owner watching a competitor siphon traffic through a lookalike domain may find the premium worthwhile; a less time-sensitive recovery may not.

For an assessment of whether the WIPO expedited option fits your matter, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

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

Legal fees: what the market charges and what COGNOMEN publishes

Legal fees are separate from every forum filing fee and depend on the complexity of the matter, the evidence record, the number of domains, and whether the registrant files a response. They are not determined by the forum.

Market rates for a UDRP complaint – assembling the evidence, drafting the complaint, and managing the proceeding to decision – commonly run in the USD 3,000–7,000 range for a single, straightforward domain, separate from the forum filing fee. More complex matters, multi-domain filings, or cases where a respondent files a detailed response will cost more.

COGNOMEN's published indicative legal fees, as listed at cognomenlaw.com/fees.html, are a turnkey rate of USD 2,500–4,000 for a standard UDRP recovery, separate from the forum fee. That figure is indicative and is confirmed after a case assessment; no outcome is guaranteed. The exact cost depends on the evidence complexity, the number of domains, and whether expedited treatment is elected.

A practical note on three-member panels: the legal work roughly doubles when a panel of three is used, because each panelist reviews the entire record independently. The forum fee is higher, and the legal fee for a complex, well-argued complaint rises accordingly. A single panelist is the default and is appropriate for most standard cybersquatting matters.

Use the calculator to combine forum fees and legal fees

Enter the provider you are considering, the number of domains, the panel size (single or three-member), and whether you want the WIPO expedited option. The calculator returns the published forum filing fee, the indicative COGNOMEN legal-fee band, and the combined range. Use the result as a planning figure, not a quote; the exact legal fee is set after a case assessment.

How the numbers work: the rules behind the calculator

Every figure the calculator uses comes from the providers' own published schedules, set out below in full so the page is useful even if the interactive block does not load.

WIPO – standard procedure: single-member panel, one to five domains, USD 1,500; six to ten domains, USD 2,000; over ten, by quote. Three-member panel, one to five domains, USD 4,000; six to ten domains, USD 5,000. Where a respondent upgrades a single-panelist request to three members, the parties generally split the three-member fee.

WIPO – expedited procedure (available since March 9, 2026, for single-panelist cases of up to five domains): complainant's fee, USD 4,000. Respondent elective upgrade from the response stage: USD 2,500. Target decision time: approximately one month.

The Forum: single-member panel, one to two domains, approximately USD 1,300. Fee increases with domain count; confirm the current schedule directly with the Forum.

CAC: beginning approximately USD 500–800, single-member panel. Lowest published entry point of the four main providers.

ADNDRC: single-member panel, one to two domains, approximately USD 1,300.

For legal fees: COGNOMEN's indicative turnkey rate is USD 2,500–4,000, separate from the forum fee, set after a case assessment. Market rates at other firms commonly run USD 3,000–7,000 for a single, straightforward domain. Neither figure includes any success fee component; those are a separate arrangement where agreed.

What the calculator cannot tell you

A cost calculator answers the pricing question. It cannot answer the filing question. Several factors change the calculus in ways no tool can reach.

First, the strength of your three UDRP elements. A complaint that fails on bad faith – for example, because the registrant registered the domain before your trademark priority date – cannot be fixed by choosing the cheapest forum. Filing anyway risks a finding of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH), which is a public reputational finding that the complaint was brought in bad faith against a legitimate registrant.

Second, the zone. The calculator covers gTLD matters under the UDRP. If the domain is a .uk, the applicable procedure is the Nominet DRS, now administered by WIPO since July 7, 2026, with its own fee schedule (GBP 200–750 + VAT for a standard expert decision). If it is a .eu, the ADR.eu procedure at the Czech Arbitration Court applies, with its own eligibility rules. For a .de, there is no UDRP – disputes go to the German courts with a DENIC dispute entry to block transfer in the meantime. For any ccTLD not listed here, confirm the governing procedure with counsel before treating UDRP fee estimates as applicable.

Third, the registrant's likely response. A defaulting registrant (no response filed) typically produces a faster, less contested proceeding. A well-resourced respondent who files a detailed response may prompt a request for a three-member panel and supplemental briefing. Both scenarios change the legal-fee portion of the total.

Fourth, the remedies available. The UDRP offers only transfer or cancellation – no monetary damages, no injunction, no costs award. If you need damages or an injunction, a US anticybersquatting court action is the route that reaches money; the fee structure there is hourly and substantially higher. The right route depends on what outcome you actually need.

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

What to do with the number the calculator gives you

The combined figure from the calculator is a planning range, not a commitment. Use it to decide whether to proceed to a case assessment. If the range is workable, the next step is a review of your trademark priority, the registrant's conduct, and the evidence record – the three UDRP elements – before any complaint is drafted.

In our practice, we regularly advise brand owners who have run the cost and concluded it is reasonable, only to discover on assessment that one of the three elements is contested. The time to surface that risk is before filing, not after paying the forum fee. A case assessment covers the element analysis, the forum selection, and a final fee confirmation, and it is the only way to turn a planning figure into a reliable budget.

One worked example illustrates the typical range. In a recent matter – a .com cybersquatting complaint, spring 2026 – we assessed a single domain against a registrant who had pointed it at a pay-per-click parking page. The WIPO single-member filing fee was USD 1,500; the legal fee fell within COGNOMEN's published band. The total came in comfortably below USD 6,000, and the panel issued a transfer order. The filing choice was WIPO rather than CAC because the complainant valued the panelist pool and the precedent-rich environment; CAC would have cost less at the forum-fee level but the overall budget difference was modest once legal fees were added.

A second matter, winter 2025, involved a respondent who upgraded to a three-member panel after the complaint was filed. The complainant's share of the WIPO three-member fee rose to USD 4,000; the legal-fee portion increased to account for the more substantive response. The total exceeded the initial planning figure, as is common when the respondent contests the matter fully. We had flagged that risk at the assessment stage.

About COGNOMEN

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. Our fees for UDRP recovery are published at cognomenlaw.com/fees.html as indicative ranges, confirmed after a case assessment. To discuss your domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• udrp recovery – full service page covering the UDRP complaint process end to end
• Bad-faith evidence checklist for a UDRP complaint – assess whether your evidence meets the bad-faith element before filing
• prove no legitimate interest net – how to build the second UDRP element into your complaint

Author: Cordelia Roe — 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

Domain in disputeYour sideI want to recover a nameI received a complaint — I need a defensePortfolio / brand protectionWhat happenedEmailI agree to the processing of my enquiry as described in the privacy policy.Assess my case

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.