The Complete UDRP Guide: Filing, Defending, and Winning Domain Name Disputes

This guide is for both sides of a UDRP dispute. If you are a trademark owner trying to recover a domain, start with Filing a UDRP complaint. If you have received a complaint against your domain, start with The UDRP response: the 20-day window. If you are evaluating whether the UDRP is the right procedure at all, start with What is the UDRP?.

Quick answer: what the UDRP is and what it can do

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is an ICANN-mandated administrative procedure for resolving disputes over generic top-level domain names. A complainant must prove three elements: the domain is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark; the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain; and the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. The only remedies are transfer or cancellation. There are no damages. A respondent usually has 20 days to file a response, and the process typically takes about two months from filing to decision.

Key facts at a glance

What is the UDRP?

The UDRP is an administrative framework created to address trademark-based domain name conflicts without the delay and expense of national court litigation. It is incorporated by contract into all generic domain registrations.

Legal basis and scope

The UDRP is not a treaty and it is not a court procedure. It is a contractual policy incorporated by reference into every domain name registration agreement with an ICANN-accredited registrar. When you register a .com, .net, .org, or any other gTLD, you agree in advance to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding if a trademark owner asserts the three elements.

The policy was adopted by ICANN on 26 August 1999, with implementation documents approved on 24 October 1999. It was updated on 21 February 2024, effective 21 August 2025, to implement the Registration Data Policy and the IGO-INGO Curricular Rights Protection Mechanisms policy recommendations. The core three-element test has not changed.

The UDRP applies to generic top-level domains — .com, .net, .org, .info, .biz, and the hundreds of new gTLDs — and to country-code extensions that have voluntarily adopted it, such as .nu, .tv, and .ws. It does not automatically apply to .uk, .au, .ca, .eu, .in, .cn, .br, or .us, which have their own policies.

Different extension. Different policy. Same clock. If your domain is not a gTLD, do not assume the UDRP applies. Always check the registry's policy first.

What the UDRP can and cannot do

The UDRP is a rights-protection mechanism, not a general trademark court. It can:

• order the transfer of a domain name to the complainant;
• order the cancellation of a domain name registration;
• issue a declaration of reverse domain name hijacking in appropriate cases.

It cannot:

• award monetary damages;
• award legal costs;
• grant injunctions or other equitable relief;
• decide trademark infringement or passing off claims;
• resolve disputes that do not involve a trademark or service mark.

This limitation is deliberate. The UDRP was designed to be fast, cheap, and limited. If you need damages or a broader commercial remedy, you need court proceedings — before, during, or after the UDRP.

The 2024–2025 policy updates

The 2024 update, effective 21 August 2025, made two categories of changes:

1. Registration Data Policy implementation. The Rules now require registrars to provide full registration data to the provider within two business days of a verification request, and to lock the domain. The registrar must not notify the respondent until the lock is applied. The lock remains in place through the pendency of the proceeding.

2. IGO-INGO curative rights. The policy now includes a specific arbitral proceeding mechanism for International Governmental Organizations (IGOs), allowing them to challenge a UDRP outcome through binding arbitration in certain circumstances.

For most complainants and respondents, the practical effect of the 2024 update is more reliable registration data and a clearer lock procedure, not a change to the three elements.

The three UDRP elements explained

The complainant must prove all three elements under Paragraph 4(a). If any one fails, the complaint is denied. There is no partial victory and no alternative remedy.

Element 1 — Identical or confusingly similar

The domain must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The threshold is low. The gTLD is disregarded. Small additions — a hyphen, a letter, a generic word — usually do not avoid confusing similarity.

The first element is a threshold test, not a likelihood-of-confusion analysis in the trademark infringement sense. Panels ask whether the domain is identical or confusingly similar to the mark. They do not ask whether consumers would actually be confused in the marketplace.

What panels consider:

• The domain is identical to the mark (e.g., brand.com for BRAND).
• The domain adds a descriptive or generic term (e.g., brand-shop.com).
• The domain adds a hyphen (e.g., brand-name.com).
• The domain changes one letter (typosquatting).
• The domain uses a different gTLD (e.g., .shop, .online, .support).
• The domain combines the mark with a geographic term, a number, or a common prefix or suffix.

What panels generally disregard:

• The gTLD itself (.com, .net, .shop, etc.).
• Letter case.
• Spaces, hyphens, and punctuation that do not change the mark.

What can defeat the first element:

• The complainant's mark is descriptive and the domain uses the descriptive term for its ordinary meaning.
• The complainant's mark is weak and the domain has a different dominant element.
• The complainant has no trademark rights at all (registered or common-law).
• The domain is a generic term that the complainant cannot monopolise.

Case illustration: In a 2026 decision involving ppptreatmentkit.com, a panel denied transfer because the respondent had legitimate interests in using the descriptive term "PPP treatment kit" to sell actual products. The panel found the complainant's mark was descriptive and the respondent's use was bona fide.

Element 2 — No rights or legitimate interests

The complainant must show the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Once the complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate a legitimate interest under paragraph 4(c): bona fide use, common recognition, or fair noncommercial use.

This is where most cases are won and lost. The complainant rarely has direct evidence of the respondent's lack of rights, so panels accept a prima facie case — for example, that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain, has not used it for a bona fide offering, and has no trademark. The burden then shifts to the respondent.

The three safe harbours under paragraph 4(c):

What panels look for:

• Was the domain registered before the complainant's trademark rights arose?
• Was the domain used for a genuine business, or merely parked?
• Did the respondent choose the name for its trademark value, or for its ordinary meaning?
• Is the respondent commonly known by the name?
• Is the use commercial and misleading?
• Did the respondent offer to sell the domain to the complainant for more than out-of-pocket costs?

Common respondent mistakes:

• Assuming that owning a trademark automatically proves legitimate interest. It does not. The question is whether the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain, not whether it owns a mark.
• Relying on after-the-fact use. Preparations must predate notice of the dispute.
• Failing to document why the domain was chosen. Panels weigh the registration story heavily.
• Assuming that non-use is a defence. Non-use can support bad faith, not legitimate interest.

Case illustration: In a 2024–2025 cluster, panels have repeatedly found that a respondent who registers a domain before the complainant's mark and continuously uses it for a genuine business has a legitimate interest, even if the domain later becomes valuable. The key is priority and bona fide use, not the current market value of the domain. Developing a sound evidence strategy is critical.

Element 3 — Registered and used in bad faith

The complainant must show the domain was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. The UDRP lists four non-exhaustive circumstances: offer to sell above out-of-pocket costs, pattern of blocking registrations, disruption of a competitor, and commercial gain from confusion. Panels also infer bad faith from the overall circumstances.

The conjunctive "and" matters. Some ccTLD policies use "or," but the UDRP requires both bad-faith registration and bad-faith use. Panels have developed a body of consensus on what counts.

The four paragraph 4(b) circumstances:

Beyond the four circumstances: Panels also infer bad faith from:

• WHOIS privacy used to conceal identity in suspicious circumstances (not automatically, but as part of the picture).
• False contact details in the WHOIS record.
• Typosquatting with a pattern of similar registrations.
• Phishing or malware use.
• After-acquired knowledge of the mark, where the respondent knew or should have known.
• A failure to respond to the complaint, which panels may weigh against the respondent.

What can defeat bad faith:

• The domain was registered before the complainant's trademark rights arose, and there is no evidence of targeting.
• The respondent had a genuine reason to choose the name (a surname, a place, an ordinary word, a business name).
• The domain is used for legitimate criticism or fan activity that does not cross into commercial gain or tarnishment.
• The complainant's mark is weak or descriptive, and the respondent's use is consistent with the ordinary meaning.
• The domain is not used and there is no evidence of targeting.

Who can file a UDRP complaint?

Any natural person or legal entity holding trademark or service mark rights recognised under the Policy may commence a proceeding.

Registered trademark rights

The strongest standing comes from a registered trademark or service mark. The registration does not need to be in the respondent's country. It does not need to be a famous mark. It does need to be valid and in force at the time of filing.

What to check:

• Is the registration in force?
• Does it cover the goods or services connected to the domain?
• Is the mark distinctive or descriptive?
• Is the registration in the same jurisdiction as the respondent or the domain?
• Is there a pending application? A pending application may support common-law rights, but it is weaker than a registration.

Unregistered and common-law rights

Some complainants rely on unregistered trademark rights — also called common-law rights. These can arise from use, advertising, sales, and consumer recognition. They are harder to prove. Panels look for:

• Duration and nature of use.
• Sales volume and advertising spend.
• Consumer recognition (media coverage, awards, surveys).
• Distinctiveness of the mark.
• Geographic scope of use.

WIPO Overview 3.0 summarises the consensus on unregistered rights: the complainant must show that the mark has become distinctive through use and that it identifies the complainant's goods or services.

Standing pitfalls

• No trademark rights at all. A company name, a domain name, or a social media handle is not automatically a trademark.
• A pending application with no use.
• A mark registered after the domain was registered, with no evidence of targeting.
• A descriptive or generic term that cannot function as a mark.
• A mark that has been cancelled or expired.

Where to file: choosing a UDRP provider

There are five ICANN-approved UDRP providers: WIPO, Forum (NAF), ADNDRC, CAC, and CIIDRC. All apply the same UDRP, but fees, case management, timelines, and supplemental rules differ. WIPO is the largest and most expensive; Forum and ADNDRC are cheaper for single-panelist cases; CAC is often the lowest-cost option.

WIPO

The World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center is the largest and most established UDRP provider. In 2025, WIPO handled 6,282 domain disputes, a record, and has resolved over 80,000 cases in 25 years.

Fees (standard):

Source: WIPO fee schedule.

New in 2026: WIPO introduced a Priority UDRP Case Service with expedited processing and a target decision in about one month, for a fee of US$4,000 for 1–5 domains (US$1,000 to WIPO, US$3,000 to the panel). WIPO also reduced its administrative retention fee for early withdrawals to US$100 in cases involving up to five domains.

When to choose WIPO: Complex cases, high-value marks, multi-domain filings, cases where you want the most developed body of precedent and the most experienced case managers.

Forum (NAF)

The National Arbitration Forum — now branded Forum — is the second-largest UDRP provider. Its base fee is roughly US$1,300 for a single panelist and US$2,600 for three panelists in small-domain cases. Forum has its own supplemental rules and a large panelist roster.

When to choose Forum: Straightforward single-domain cases where cost matters and you do not need WIPO's administrative infrastructure.

ADNDRC

The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre has offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and Seoul. Its fees are approximately US$1,300 for a single panelist and US$2,800 for three panelists in 1–2 domain cases.

When to choose ADNDRC: Cases with an Asian nexus, respondents in Asia, or where language and time-zone alignment matter.

CAC

The Czech Arbitration Court Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes — CAC — is often the lowest-cost UDRP provider. Its fees are approximately €800 for a single panelist for 1–5 domains, plus a €300 supplement if there is a response or complexity. Three panelists are approximately €2,600, plus the same supplement.

When to choose CAC: Cost-sensitive cases, European respondents, or cases where the supplement structure is predictable.

CIIDRC

The Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre is a newer approved provider. Its fees and supplemental rules are available on its website. It is a credible alternative, especially for Canadian-related matters.

When to choose CIIDRC: Canadian nexus, or a preference for a smaller provider with personalized case management.

Provider comparison table

Filing a UDRP complaint: step by step

Filing requires thorough evidentiary preparation before initiating the administrative clock.

Pre-filing assessment

Before you draft a complaint, answer five questions:

1. Do I have trademark rights? Registered or common-law, in force, and connected to the domain.
2. Is the domain identical or confusingly similar? Apply the low threshold, but check for descriptive or weak-mark problems.
3. Can I make a prima facie case that the respondent has no legitimate interest? Look at WHOIS, website use, parking, and any known relationship.
4. Can I prove bad-faith registration and use? Gather the offer-to-sell, pattern, disruption, or commercial-gain evidence.
5. Is the UDRP the right procedure? If you need damages, an injunction, or a broader commercial remedy, the UDRP cannot give it to you.

If any answer is "no" or "unclear," do not file yet. A weak filing invites denial and a possible reverse domain name hijacking finding. Learn more about filing a UDRP complaint.

Drafting the complaint

The UDRP Rules and the provider's supplemental rules set out the required contents. A typical complaint includes:

Drafting principles:

• Tell a chronological story. Panels read dozens of complaints. A clear narrative — when the mark arose, when the domain was registered, what the respondent did, what the complainant found — is more persuasive than a checklist.
• Anticipate the defence. Address the likely paragraph 4(c) arguments before the respondent raises them.
• Use evidence, not adjectives. "The respondent demanded US$50,000" is stronger than "the respondent acted in bad faith."
• Cite decisions sparingly but strategically. WIPO Overview 3.0 and leading cases can frame the panel's analysis.
• Keep the record clean. Do not overreach. A panel that finds the complaint abusive may declare RDNH.

Evidence and annexes

The complaint is only as strong as its annexes. A typical evidence schedule includes:

• Trademark registration certificates and renewal records.
• WHOIS records showing registration date, registrant, and privacy service.
• Website screenshots with dates, showing use, parking, or monetisation.
• Wayback Machine captures showing historical use.
• Offer-to-sell correspondence and settlement discussions.
• Evidence of the respondent's pattern of registering third-party marks.
• Evidence of consumer confusion (emails, complaints, social media).
• Evidence of the complainant's reputation (advertising, sales, media).
• The UDRP policy applicable to the domain, as an annex.

Formatting: Number every annex, include a schedule describing each item, and ensure the electronic file size is within the provider's limits. WIPO requires the complaint and annexes to be submitted electronically, with a copy to the respondent.

Filing, compliance, and fees

1. Submit the complaint to the chosen provider, with the fee.
2. The provider reviews for administrative compliance. If there are deficiencies, the complainant has five calendar days to correct them, after which the proceeding is deemed withdrawn without prejudice.
3. The provider sends the complaint to the respondent and registrar. The registrar must provide registration data and confirm the lock within two business days.
4. The date of commencement is the date the provider completes its responsibilities in sending the complaint to the respondent. That date triggers the 20-day response clock.

The UDRP response: the 20-day window

Under paragraph 5(a) of the UDRP Rules, the respondent must submit a response within 20 days of the date of commencement. The respondent may request an additional four calendar days. The deadline runs from formal commencement, not from the date the registrant first reads the notice. If no response is filed, the panel decides on the complaint and may draw adverse inferences.

The deadline explained

The 20-day clock starts on the date of commencement, which is the date the provider sends the complaint to the respondent after compliance review. It is not the date the respondent opens the email, not the date the registrar notifies the respondent, and not the date the respondent instructs counsel.

Practical steps:

1. Identify the date of commencement from the provider's notice.
2. Calculate 20 calendar days from that date.
3. Decide whether to request the automatic four-day extension. The request must be made to the provider under its supplemental rules.
4. Preserve evidence immediately. Website content can change; Wayback captures and screenshots should be dated.
5. Do not contact the complainant directly without legal advice. Settlement discussions can be used as evidence.

Extensions and late responses

The automatic four-day extension is available on request. Beyond that, extensions are granted only in exceptional circumstances at the provider's or panel's discretion. The maximum extension in some forums is an additional 20 days, with a fee in some cases.

Late responses: A panel may accept a late response if there is a genuine justification, but it is not obliged to. The safer course is to request the automatic extension and file on time.

What happens if you do not respond

If the respondent does not respond, the panel decides the dispute on the complaint and the available record. The panel may draw adverse inferences from the non-response. In practice, default almost always favours the complainant. Read our guide on what happens if you do not respond.

The commercial reality: At WIPO, 5% of disputes were denied and 15% were settled before decision in 2025; the remainder resulted in transfer or cancellation. Respondents who do not participate rarely win. Respondents who do participate give the panel a basis to weigh the evidence.

Building a defense

A strong response does not need to prove innocence on every point. It needs to create reasonable doubt on at least one element. The most common defence structures are:

Response format: WIPO's Model Response is 5,000 words for the portion responding specifically to the complaint, excluding annexes. The response must be submitted electronically, with a copy to the complainant, and must include a numbered annex schedule.

The panel: one or three panelists

The complainant elects a single-member or three-member panel. If the complainant elects a single panelist, the respondent may elect a three-member panel and pay half of the difference. The panel decides on the written record, usually without a hearing.

How panelists are appointed

• The provider maintains a roster of qualified panelists.
• For a single-member panel, the provider appoints one panelist from its roster.
• For a three-member panel, each party may propose three candidates, and the provider appoints one from each list plus a presiding panelist.
• The panel is appointed after the response period closes (or after the response is filed).

Who pays

• Single panelist: The complainant pays the entire fee.
• Three panelists: The complainant pays the entire fee unless the respondent elected the three-member panel after the complainant elected a single panelist, in which case the respondent pays one-half of the three-member fee.

Strategic consideration: A three-member panel is more expensive but may be preferable in complex cases, cases involving significant legal issues, or cases where the respondent wants a broader range of expertise. A single panelist is faster and cheaper but gives the respondent less control over the composition of the tribunal.

The decision: transfer, cancellation, denial, or RDNH

The panel can issue one of four outcomes:

1. Transfer the domain to the complainant.
2. Cancel the domain registration.
3. Deny the complaint.
4. Declare reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) in addition to denying the complaint.

Transfer is by far the most common remedy. Cancellation is less common because it does not give the complainant the domain; it simply removes the registration. Denial means the complainant failed to prove all three elements.

RDNH is a declaration that the complaint was brought in bad faith or was an abuse of the administrative proceeding. It is governed by Rule 15(e) of the UDRP Rules: if the panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, "for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder," the panel shall declare it in its decision.

RDNH is not automatic. The mere fact that the complainant loses does not establish RDNH. Panels look for positive evidence that the complainant knew or should have known the complaint would fail, provided false information, or used the UDRP as a "plan B" after failing to buy the domain.

UDRP timeline: from filing to decision

A standard UDRP case takes approximately two months from filing to decision. The stages are complaint, compliance, response, panel appointment, decision, and implementation. The respondent's 20-day response window is the first critical deadline after commencement.

WIPO's Priority UDRP Case Service targets a decision in about one month for an additional fee, but the standard timeline remains approximately two months.

UDRP costs: provider fees and legal fees

Provider fees range from approximately US$1,300 to US$5,000 depending on the provider, the number of domains, and whether you choose one or three panelists. Legal fees vary by complexity and jurisdiction. The UDRP does not award costs, so each side bears its own expenses. Learn more about cost-benefit assessments.

Provider fees

Legal fees

Legal fees depend on:

• The number of domains.
• The complexity of the evidence.
• Whether the case goes to a three-member panel.
• Whether there is a counterclaim for RDNH.
• Whether settlement negotiations are involved.
• The jurisdiction and the need for local counsel.

Cost-benefit analysis: The UDRP is usually cheaper and faster than court litigation. But it cannot award damages or costs. If the domain is valuable and the evidence is strong, the UDRP is often the right first step. If the dispute involves broader commercial issues, a court may be the better forum.

UDRP vs URS vs ccTLD policies

The UDRP applies to gTLDs and selected ccTLDs. The URS procedure applies to new gTLDs and offers suspension only, not transfer. ccTLDs such as .uk, .au, .ca, .eu, .in, .cn, .br, and .us have their own policies. The elements are similar but not identical, and the deadlines and remedies differ.

The practical lesson: Do not assume the UDRP applies to your extension. Check the registry's policy before filing or responding. A complaint filed under the wrong policy will be dismissed, and the clock may still run under the correct policy. Consult our cybersquatting recovery guide for additional policy strategy.

Enforcement and court proceedings

After a panel orders transfer or cancellation, the registrar waits 10 business days before implementing the decision. During that period, the respondent may file a court action against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted. If the registrar receives documentation of a lawsuit within the 10-day period, it will not implement the decision until the court case is resolved.

Key points:

• The UDRP does not prevent either party from going to court before or after the UDRP.
• A court is not bound by the UDRP decision.
• The 10-day wait is a cooling-off period for court action, not an appeal period in the administrative sense.
• If the respondent does nothing, the transfer or cancellation is implemented.
• If the complainant wants damages or other relief, it must go to court separately.

Court options:

• Before the UDRP: Either party can file in a court of competent jurisdiction.
• After the UDRP: The losing party can challenge the decision in court, but the standard of review depends on the jurisdiction.
• Parallel proceedings: A court may stay or proceed independently of the UDRP.

Illustrative UDRP decisions

The following decisions illustrate how panels apply the three elements. They are selected for their reasoning, not as a guarantee of outcomes.

1. Descriptive mark and bona fide use

In a 2026 decision involving ppptreatmentkit.com, the panel denied transfer because the respondent had legitimate interests in using the descriptive term to sell actual PPP treatment kits. The panel found the complainant's mark was descriptive and the respondent's use was bona fide. This contrasts with a Nominet decision transferring pppkit.co.uk, where bad faith was shown by the respondent's initial approach seeking to distribute the complainant's products.

Lesson: A descriptive mark is a weak foundation for a UDRP complaint. A respondent using the term for its ordinary meaning may have a legitimate interest.

2. Priority and continuous use

Panels have repeatedly found that a respondent who registered the domain before the complainant's mark and continuously used it for a genuine business has a legitimate interest, even if the domain later becomes valuable. The key is priority and bona fide use, not the current market value.

Lesson: Registration date is critical. If the domain predates the mark, the complainant must show targeting to establish bad faith.

3. RDNH and "plan B"

In Patricks Universal Export Pty Ltd. v. David Greenblatt (WIPO Case No. D2016-0653), the panel found RDNH where the complaint was initiated as "plan B" after an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the domain from the registrant. The panel treated the failed acquisition attempt as evidence that the complainant knew the domain was not cybersquatted.

Lesson: Using the UDRP as a negotiation tactic after failing to buy the domain can backfire. RDNH findings are rare but real.

4. WHOIS privacy and bad faith

Panels have found that WHOIS privacy is not automatically evidence of bad faith, but it can be part of the picture when combined with other factors such as false contact details, a pattern of registrations, or an offer to sell.

Lesson: Privacy is not a defence on its own. The totality of the circumstances matters.

5. Offer to sell

A mere offer to sell is not automatically bad faith. Panels weigh the offer against the distinctiveness of the mark, the respondent's intent at registration, and the other evidence. An offer to sell for more than out-of-pocket costs is evidence under paragraph 4(b)(i), but it is not conclusive.

Lesson: The offer must be connected to a bad-faith registration purpose, not a later change of circumstances.

Complainant checklist

Use this checklist before filing a UDRP complaint.

• Trademark rights: Registered or common-law rights in force, with certificates or evidence of use.
• Confusing similarity: The domain is identical or confusingly similar; the gTLD is disregarded.
• No legitimate interest: Prima facie case based on WHOIS, website use, parking, and any known relationship.
• Bad faith registration: Evidence of targeting at the time of registration, or after-acquired knowledge.
• Bad faith use: Evidence of offer to sell, pattern, disruption, commercial gain, phishing, or other bad-faith conduct.
• Provider selection: Fee, timeline, and supplemental rules match the case.
• Evidence file: Numbered annexes with a schedule, dates, and sources.
• Drafting: Chronological narrative, element-by-element analysis, anticipated defences addressed.
• Certification: Accuracy, jurisdiction submission, copies to respondent and registrar.
• Fee: Ready to pay the provider's fee.
• RDNH risk: The complaint is not overreaching or abusive.

Respondent checklist

Use this checklist immediately after receiving a UDRP complaint.

• Verify the complaint: Is it from an ICANN-approved provider? Is the case number real?
• Identify the date of commencement: This starts the 20-day clock.
• Record the deadline: 20 days, plus a possible 4-day automatic extension.
• Preserve evidence: Website captures, registration records, invoices, correspondence, advertising, trademark records.
• Assess element 1: Is the domain identical or confusingly similar? Is the mark descriptive or weak?
• Assess element 2: Do you have a paragraph 4(c) defence? Bona fide use, commonly known, or fair use.
• Assess element 3: Was the domain registered before the mark? Is there evidence of targeting? Is the use commercial and misleading?
• Consider RDNH: Is the complaint abusive, overreaching, or based on false information?
• Decide on panel composition: Single or three-member? Do you want to pay half of the difference?
• Draft the response: 5,000-word limit at WIPO; numbered annexes; copy to complainant.
• File on time: Do not default.
• Consider settlement: A negotiated outcome may be better than a decision.

How counsel.domains can help

Whatever side you are on, whatever stage you are at, counsel.domains picks up your case where it stands.

If you are filing a complaint, we assess whether the three elements can be proved, choose the right provider, gather and organise the evidence, draft the complaint, and take the case through to transfer or cancellation.

If you have received a complaint, we review the complaint and the deadline immediately, identify the strongest legitimate-interest and bad-faith defences, draft and file a full response on time, and raise reverse domain name hijacking where the facts support it.

If you are unsure which policy applies, we map the extension to the correct policy — UDRP, URS, Nominet DRS, auDRP, CDRP, .eu ADR, INDRP, CNDRP, SACI-Adm, or usDRP — and explain the deadline, remedy, and provider.

If court proceedings are needed, we coordinate with local counsel in the relevant country.