This guide is for complainants budgeting a UDRP and for respondents assessing their exposure. Provider fees are published; legal fees are not. This guide covers both, with the 2026 changes at WIPO that affect the total.
Quick answer: what a UDRP costs in 2026
A UDRP complaint over one domain name, decided by a single panelist, costs USD 1,500 in provider fees at WIPO or USD 1,330 at Forum. Attorney fees are separate; many practitioners quote a flat fee of a few thousand US dollars for a straightforward single-domain case. The complainant pays the provider fee in almost every case. The exception is where the respondent elects a three-member panel: the respondent then pays one-half of the three-member fee with its response, and if it does not pay, the case proceeds before a single panelist. CAC offers the lowest published single-panelist fee, starting at €800, with a response-triggered supplement if the case is defended. WIPO’s expedited track costs USD 4,000 for a decision in about one month.
Key facts at a glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| WIPO single panelist (1–5 domains) | USD 1,500 |
| WIPO three panelists (1–5 domains) | USD 4,000 |
| WIPO expedited track | USD 4,000; decision in ~1 month |
| Forum single panelist (1–2 domains) | USD 1,330 |
| Forum three panelists (1–2 domains) | USD 2,660 |
| ADNDRC single panelist (1–2 domains) | ~USD 1,300 |
| CAC single panelist (1–5 domains) | €800 + response supplement |
| CIIDRC UDRP filing fee | CAD $550 (non-refundable) |
| Who pays | Complainant; respondent pays half if it elects three panelists |
| Cost recovery | None under the UDRP |
| Attorney fees | Typically USD 3,000–7,000 for a straightforward single-domain case |
How UDRP fees work
What the provider fee covers
The provider fee covers administration and the panelist’s fee. It does not cover the complainant’s legal fees, translation, evidence gathering, or any court action after the decision. It is paid to the provider when the complaint is filed.
The fee is set by the provider’s published schedule and varies by:
- The number of domain names in the complaint.
- The panel composition — one or three panelists.
- The provider — WIPO, Forum, ADNDRC, CAC, or CIIDRC.
Who pays — the complainant, with one exception
Under paragraph 4(g) of the UDRP Policy, the complainant pays all provider fees. The respondent pays nothing unless it elects to expand the panel from one to three panelists.
The exception matters. Under paragraph 5(d) of the UDRP Rules, a respondent that elects a three-member panel must pay one-half of the three-member fee with its response. If it does not pay, the case is decided by a single panelist. At WIPO, for one to five domains, that half share is USD 2,000.
Panel composition and the fee split
| Scenario | Who pays | Amount (WIPO, 1–5 domains) |
|---|---|---|
| Complainant elects one panelist | Complainant | USD 1,500 |
| Complainant elects three panelists | Complainant | USD 4,000 |
| Complainant elects one; respondent elects three | Split | Complainant USD 2,000 / respondent USD 2,000 |
| Respondent elects three but does not pay | Complainant | Case proceeds before one panelist |
The strategic implication is that the respondent can force a three-member panel (and a higher fee) only by paying half. A respondent who wants a three-member panel must budget for it at the response stage.
What is not included
The provider fee does not cover:
- Legal fees — the complainant’s or the respondent’s.
- Translation of foreign-language evidence.
- Supplemental filings — the panel may request or accept one, and it adds cost.
- Language challenges — arguing for a change of language.
- Evidence gathering for unregistered rights.
- Court action after the decision.
These are the hidden and variable costs that determine the real budget.
The complainant pays — unless the respondent elects three panelists. We map the split and the total budget before you file. Get a cost assessment →
WIPO fee schedule 2026
Standard fees by domain count
WIPO’s published fee schedule is set out in bands of domains:
| Domains | Single panelist | Three panelists |
|---|---|---|
| 1–5 | USD 1,500 | USD 4,000 |
| 6–10 | USD 2,000 | USD 5,000 |
| More than 10 | Set in consultation with WIPO | Set in consultation with WIPO |
The figures are confirmed across multiple 2026 sources. The banding means that adding a second or third domain against the same registrant generally costs nothing extra at the provider level. This is a significant economy for a complainant targeting a small portfolio held by one registrant.
WIPO’s expedited track (USD 4,000)
On 9 March 2026, WIPO introduced expedited case processing. A complainant can pay USD 4,000 instead of USD 1,500 for a case with up to five domain names decided by a single panelist. WIPO commits to a decision in about one month from start to finish. The track is aimed at urgent situations such as active phishing or fraud. Three-member panels are not available on this track.
The expedited track is a premium of USD 2,500 over the standard single-panelist fee. It is justified where the harm is ongoing — a live phishing page, an active fraud campaign — and a two-month standard timeline is too slow.
Respondent-requested expediting (USD 2,500)
If the complainant did not choose the expedited track, a respondent may ask to expedite the remainder of a standard single-panel case, from the filing of its response, by paying USD 2,500. This is a strategic option for a respondent that wants a faster resolution — for example, to clear its name or to stop a settlement negotiation from dragging.
The refund scale
WIPO publishes a partial refund scale for early withdrawal:
| Stage of withdrawal | Amount WIPO retains (1–5 domains) |
|---|---|
| Before the respondent is formally notified | USD 100 |
| After notification but before a panel is appointed | USD 500 |
| After a panel is appointed | No refund |
The refund scale matters when a case may settle early. A complainant who withdraws before notification recovers almost the entire fee; one who withdraws after the panel is appointed recovers nothing.
WIPO’s expedited track is USD 4,000. It buys a one-month decision. Is it right for your case? Ask us →
Forum (NAF) fee schedule 2026
Fees by domain count
Forum’s published fees are lower than WIPO’s at the entry point:
| Domains | Single panelist | Three panelists |
|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | USD 1,330 | USD 2,660 |
| 3–5 | USD 1,480 | USD 2,960 |
| 6–10 | USD 1,830 | USD 3,660 |
| 11–15 | USD 2,280 | USD 4,560 |
| 16 or more | Quote from Forum | Quote from Forum |
The headline filing fee for a simple complaint of one to five domains with a single panelist is USD 1,300, lower than WIPO’s USD 1,500. The 1–2 domain tier is USD 1,330.
Forum’s expedited case processing
From March 2026, Forum added Expedited Case Processing, promising a decision in about one month for a fee of USD 4,000. It mirrors WIPO’s expedited track and is aimed at the same urgent situations.
Non-refundability
Forum’s fees are non-refundable except in limited situations set out in its Supplemental Rules. A complainant who withdraws does not get the WIPO-style partial refund. This is a material difference for cases that may settle early.
ADNDRC fee schedule 2026
Fees by domain count
ADNDRC’s fees begin at approximately USD 1,300 for a single-member panel on one or two domains. Its schedule is published in US dollars and varies by domain count and panel composition.
Office selection
ADNDRC has offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and Seoul. The complainant chooses the office when filing. The choice can affect case management, language, and time zone, but the fee schedule is broadly consistent.
CAC fee schedule 2026
Low initial fee, response-triggered supplement
CAC’s structure is different from the other providers. It charges a low initial filing fee — starting from €800 for 1–5 disputed domain names before a single panel — and an additional fee payable if a Response is filed or the case is deemed complex by the Panel.
| Tier | Initial fee (single panel) | Supplement if response/complexity |
|---|---|---|
| 1–5 domains | €800 | ~€300 |
| Three-member panel (smallest tier) | ~€2,600 | Response-triggered |
| Early termination | ~€400 retained | — |
The figures are confirmed by 2026 comparisons: CAC starts at €800 for one to five domains, with a response-triggered fee of about €300 and about €400 retained on early termination.
Why CAC is the cheapest single-panelist option
For an undefended case, CAC’s initial €800 is the lowest published single-panelist fee among the major providers — roughly half of WIPO’s USD 1,500. For a defended case, the supplement brings the total closer to WIPO’s, but it may still be lower depending on the domain count.
The trade-off is that CAC’s fee is contingent on the response. A complainant who expects the respondent to default gets the lowest price; one who expects a full defence pays more.
Early termination retention
CAC retains about €400 on early termination. This is a middle ground between WIPO’s sliding refund scale and Forum’s non-refundability.
CAC can be half the price of WIPO for an undefended case. The provider changes the budget. We match the provider to the case. Ask us which fits →
CIIDRC fee schedule 2026
UDRP fees
CIIDRC’s UDRP fee schedule includes a non-refundable filing fee of CAD $550 paid by the complainant when the complaint is filed. The panel fees are set out separately in its Supplemental Rules. CIIDRC is a newer provider and may offer more personalised case management.
CDRP comparison
CIIDRC also administers CDRP cases (for .ca domains). Its CDRP fee schedule, effective 1 September 2026, is:
| Domains | Filing fee | Single-member panel | Three-member panel (total) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | CAD $1,500 | CAD $1,850 | CAD $3,000 |
This is separate from the UDRP schedule and applies only to .ca disputes.
The master fee comparison table
| Provider | 1–5 domains, single panelist | 1–5 domains, three panelists | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| WIPO | USD 1,500 | USD 4,000 | Expedited: USD 4,000; refund scale |
| Forum | USD 1,330 (1–2); USD 1,480 (3–5) | USD 2,660 (1–2); USD 2,960 (3–5) | Expedited: USD 4,000; non-refundable |
| ADNDRC | ~USD 1,300 | ~USD 2,800 | Office choice: Beijing, HK, KL, Seoul |
| CAC | €800 + ~€300 supplement | ~€2,600 + supplement | Cheapest undefended case |
| CIIDRC | CAD $550 filing fee + panel fee | Panel fee per schedule | Newer provider |
Reading the table: For a single-domain, single-panelist, undefended case, CAC is the cheapest at €800. For a single-domain, single-panelist, defended case, Forum at USD 1,330 is competitive, and CAC at ~€1,100 may still be lower. For a three-member panel, Forum at USD 2,660 is the lowest of the major providers. For speed, WIPO and Forum both offer a USD 4,000 expedited track.
The provider changes the budget by hundreds or thousands of dollars. We match the provider to the case, the respondent, and the expected response. Get a provider recommendation →
Attorney fees and total budgets
Flat fees vs hourly
Most UDRP attorneys work on a flat fee for a complaint rather than billing by the hour. Publicly quoted flat fees from US practitioners for a straightforward single-domain complaint are generally in the range of a few thousand US dollars, often around USD 3,000 to 7,000, with more for complex facts, multiple domains, or three-member panels. Turnkey UDRP services are quoted at USD 2,500–4,000 for recoveries, with expedited options adding a rush premium.
What drives the legal fee
The legal fee is driven by:
- The number of domains — more domains, more evidence.
- The panel composition — three-member panels require more preparation.
- Unregistered rights — proving common-law rights takes sales, advertising, media, and recognition evidence.
- Supplemental filings — the panel may request or accept one.
- Language — arguing for a change of language, or translating evidence.
- Complex facts — multiple registrants, portfolio patterns, technical evidence.
Five worked budgets
The following budgets show provider fee only for the first four, and provider + representative legal fee for the fifth. They are illustrative and assume a straightforward single-domain case unless stated.
Budget 1 — Undefended single domain at CAC
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| CAC initial filing fee (1–5 domains, single panel) | €800 |
| Response supplement | €0 (undefended) |
| Legal fee (complaint drafting, flat) | USD 3,000 |
| Total (approx.) | ~USD 3,900 |
Budget 2 — Defended single domain at WIPO
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| WIPO filing fee (1–5 domains, single panel) | USD 1,500 |
| Legal fee (complaint + reply to response) | USD 5,000 |
| Total (approx.) | ~USD 6,500 |
Budget 3 — Three-member panel at Forum
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Forum filing fee (1–2 domains, three panelists) | USD 2,660 |
| Legal fee (three-member preparation) | USD 7,000 |
| Total (approx.) | ~USD 9,660 |
Budget 4 — Expedited WIPO track
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| WIPO expedited fee (1–5 domains, single panel) | USD 4,000 |
| Legal fee (rush preparation) | USD 6,000 |
| Total (approx.) | ~USD 10,000 |
Budget 5 — Five domains, same registrant, WIPO
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| WIPO filing fee (1–5 domains, single panel) | USD 1,500 |
| Legal fee (multi-domain evidence) | USD 6,000 |
| Total (approx.) | ~USD 7,500 |
The pattern: The provider fee is a minority of the total budget in a represented case. The legal fee is the larger variable, and it is driven by the complexity of the evidence and the panel composition, not by the provider’s schedule.
Hidden and variable costs
Translation
If the proceeding is in a language other than the language of the documents, the panel can order translations. Foreign-language evidence adds translation costs that are not included in the provider fee. In the CNDRP, the proceedings default to Chinese, and non-Chinese complainants must translate their submissions.
Supplemental filings
The UDRP Rules give no automatic right to a further filing. The panel may request or accept one at its discretion. If the response raises new facts, a short supplemental filing adds cost.
Language challenges
The default language is the language of the registration agreement, unless the parties agree otherwise or the panel decides differently. If that is not English, a party may need to argue for a change of language, which adds cost and time.
Unregistered rights evidence
If the complainant relies on common-law or unregistered rights, it must prove the mark has become a distinctive identifier of its business. That means gathering sales, advertising, media, and customer-recognition evidence — more time and cost than attaching a registration certificate.
Multiple domains and consolidation
More domain names can move the case into a higher provider fee band, and each domain may need its own evidence of use and bad faith. Several domains can be combined in one complaint only where they are held by the same registrant or under common control. A complainant targeting domains held by different registrants must file separate complaints and pay separate fees.
Translation, supplements, and unregistered rights add cost. We price them upfront, before you file. Get a cost assessment →
UDRP vs URS vs court: cost comparison
URS
The URS is faster and cheaper than the UDRP, but the remedy is suspension only, not transfer. Forum’s URS filing fee starts at USD 375 for up to 14 domains. Other providers start at about USD 360–375, and MFSD at €175. The URS is the right cost comparison where the complainant does not need ownership.
ACPA and court
A US ACPA lawsuit can bring money remedies a UDRP cannot: statutory damages of USD 1,000 to 100,000 per domain name. Litigation generally costs far more and takes much longer, so it is usually reserved for serious or repeated abuse. The UDRP is the cheaper route for transfer; court is the route for damages.
Buying the domain instead
If the price is modest and the owner may have a legitimate claim to the name, buying can be cheaper and more certain than a UDRP. If the owner is plainly targeting the brand, a UDRP complaint is usually the better route. Negotiations can later become evidence, so they should be planned.
Cost recovery: can you recover fees?
The no-costs rule
The UDRP does not award costs. Neither the provider fee nor the legal fee is recoverable from the other side, even if you win. Each party bears its own costs.
RDNH and costs
Under the UDRP, an RDNH finding is a declaration only — no monetary penalty. The CDRP (.ca) is the exception: it allows a panel to order the complainant to pay up to CAD $5,000 to the respondent. That is a real costs remedy, and it changes the economics for a respondent facing an abusive .ca complaint.
ccTLD costs powers
| Policy | Costs remedy |
|---|---|
| UDRP | None |
| CDRP (.ca) | Up to CAD $5,000 |
| Nominet DRS (.uk) | No monetary penalty |
| auDRP (.au) | Declaration only |
| INDRP (.in) | Costs at arbitrator’s discretion |
The UDRP does not award costs. If cost recovery matters, the CDRP is the outlier. We map the remedy to the policy. Talk to counsel →
Budgeting for a UDRP programme
Per-case reserve
A brand owner with an active enforcement programme should reserve at least one full UDRP budget per year — roughly USD 6,000–10,000 for a represented single-domain case, or USD 3,900 for an undefended CAC case. The reserve should be ring-fenced so that a case is not delayed by budget approval.
Annual enforcement budget
The annual budget should cover:
- Monitoring subscriptions — from USD 79/month for a self-serve tool.
- Defensive registrations — USD 10–20 per domain per year.
- Enforcement reserve — at least one UDRP or URS per year.
- Bulk filing reserve — for a typosquatting operation, a consolidated filing is far cheaper per domain than separate complaints.
Bulk filing economics
A consolidated complaint against multiple domains held by one registrant is dramatically cheaper per domain than separate complaints. WIPO’s 1–5 domain tier at USD 1,500 means that a five-domain complaint costs USD 300 per domain in provider fees, compared with USD 1,500 per domain for five separate complaints. The L’Oréal case (705 domains in one complaint) and the Empower case (537 domains) illustrate the scale at which consolidation becomes the only economic route.
The fee checklist
- Provider: WIPO, Forum, ADNDRC, CAC, or CIIDRC?
- Domain count: which fee band?
- Panel: single or three-member?
- Expected response: defended or undefended? (CAC’s supplement depends on it.)
- Expedited: is the harm ongoing? (WIPO/Forum USD 4,000.)
- Refund: might the case settle early? (WIPO’s scale vs Forum’s non-refundability.)
- Translation: is the evidence in another language?
- Unregistered rights: is common-law evidence needed?
- Legal fee: flat fee quoted in advance?
- Cost recovery: is the policy the UDRP or the CDRP?
The checklist is the budget. Get a cost assessment →
How counsel.domains can help
If you are planning a complaint, we model the provider fee, the legal fee, and the hidden costs before you commit.
If you are choosing a provider, we match the schedule, the panel composition, and the expected response to the budget.
If you are budgeting a programme, we build the per-case reserve, the annual budget, and the bulk-filing economics.
If you are a respondent, we assess the fee split, the three-member panel option, and the cost of a defence.
counsel.domains Domain names, worldwide. Get a cost assessment → · [email protected]
Disclaimer: This website provides general information about domain name dispute resolution. It is not legal advice and does not create a professional relationship. Procedures and fees change; check the relevant policy and provider before acting. counsel.domains is not affiliated with WIPO, ICANN, Forum, ADNDRC, CAC, CIIDRC, or any registry or dispute-resolution provider.