About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Guide to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

This Guide provides information on domain name dispute resolution under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the process by which the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO) administers UDRP cases.

While we cannot provide legal advice, specific questions that are not addressed here may be submitted to: arbiter.mail@wipo.int.

A. Scope of the UDRP F.  Panel Decision
B. Overview of the UDRP G. Role of the Registrar
C. Preparing and Filing a Complaint H. Role of WIPO
D. Preparing and Filing a Response I. Resource Materials
E. Role of the Panel  

Topics

A. Scope of the UDRP

The UDRP is a legal framework for resolving disputes between domain name registrants and third party trademark owners over abusive registration and use of Internet domain names in gTLDs (e.g., .COM, .NET) and ccTLDs that have adopted the UDRP.

Created by WIPO and adopted by ICANN in 1999, the UDRP requires all accredited registrars to abide by its terms for domains under their jurisdiction. Any person registering a domain name in these domains must consent to the UDRP. ICANN adopted the UDRP Rules in October 1999, which outline the procedure, and WIPO the leading global service provider.
Any owner of a registered (or adequately pled unregistered) trademark anywhere in the world can submit a UDRP complaint concerning a domain name registered under a gTLD. The complaint must satisfy all the requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, as explained further below.

In case of a dispute involving a domain name registered in a ccTLD, the UDRP can also be used, provided that the concerned ccTLD registration authority adopted the UDRP. All of the ccTLDs that WIPO provides services for are listed on our webpage.
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy, the UDRP is only available for disputes concerning an alleged abusive registration of a domain name, which meet the following criteria:

(i) the domain name registered by the domain name registrant is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant (the person or entity bringing the complaint) has rights;

(ii) the domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP Policy sets out the following examples of circumstances that will be considered by a Panel to be evidence of the bad faith registration and use of a domain name:

(i) Circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the domain name registrant's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) The domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the domain name registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) The domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) By using the domain name, the domain name registrant intentionally attempted to attract for financial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the registrant’s website or location.

The above examples are not exclusive and other circumstances may exist that demonstrate the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
The UDRP offers several advantages over litigation. It is much faster and more cost effective. The proceedings are based on a single round of pleadings, and the decision makers are experts in trademark law and domain name dispute resolution. The UDRP is international, allowing for the resolution of domain name disputes regardless of the Parties’ locations. Decision implementation is done directly by the registrar.
Yes. Paragraph 4(k) of the UDRP provides that a UDRP proceeding shall not prevent either the domain name registrant (Respondent) or the Complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution.

It is possible for a party to start a lawsuit in court before a proceeding is commenced. A party can also commence a lawsuit after the proceeding is concluded if it is not satisfied with the outcome.

(Paragraph 18 of the UDRP Rules sets out what action a Panel may take if court proceedings are initiated prior to or during a UDRP proceeding.)
Yes, provided that the domain name Registration Agreement covering the domain name in issue specifically incorporates the UDRP. For those ccTLDs, if the registrant is the same, a combined case involving domain names registered in any gTLDs may be filed to save on costs.

ccTLDs adopting the UDRP include .AG, .AI, .AS, .BM, .BS, .BZ, .CC, .CD, .CO, .CV, .CY, .DJ, .EC, .FJ, .FM, .GA, .GD, .GT, .KI, .LA, .LC, .MD, .ME, .MG, .MW, .NR, .NU, .PA, .PK, .PN, .PR, .PW, .RO, .SC, .SL, .SN, .SO, .TJ, .TT, .TV, .UG, .VE, .VG, and .WS.

ccTLDs which have adopted a variation of the UDRP include:

.AC, .AD, .AE (and امارات.), .AO, .AU, .BH (and البحرين.), .BO, .BR, .CH, .CN (and .中国), .CR, .DO, .EU (and .ею and .ευ), .ES, .FR, .GE, .HN, .HT, .IE, .IO, .IR, .LI, .LV, .MA, .MP, .MX, .NL, .PE, .PH, .PL, .PM, .PY, .QA (and قطر.), .RE, .RW, .SA (and السعودية.), .SE, .SH, .TM, .TF, .TZ, .UA, .WF and .YT.
No. The UDRP is only available to resolve disputes between a trademark owner alleging an abusive registration of a domain name and the domain name registrant.
No. The UDRP is only available to resolve disputes brought or commenced by a trademark owner alleging an abusive registration of a domain name against a domain name registrant.

B. Overview of the UDRP

The five basic stages in a UDRP are:

(1) The filing of a Complaint with WIPO;

(2) The filing of a Response by the registrant;

(3) The appointment by WIPO of a Panel (of one or three persons) who will decide the dispute;

(4) The issuance of the Panel’s decision and the notification of all relevant parties; and

(5) The implementation of the decision by the registrar(s) concerned should there be a decision that the domain name(s) in question be cancelled or transferred.

A more detailed description of the UDRP is available (pdf).
If there are no procedural issues, the case normally should be completed within 2 months from the date WIPO receives the Complaint.
The fee for your case varies depending on the number of domain names involved in the dispute, and on whether you or the Respondent request a single member or a three-member panel. The domain name registrant (Respondent) is not required to pay any fees unless it requests a three-member panel.

For a case involving between 1 and 5 domain names decided by a single Panelist, the fee is USD 1,500.

You can find a more detailed fee breakdown at: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/index.html.

WIPO will not take any action in your case without receipt of the required filing fee.
Following the formal commencement of a proceeding, WIPO publishes on its website the domain name(s) in issue, the date of the formal commencement of the proceeding, and the status of the case. WIPO also publishes the decisions rendered under the UDRP on its website (in accordance with Paragraph 16 of the UDRP Rules).
Under Paragraph 11 of the UDRP Rules, the language of the proceeding is the same as the Registration Agreement, but the Panel has the discretion to choose a different language based on the circumstances e.g., the nationality of the Parties, the language of the Complaint and/or Response.

The Parties may also agree on a different language.

The Panel can also order Parties to provide translations of documents not in the proceeding language.

For more information, visit our [Q&A: Language of Proceedings and the UDRP] webpage.

C. Preparing and Filing a Complaint

First download a Model Complaint and fill in the relevant sections of the Model Complaint.

Then submit the completed Model Complaint by email (domain.disputes@wipo.int) or through this Online Form.

Payment should be submitted at the same time as the submission of the Complaint. WIPO will not take any action without receipt of the required filing fee.

Complaints filed outside working hours or on holidays or weekends will be processed the next working day.

You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt once your case is registered, and the filing fee is received. The acknowledgement will include the WIPO Case No. assigned to your case.

For more information, please refer to the main steps to file a Complaint here: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/
While it is not necessary to use it, to assist parties with the formatting and structure of the pleadings, WIPO has prepared a Model Complaint.

(Each case must still pass a compliance review and succeed on the merits.)
While the assistance of a lawyer may be helpful, there is no requirement that the Complaint be prepared or submitted by a lawyer.
The information that must be included in the Complaint is described in Paragraph 3 of the UDRP Rules. These elements are outlined in the Model Complaint.
Yes, the Complaint may relate to more than one domain name, so long as the person or entity that is the registrant of the domain names specified in the Complaint is the same. (Paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules)

For more information, you may wish to consult the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.
No.
No. A copy of the Complaint should be sent only to WIPO at domain.disputes@wipo.int, and the concerned Registrar(s).
You can find out the Registrar for the domain name using ICANN’s Registration Data Lookup Tool.
Conduct a “WHOIS” search using ICANN’s RDRS tool or on the Registrar’s website.

For more information, visit our Q&A: domain name WHOIS data and the UDRP webpage.

D. Preparing and Filing a Response

It may be in your interests to explain why you believe your domain name does not violate the Complainant’s rights, but it is not required.
Yes, under the terms of the registration agreement which the domain name registrant entered into when registering the domain name, the registrant must submit to the proceeding.

The Respondent has 20 days from the date of commencement of the proceeding to submit a Response, but can ask for an automatic 4-day extension.
If the Respondent does not file its Response within the deadline, the Respondent will be considered in default. Despite the Respondent’s default, WIPO will proceed to appoint the Panel who will decide the dispute based on the information available to it, and may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate from the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response.
While it is not necessary to use it, to assist parties with the formatting and structure of the pleadings, WIPO has prepared a Model Response. Just like with the Model Complaint, the use of the Model Response does not guarantee a Respondent’s success on the merits.
The Response should be in the same language as the Registration Agreement.

However, the Response may be submitted in a different language in limited circumstances (e.g., the language of the Complaint or if the Parties agree on a language).

For more information, visit our [Q&A: Language of Proceedings and the UDRP] webpage.
While the assistance of a lawyer may be helpful, there is no requirement that the Response be prepared or submitted by a lawyer.
The information that must be included in the Response is described in Paragraph 5 of the UDRP Rules. These elements are outlined in the Model Response.
Paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the domain name registrant’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

(i) before any notice to the domain name registrant of the dispute, the registrant’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the domain name registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the registrant has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the domain name registrant is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

For more information, you may wish to consult the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.
No.
No.

The only time a fee has to be paid by the Respondent is when the Complainant chooses to have the case decided by a single Panelist, but the Respondent prefers to have the case decided by three Panelists. In such cases, each Party can choose one Panelist, and the applicable fee is shared equally between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent must submit its payment together with its Response. If it does not, WIPO may disregard the Respondent’s choice for a three-member Panel.
First download a Model Response, and fill in the relevant sections of the Model Response.

Then submit the completed Response by email (domain.disputes@wipo.int) or through this Online Form.

You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt once your Response is received.

WIPO will endeavor to process your Response as soon as possible, however, Responses filed outside working hours or on holidays or weekends will be processed the next working day.
The Response should be submitted electronically (including all annexes) to the Complainant and to WIPO.
No.

E. Role of the Panel

A Panel is formed by one or three impartial, independent individuals appointed by WIPO, in accordance with the UDRP Policy and Rules. The Panel is not affiliated with the provider, ICANN, the registrar, or the Parties involved in the dispute.
WIPO’s list of Domain Name Panelists comprises individuals with a well-established reputation for impartiality, sound judgment, and experience as decisionmakers, as well as substantial expertise in international trademark and domain name cases issues. WIPO’s list includes panelists from around the world, many of whom are multilingual.
The Panel is appointed after the filing of the Response, if one is made, or if one is not, following the due date for the Response.
A Panel is appointed by WIPO as follows:

(i) If both the Complainant and Respondent indicate that they wish the dispute to be decided by a single Panelist – which is the norm in most cases, the Panelist will be appointed by WIPO from its list of Domain Name Panelists.

(ii) If the Complainant designates three Panelists and the Respondent designates a single Panelist, or vice-versa, then WIPO will appoint a three-person Panel. In so doing, WIPO will try to appoint one of the candidates nominated by the Complainant and one of the candidates nominated by the Respondent. If it is unable to do so, WIPO will make an appropriate appointment from its list of Domain Name Panelists. The third Panelist, the Presiding Panelist, will be appointed on the basis of preferences indicated by the Parties from among a list of five (5) candidates that will have been provided to them by WIPO.

(iii) If no Response is filled by the Respondent, then WIPO will appoint the Panel in accordance with the number of panelists designated by the Complainant (i.e., one or three). If the Complainant designated a three-member Panel, WIPO will try to appoint one of the candidates nominated by the Complainant, failing which it will make the appointment from its published list. It will make the appointment of the other two Panelists from its list of Domain Name Panelists.

F. Panel Decision

Only three types of decisions can be made by the Panel:

(i) Decide in favor of the Complainant and order that the disputed domain name(s) be transferred to that person or entity;

(ii) Decide in favor of the Complainant and order that the disputed domain name(s) be cancelled – in which case it can be re-registered by a third party;

(iii) Decide in favor of the domain name registrant (i.e., deny the Complaint). In this regard, if the Panel concludes that the dispute is not within the scope of Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy, it must specify this in its decision. Also, if the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, the Panel will declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the proceeding called “reverse domain name hijacking”.
No. The Panel cannot award money judgments, nor lawyers’ costs.
Paragraph 15(b) of the UDRP Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall forward its decision on the Complaint to WIPO within 14 days of its appointment.
A Panel decision is implemented by the registrar.

In accordance with Paragraph 4(k) of the UDRP Policy, the registrar is required to implement the Panel’s decision ten (10) business days after it receives notification of the decision from the dispute resolution service provider, except if the registrar receives proper documentation from the domain name registrant (Respondent) in that 10-day period that it is challenging the decision in court.

Each registrar establishes its own protocols (e.g., opening an account at that registrar) concerning the implementation of the transfer or cancellation of a domain name registration pursuant to a Panel’s decision.
Yes. Paragraph 4(k) of the UDRP provides that the proceedings do not prevent you from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution, after the proceeding is concluded.

The concerned registrar will then take no further action until it receives:

(i) satisfactory evidence of a resolution of the dispute between the Parties; or

(ii) satisfactory evidence that the domain name registrant’s lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn; or

(iii) a copy of an order from the court in which the lawsuit was led dismissing the lawsuit or ordering that the domain name registrant has no right to continue to use the domain name.
Mutual Jurisdiction is defined in the UDRP Rules as a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the registrar (provided that the domain name registrant has submitted in the Registration Agreement to that jurisdiction for court adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain name), or (b) the domain name registrant’s address as shown for the registration of the domain name in the concerned registrar’s WHOIS database at the time the Complaint is submitted to a dispute resolution service provider.

This is the jurisdiction to which any post-UDRP court cases must be directed in order to stop the implementation of the UDRP decision.
Yes. According to Paragraph 16(b) of the Rules, except where a Panel decides otherwise, a dispute resolution service provider is required to publish all decisions in full on the Internet. WIPO Panel decisions can be accessed through WIPO’s website.

Please note that there are scenarios in which one’s name may be redacted from a decision. Visit https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/gdpr for more information.
In accordance with paragraph 17, the UDRP case may be suspended to implement a settlement agreement between the Parties. If the Parties agree on a settlement before Panel appointment, they should notify WIPO of such settlement by submitting the Standard Settlement Form.

In the event of a settlement, if a Panel has not yet been appointed, the Complainant will be entitled to a partial refund of its filing fee – for most cases this is a refund of USD 1,000.

G. Role of the Registrar

Except as described below, the registrar does not and will not participate in the administration or conduct of the proceeding. WIPO has prepared a flowchart (pdf) illustrating the basic interactions between WIPO and a registrar in the course of a case.

The registrar’s role in the proceeding is as follows:

Within two (2) business days of a verification request, the Registrar must provide the requested information, confirm a domain name lock, and notify the Respondent once the lock is applied. The lock remains until the UDRP proceeding ends. Any updates to Respondent’s data must be made before the 2-day period ends or before the Registrar confirms the lock, whichever comes first. Any modifications after the 2-day period may be addressed by the Panel in its decision.

H. Role of WIPO

WIPO’s role is to administer the proceedings, which includes verifying that the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the UDRP Policy, Rules, and WIPO Supplemental Rules, coordinating with the concerned Registrar(s) to verify that the named Respondent is the actual registrant of the domain name(s) in issue, checking the Respondent’s contact details, notifying the Complaint to the Respondent, sending out case-related notifications, appointing the Panel, and notifying the Parties and registrar once the case ends.

WIPO is independent and impartial. It does not decide the dispute between the Parties. As an administrative body, it can provide general information on the procedural aspects of the UDRP, Rules, and WIPO Supplemental Rules, but cannot give any views about the strengths and weaknesses of a party’s case.
The WIPO Legal Case Manager is principally responsible for managing the case, including all administrative matters relating to the dispute and communications with the Panel.

WIPO Legal Case Managers often have legal backgrounds, speak several languages, and are experienced in international dispute resolution and domain name issues.

I. Resource Materials

Please visit WIPO’s domain name dispute resolution homepage at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains or contact arbiter.mail@wipo.int.
https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/