Top-Level Domains and Their Dispute Resolution Policies (2025)

This comprehensive reference guide covers dispute resolution policies for all major top-level domains (TLDs) worldwide, including ICANN generic TLDs (gTLDs) and country-code TLDs (ccTLDs). Understanding which policy applies to your domain is crucial for effective trademark enforcement and cybersquatting prevention.

ICANN Generic TLDs (gTLDs) – UDRP & URS

All ICANN-regulated generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are governed by the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for trademark-based disputes. This includes legacy domains like .com, .net, .org, .info, .biz, .name, .pro, etc., as well as newer gTLDs. Under the UDRP, a trademark owner can file a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution provider (e.g. WIPO, NAF) to seek transfer or cancellation of a domain registered in bad faith.

In addition, nearly all new gTLDs (those launched via ICANN’s 2012 expansion) are subject to the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system for quick relief in clear-cut infringement cases. The URS provides a faster, lower-cost way to suspend blatantly infringing domains, and has been built into all new gTLD registry agreements.

A few legacy gTLDs have also adopted URS through contract renewals – for example, .cat, .jobs, .mobi, .pro, .travel, and .xxx now all implement URS in addition to UDRP. (Notably, .com and .net currently use UDRP but have not adopted URS.) Each gTLD’s registry or ICANN provides the official UDRP text and rules, and URS rules are published by ICANN and providers like NAF.

Special gTLD Policies

Some sponsored or restricted gTLDs have additional dispute mechanisms targeting charter eligibility:

• .aero, .coop, .museum, .travel follow the Charter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy (CEDRP) for challenges alleging a registrant does not meet the TLD’s eligibility criteria
• .asia has a Charter Eligibility Requirements Policy (CERP) to ensure registrants belong to the Asia-Pacific community, administered by Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre
• .cat (for Catalan community) uses an Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP) for similar purposes
• .name (a restricted personal-name TLD) still has an ERDRP to challenge registrations that aren’t actually an individual’s name
• .biz has a Restrictions Dispute Resolution Policy (RDRP) for non-genuine business use

All gTLDs still fall back on the UDRP for trademark disputes, but these supplemental policies handle eligibility or charter violations.

Country-Code TLDs Using UDRP or ICANN Variants

Many country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) have voluntarily adopted the UDRP (or a close variant) as their dispute-resolution policy. These ccTLDs contractually require their registrants to submit to UDRP proceedings, often handled by providers like WIPO or NAF, for bad-faith domain registrations.

ccTLDs Using Standard UDRP

The following ccTLDs use the exact ICANN UDRP text or very close variants:

• .CO (Colombia) - UDRP via WIPO
• .ME (Montenegro) - UDRP via WIPO
• .TV (Tuvalu) - UDRP via WIPO
• .IO (British Indian Ocean Territory) - UDRP via WIPO
• .CC (Cocos Keeling Islands) - UDRP
• .AI (Anguilla) - UDRP
• .PK (Pakistan) - PKNIC UDRP via DNDRC
• .UG (Uganda) - UDRP via WIPO
• .MW (Malawi) - UDRP via WIPO

ccTLDs with Localized UDRP Variants

Other ccTLDs have localized variants of UDRP – essentially the same three-prong test (identical/confusing name, no rights, bad faith) but under local rules:

• .AU (Australia) - auDRP via WIPO
• .IN (India) - .IN Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP)
• .CN (China) - CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CNDRP) with 3-year filing limit
• .HK (Hong Kong) - .HK Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
• .SG (Singapore) - Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP)
• .MY (Malaysia) - MYDRP via AIAC
• .PH (Philippines) - .ph DRP via WIPO and HKIAC

ccTLDs with National Dispute Policies (Local ADR)

Many country-code domains maintain their own national dispute-resolution procedures, tailored to local law or registry policies.

Europe (ccTLD-specific mechanisms)

United Kingdom (.UK)

• Uses Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service (DRS)
• Mediation and expert decision system distinct from UDRP
• Free mediation stage with modest fees for expert determination

European Union (.EU)

• .EU ADR Policy mandated by EU regulation
• Governed by EU Regulation 2019/517 and the .EU ADR Rules
• Providers: Czech Arbitration Court and WIPO
• Broader protection than UDRP (not just trademarks)

France (.FR)

• Two parallel ADR procedures administered by AFNIC:
  • SYRELI - Internal, expedited decision process
  • PARL EXPERT - UDRP-like expert determination via WIPO or CMAP

Germany (.DE)

• No bespoke ADR policy
• DENIC does not offer UDRP-like arbitration
• Disputes resolved through German courts or agreements
• “Dispute” entry available to block transfers during court proceedings

Switzerland (.CH) and Liechtenstein (.LI)

• Joint dispute procedure via SWITCH
• WIPO is designated provider
• UDRP-like arbitration system

Netherlands (.NL)

• .NL Domain Name Dispute Resolution via WIPO
• Arbitration system administered by SIDN
• Updated September 2024 to include Geographical Indications protection

Sweden (.SE)

• .SE Alternative Dispute Resolution
• WIPO-administered with accelerated 10-day proceedings available
• Broader protection than UDRP (includes personal names, etc.)

Norway (.NO)

• .no ADR Committee via Norid
• Fast, low-cost alternative with 7-day transfer implementation
• NOK 6,570 fee (refunded if successful)

Denmark (.DK)

• Complaints Board for Domain Names
• 500 DKK fee (160 DKK for non-commercial use)
• 4-week grace period before implementation

Czech Republic (.CZ)

• .cz ADR via Czech Arbitration Court
• Online proceedings at domeny.soud.cz
• 980+ cases resolved in 2023

Slovakia (.SK)

• .sk ADR via European Information Society Institute
• 3-4 month electronic proceedings, optional 30-day fast-track
• Self-enforceable through SK-NIC

Poland (.PL)

• Dual-track system: Polish arbitration courts for local parties, WIPO for foreign parties
• Domain transfers blocked during disputes

Italy (.IT)

• .it ADR (Re-assignation Procedure) since 2000
• 5 service providers including Milan Chamber of Arbitration
• Based on UDRP principles with Italian-specific procedures

Spain (.ES)

• .ES DRP via WIPO
• Extrajudicial Conflict Resolution Policy administered by Red.es

North America

United States (.US)

• usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP)
• usTLD Rapid Suspension (usRS) - URS-like procedure

Canada (.CA)

• CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP)
• Canadian adaptation of UDRP with presence requirements
• Handled by Resolution Canada and CIIDRC

Mexico (.MX)

• .MX Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (LDRP) via WIPO
• Protects broader rights than UDRP (avisos comerciales, denominations of origin)

Brazil (.BR)

• SACI-Adm (Sistema Administrativo de Conflitos de Internet)
• Broader standing than UDRP, different burden of proof structure
• Administered by WIPO and other accredited providers

Argentina (.AR)

• .ar Mediation/Arbitration via NIC Argentina
• Structured process with mediation phase followed by arbitration
• 2024 updates formalized criteria for trademark conflicts

Chile (.CL)

• Mandatory arbitration system via NIC Chile
• One of the earliest ccTLD ADR systems (since 1997-2000)
• Legally binding arbitration decisions

Asia-Pacific & Middle East

China (.CN, .中国)

• CNNIC Dispute Resolution Policy (CNDRP)
• 3-year filing limitation
• Providers: CIETAC, HKIAC, WIPO, ADNDRC

Japan (.JP)

• JP Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (JP-DRP)
• Virtually identical to UDRP
• Administered by Japan Intellectual Property Arbitration Center (JIPAC)

Korea (.KR, .한국)

• .KR Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (KRDRP)
• Handled by Korean Internet Address Dispute Resolution Committee (KIDRC)

Taiwan (.TW)

• TWNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (TWDRP)
• UDRP equivalent administered by approved providers

Israel (.IL)

• IL-DRP
• Israel Domain Dispute Resolution Procedure
• Can allocate, delete or re-assign domains

Turkey (.TR)

• .tr DRSP (BTK Dispute Resolution Service Providers)
• BTK-approved system through BTİDER and TOBB UYUM
• Online applications, domain frozen during disputes

Indonesia (.ID)

• PPND (PANDI Domain Name Dispute Resolution)
• Non-litigation dispute settlement body
• 18+ cases decided against cybersquatters

Iran (.IR)

• .IR Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy via WIPO
• UDRP variant for international cases

United Arab Emirates (.AE)

• aeDRP - UDRP variant via WIPO

Africa & Others

South Africa (.ZA)

• .ZA ADR Regulations via ZADNA
• Administered by SAIIPL and AFSA
• 80% complainant success rate matching WIPO levels

Kenya (.KE)

• Kenya ADR Policy via Kenic
• WIPO Center resolves disputes

Others Many smaller ccTLDs either adopt UDRP through WIPO or rely on court systems. The landscape continues evolving as registries implement or update their policies.

TLD Policy Quick Reference

Conclusion

Virtually all active TLDs have applicable dispute-policy regimes in 2025. For ICANN gTLDs, the UDRP (and URS for most) is uniformly in effect. For ccTLDs, the picture is diverse: many have embraced UDRP or variants (providing familiar paths for global trademark owners), while others developed local arbitration systems tailored to national law. A few still rely on court litigation only (notably .de and .ru).

Understanding which policy applies to your domain is crucial for effective enforcement strategy. Use our TLD Checker to determine the specific dispute resolution procedure for any domain.

This guide reflects policies as of January 2025. TLD policies may change; consult official registry sources for the most current information.