On December 2, 2025, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) published the final report of the UDRP review project, the result of nearly a year of consultations involving practitioners, panelists, rights holders, registrars, and domain name registrants.
In short, the UDRP works. After more than 25 years of existence and tens of thousands of decisions, no comprehensive overhaul is considered necessary. Instead, the report identifies a series of pragmatic improvements, grounded in practical experience, aimed at strengthening the efficiency, predictability, and fairness of the procedure.
Several recommendations have reached consensus and are considered capable of being implemented in the near future. Proposed reforms include:
better regulation of supplemental filings, often a source of unnecessary costs and delays;
the introduction of clear deadlines for the payment of fees in three-member panel cases;
a strengthened role for ICANN in ensuring registrars’ compliance with their obligations, particularly when implementing decisions;
the standardization of registrar verification procedures and greater transparency regarding the data shared with the parties;
the systematic identification of dissenting opinions in decisions; and
the provision of educational materials for parties, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises.
These are technical measures, sometimes modest in appearance, but designed to address issues that practitioners have long considered irritants.
Other, more sensitive topics are referred to dedicated working tracks as part of a future Phase 2, including:
the creation of an internal appeals mechanism;
the introduction of a genuine cancellation remedy, aimed at preventing the automatic re-circulation of the disputed domain name;
a possible evolution from a cumulative bad faith requirement (registration and use) toward an alternative test (registration or use); and
expedited procedures for certain types of manifest abuse.
Conversely, the report clearly rules out several recurring proposals, such as a “loser pays” system, mandatory mediation, or the introduction of a statute of limitations.
As regards geographical indications, the report confirms that they remain, at this stage, outside the scope of the UDRP. These issues are already being discussed in other fora, notably within WIPO, and any extension of the mechanism to other identifiers would fall within the remit of a distinct debate within ICANN, through the Generic Names Supporting Organization.
The ball is now in ICANN’s court. In any event, the debate on the future of the UDRP has been reopened on serious and well-founded terms.
In this context of consolidation of the UDRP framework and targeted developments ahead, the key issue for rights holders is less about challenging the mechanism itself than about using it effectively. Monitoring registrations, assessing risks, and selecting the appropriate response remain decisive. It is precisely on this operational ground that IP Twins supports its clients in the protection and enforcement of their online brands, drawing on daily practice in domain name dispute resolution procedures.