Notes on Data

This page will define how certain things are collected and classified in our database. If you're looking for detailed information about how to search our data, please check our How to Use UDRP.Tools page.

Data Accuracy and Coverage

Having accurate data is critical for UDRP Tools but since information is collected and parsed automatically, there can be varying degrees of confidence in the accuracy of such fields. Fields may also have differing rates of coverage, the amount of times we are able to extract this information or it even exists at all to be extracted. The difference between accuracy and coverage is that accuracy is how correct the data we extract is, while coverage is how often we are able to look for that field's information. Field Match Estimate is our approximation for what percentage of the time there is any data in the field. The difference between Field Match Estimate and Field Coverage Estimate is that having no data in the field will still be included in the Field Match Estimate because the parser could search for it and didn't find it. For example, no data in FoundRDNH is covered in our Field Coverage Estimate but not in Field Match Estimate because it's empty (no RDNH found). Our current assessment of each of these aspects of our data is below (Updated Nov 2018):

FieldConfidence in AccuracyField Match EstimateField Coverage Estimate
Cited CasesMedium-High81%95%
Considered RDNHLow3%90%
ComplainantHigh (not normalized)99%99%
Complainant LocaleHigh81%81%
Complainant RepMedium84%84%
DateHigh (venues often put incorrect dates in decisions)99%99%
DecisionVery High99%99%
DissentVery High (only tracked at WIPO)1%55%
DomainVery High99%99%
Found RDNHVery High (uses data)1%99%
PanelistsVery High97%99%
RegistrarHigh (not normalized)70%70%
RespondentHigh (not normalized)99%99%
Respondent Did ReplyHigh35%99%
Respondent LocaleHigh78%78%
Respondent RepMedium83%83%
TLDVery High99%99%

Data Normalization

Some data on UDRP Tools is normalized, some is not. Knowing which fields are and aren't can be helpful to making your search experience and understanding of the results better.

Normalized data attempts to standardize and group together information that is supposed to be the same. For example many cases will list panelists in different ways, for example, adding titles or degrees. Dr. Jane Doe could be the same as Jane Doe ESQ. or Doe, Jane. UDRP Tools attempts to normalize these to all say Jane Doe. This is how we normalize data.

You can find a full list of normalized fields below

Complainant LocaleYes
Complainant RepNo
Keyword SearchYes*
Respondent LocaleYes
Respondent RepNo

*Keyword Search is semi normalized. It consistently strips things down to remove all punctuation but has some limitations which are talked about in its description.

Decision Types

Specific DecisionGeneral Decision
Terminated by Panel (order published)Cancelled
Accepted (NOT TRANSFERED)Cancelled
Cancellation, denied in partSplit
Cancellation, transfer in partSplit
Complaint denied, transfer in partSplit
Complaint denied, transfer in part with dissenting opinionSplit
Split DecisionSplit
Split Decision (Default)Split
Split Decision (Final)Split
Transfer, cancellation in partSplit
Transfer, denied in partSplit
Transfer, denied in part with dissenting opinionSplit
Claim DeniedDenied
Claim Denied (Default)Denied
Claim Denied (Final)Denied
Complaint deniedDenied
Complaint denied with concurring opinionDenied
Complaint denied with dissenting and concurring opinionDenied
Complaint denied with dissenting opinionDenied
Suspended (Appeal)Suspended
Suspended (Default)Suspended
Suspended (Final)Suspended
Transfer with concurring opinionTransferred
Transfer with dissenting opinionTransferred
Accepted (Transfered)Transferred


Dissents are only officially tracked in WIPO and put into the decision type. NAF and CAC do not show dissent information. As such, UDRP Tools doesn't track NAF/CAC dissents right now.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)

RDNH data comes from which manually tracks all RDNH rulings.