full disclaimer, I have worked on https://udrp.tools for something like a decade now as the developer. We're working on an AI chatbot to help answer these types of questions based on our dataset and other data sources (actual wipo guidelines, udrpperspectives.org). The short answer is no, the answer our AI gave with citations/explanation is below if youre curious:

Does publicly listing a domain for sale mean you'd automatically lose a UDRP arbitration if someone has a trademark for it?

No. A public sale listing is not an automatic loss. Here's how panels actually decide these cases.

The controlling rule

Bad faith based on a sale offer requires that the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of selling to the trademark owner (or a competitor) for more than out-of-pocket costs. Two things must be true at once: (1) the primary purpose of registration was to sell, and (2) the target was that specific trademark holder. A generic public listing on Sedo or Afternic doesn't automatically satisfy either requirement. (WIPO Overview 3.1; UDRP Perspectives 3.5)

What panels actually look at

No single factor decides it. Panels weigh all of these:

How distinctive is the trademark? A coined word like KODAK is treated very differently from a generic term like CLOUD.

Did the registrant plausibly know about the mark when registering? Famous marks raise this inference; obscure marks don't.

Was the offer directed at the trademark owner specifically, or listed publicly for any buyer?

Does the asking price only make sense if the trademark owner is the buyer, or is it consistent with general market prices?

Does the registrant hold a broader portfolio of generic/descriptive domains, or a collection of brand-matching ones?

Was the domain registered after the mark became well-known, or before?

Is there a credible non-trademark reason to want the domain?

Things that do NOT automatically mean bad faith

Listing a domain publicly for sale (UDRP Perspectives 3.5)

Asking a high price (UDRP Perspectives 3.5; WIPO Overview 3.1.1)

Even reaching out to the trademark owner directly — panels look at whether multiple parties were approached and whether the registration was brand-specific (UDRP Perspectives 3.5)

Wanting to profit — legitimate domain investing is a recognized lawful activity under UDRP (UDRP Perspectives 2.6)

When the calculus shifts against you

The harder cases are where the domain is identical to a highly distinctive coined brand, there's no plausible use for the domain other than trading on the trademark, and the asking price is only realistic for the trademark owner itself. In those cases panels have found bad faith even without a direct approach to the owner. A notable example is the three-member panel majority in WIPO case D2022-1570, which found that the asking price implied the complainant was the only conceivable buyer — though a dissent disagreed, illustrating that even these edge cases are not automatic.

Bottom line

The outcome depends on: how famous and distinctive the mark is, whether you had it in your sights at registration, whether there's a credible independent reason to want the domain, and who you're actually marketing it to. Generic terms with multiple plausible buyers, listed publicly, have repeatedly survived UDRP challenges. (UDRP Perspectives 3.5) Coined-brand matches with sky-high asking prices and no other credible use have not.

I noticed the UDRP rules had changed last year, the main change is of course related to WHOIS respecting privacy now. Looking that up:

"The registrar must provide the full Registration Data to the UDRP provider within two business days after the registrar is notified that a UDRP complaint exists. The registrar must also lock the domain."

Around the turn of the millenium I remember reading about a college student who had registered a domain with a family name which also happened to be the same name of a well-known watch manufacturer. IIRC, the watch company was able to force the student to hand over the domain because the student used a picture of the famous watch on his rudimentary homepage (remember those?) and the company was claiming trademark infringement.