Update: changes affecting how to defend a .ch domain against a UDRP c…

Update: changes affecting how to defend a .ch domain against a UDRP c. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .ch. Email the firm to assess your cas…

A Swiss .ch registrant receives a UDRP complaint. The instinct is to treat the procedure exactly like a .com dispute. That instinct is wrong — and the difference matters from the first day of the response window.

To defend a .ch domain against a UDRP complaint, a registrant must understand that .ch operates under SWITCH — Switzerland's registry — which has adopted a dispute procedure distinct from the standard UDRP used for gTLDs. Most .ch disputes proceed under SWITCH's own rules, not a standard WIPO UDRP filing. However, where a .ch domain is held alongside a .com or other gTLD, a complainant may pursue parallel UDRP proceedings against the generic-zone name. In those parallel cases, the respondent has 20 days to answer the gTLD complaint before defaulting.

This alert covers what changed, who is affected, and what to do now.

What Applies in .ch — and What Recently Shifted

SWITCH administers .ch and has not adopted the UDRP as its governing procedure. The UDRP, strictly speaking, does not apply to .ch registrations directly. Complainants targeting a .ch domain must use the SWITCH dispute procedure or pursue Swiss court action — not a WIPO or Forum UDRP filing against the .ch name itself.

That said, the practical picture has grown more complex. Where a brand owner holds a gTLD trademark and a registrant holds both the .com and the .ch variant, the complainant may file a UDRP complaint covering only the .com. The respondent then faces a gTLD proceeding whose outcome — transfer of the .com — can indirectly pressure the .ch position. We regularly advise registrants in this dual-zone situation, where the UDRP is used as a flanking move.

Swiss practitioners and registrants should also note that SWITCH has updated its published guidance on what constitutes an abusive registration under its own procedure. The updated guidance places greater weight on pre-registration conduct and the registrant's demonstrable commercial purpose at the time of registration. Registrants who hold .ch names for descriptive, personal, or project-related purposes should document that purpose clearly — now, before any dispute arises.

Who Is Affected?

Any registrant holding a .ch domain that incorporates a third-party brand, a personal name, or a geographic or descriptive term that a brand owner might claim should take notice. The risk is not limited to obvious typosquats. Panels and registry administrators have found abusive registration where the domain closely mirrors a trademark even if the registrant's original intent was legitimate.

Brand owners pursuing recovery of a .ch name should also recalibrate. A UDRP filed at WIPO does not transfer a .ch domain. A complainant who files only the UDRP recovers only the gTLD variant. To reach .ch, a separate Swiss procedure or court action is required.

Building the Legitimate-Interest Record Under Paragraph 4(c)

Where a UDRP is filed against a gTLD domain held by the same registrant who also holds the .ch, the respondent's best protection remains a strong Paragraph 4(c) safe-harbor record. The three safe harbors under the UDRP are: a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute; being commonly known by the domain name; and legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent to mislead.

Evidence that supports these safe harbors includes dated business records, correspondence, website archives, invoices, social-media account history, and any registration history predating the complainant's trademark rights. In our practice, the registrants who successfully defend are those who can show a contemporaneous, documented purpose at the time of registration — not a purpose constructed after the complaint arrived.

When is a reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) finding realistic? Panels find RDNH where the complainant knew or should have known its case was weak — for instance, where the registrant's prior rights were publicly visible, or where the trademark arose after the domain was registered. An RDNH finding carries no monetary penalty but places a reputational cost on the complainant and signals the community that the filing was abusive.

For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met in your .ch-adjacent dispute, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• Respondent defense and RDNH — protecting legitimate domain registrations across all zones
• Pursuing an RDNH finding — strategy and evidence for abusive complaints
• Court-based domain recovery where arbitration cannot reach