Update: changes affecting how to prove bad faith registration of a .b…

Update: changes affecting how to prove bad faith registration of a .b. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .br. Email the firm to assess your cas…

Brazil's .br namespace sits outside the UDRP. Disputes over .br domains are resolved through SACI-Adm, the administrative procedure administered by the Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br). Brand owners targeting abusive .br registrations must meet the evidentiary standard that procedure demands – and that standard has recently shifted in ways that change how complainants should build and present their bad-faith case.

To prove bad faith registration of a .br domain, a complainant must currently demonstrate that the registrant lacked any legitimate claim to the name and that the registration was made with knowledge of, or intent to exploit, the complainant's mark. The SACI-Adm procedure applies exclusively to .br; the UDRP does not govern this zone. Evidence requirements under SACI-Adm have tightened, and complainants who relied on older filing strategies may find their evidence insufficient without an updated approach.

Below: what changed, who is affected, and the concrete steps to take now.

What Changed in the .br Dispute Procedure?

SACI-Adm panels have recently applied a stricter reading of the bad-faith registration element. Where prior decisions sometimes inferred bad faith from circumstantial evidence alone – a domain parked at a pay-per-click page, for instance – more recent decisions require more direct indicators tying the registrant's conduct to awareness of the complainant's mark at the time of registration.

Three specific shifts are now visible in the panel reasoning emerging from SACI-Adm proceedings. First, complainants are expected to produce evidence of the registrant's actual or constructive knowledge of the mark before or at the point of registration. A post-registration redirect to a competitor's site, standing alone, no longer carries the weight it once did. Second, the timing of registration relative to the complainant's first use or registration of the mark has become a more active point of scrutiny. Panels are examining whether the mark was sufficiently prominent in Brazil at the registration date to support an inference of intent. Third, panels are placing greater weight on the registrant's prior conduct – a pattern of abusive registrations, for example – as a factor that can elevate or diminish the overall bad-faith finding.

None of these changes alter the fundamental structure of the test. They raise the evidentiary floor for complainants and require more deliberate assembly of the record before filing.

Who Is Affected?

Brand owners with trademark rights used or registered in Brazil who are considering, or who have already initiated, a SACI-Adm proceeding are directly affected. So are those monitoring .br registrations that appear abusive but have not yet filed.

Businesses that rely solely on a .com-based UDRP strategy should note that a UDRP win does not transfer a .br domain. The two procedures are entirely separate. A complainant who secures transfer of a .com typosquat through WIPO must bring a separate SACI-Adm complaint to address the parallel .br registration – a scenario we encounter regularly in our practice when a bad actor holds both zones simultaneously.

Foreign brand owners are particularly at risk. Brazilian trademark registration or demonstrable use in Brazil strengthens the claim considerably. A mark registered only in other jurisdictions is not automatically disqualifying, but it places a heavier burden on the complainant to show that the .br registrant was aware of the mark's cross-border reach.

For an assessment of whether your evidence meets the current SACI-Adm standard, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

What Should You Do Now?

Act before the evidentiary trail grows cold. Three steps matter most at this stage.

First, document the registrant's conduct at registration. Capture WHOIS/RDDS records, historical DNS data, and any screenshots of the domain's use at or shortly after registration. Panels are looking backward to the registration date; evidence that only shows current conduct is less persuasive than a timeline that begins there.

Second, assess your trademark position in Brazil. Confirm whether you hold a Brazilian trademark registration and, if not, whether your use in Brazil is documented sufficiently to support a rights claim. If your mark is registered elsewhere, gather evidence of its cross-border profile – press coverage, sales data, or other indicators of fame within Brazil at the relevant date.

Third, consider the parallel zone question. If the same registrant holds a .com or another gTLD version of the domain, a coordinated filing strategy – UDRP for the gTLD, SACI-Adm for the .br – may be more efficient than sequential actions. Timing matters: a panel decision in the UDRP does not bind the SACI-Adm panel, but a consistent record of abusive registration across multiple zones is persuasive evidence in both forums.

We advise brand owners in this position to treat the SACI-Adm complaint as a standalone proceeding that demands its own fully developed record, not a secondary filing that borrows from a UDRP complaint.

To weigh UDRP against the SACI-Adm procedure for your case, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP recovery services – gTLD complaint strategy, forum selection, and evidence
• Guide to proving bad faith in .sg domain disputes – a parallel ccTLD analysis
• Verify chain of title before acquiring a domain – due diligence across zones