Update: changes affecting how to recover a lapsed .jp domain that was…

Update: changes affecting how to recover a lapsed .jp domain that was. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .jp. Email the firm to assess your cas…

A brand owner lets a .jp domain lapse. Within days, a third party snaps it up through the drop-catch market. Now that name – the one matching the brand – is in a stranger's hands. The question is whether Japanese dispute procedure can get it back, and what changed recently that affects the answer.

Recovering a re-registered .jp domain turns on the JP-DRP, Japan's own domain dispute resolution procedure administered by the Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) through the Japan Intellectual Property Arbitration Center (JIPAC). The JP-DRP follows a three-element test closely modeled on the UDRP – confusing similarity, no legitimate interest, and registration or use in bad faith – but the governing national procedure applies under Japanese rules, not the ICANN UDRP. For any .jp domain, the UDRP does not apply directly; the JP-DRP is the primary arbitral route.

This alert covers what changed, who is affected, and what to do now if you face this situation.

What Changed – and Why It Matters for .jp Recovery

JPNIC periodically updates both the drop-catching mechanics and the registration grace windows that apply when a .jp domain expires and re-enters the available pool. Those mechanics determine how quickly a third party can secure a lapsed name – and, critically, how soon prior-rights holders can act. When the re-registration happens faster than the brand owner realizes the domain has lapsed, the window to object through the JP-DRP opens immediately upon re-registration. Delay in that window is not neutral; it can be read against a complainant when the panel considers whether the brand owner took the name seriously.

Recent practice has also sharpened scrutiny of chain-of-title records. Where a domain passes through one or more drop-catch registrars or auction platforms before landing with its current registrant, panels look at each transfer step. A clean, uninterrupted chain held by a single party since re-registration is easier for a respondent to defend. A chain with multiple rapid transfers, or one that runs through a known resale intermediary, tends to support a finding of bad-faith acquisition.

Who Is Affected?

Three groups face direct exposure. First, brand owners who allowed a .jp domain to lapse – through budget cuts, oversight, or a portfolio rationalization – and have since discovered the name is now held by an unknown registrant. Second, legitimate domain investors who purchased a dropped .jp name without first checking for prior trademark rights or dispute history; they may now face a JP-DRP complaint and need to assess whether a legitimate-interest defense holds. Third, companies conducting due diligence before acquiring a .jp domain through secondary-market purchase – the acquisition of a tainted domain can transfer the dispute risk along with the registration.

If your brand name just reappeared on the drop market – or if you are considering acquiring a .jp domain with unclear prior-rights history – a focused pre-filing or pre-acquisition review can clarify the risk before it compounds. Contact info@cognomenlaw.com for an assessment.

What to Do Now: the Realistic Next Steps

The JP-DRP is the first route to evaluate for arbitral recovery. The test mirrors the UDRP's three elements, but with important local nuance: the bad-faith limb under Japanese practice reads conjunctively – registration and use – in line with the UDRP model, though panels under the JP-DRP apply their own developing consensus view. Complainants should assemble evidence of trademark rights predating the re-registration, a timeline of the lapse and the subsequent registration, and any conduct by the current registrant that fits a recognized bad-faith pattern: pay-per-click monetization, a demand for payment, or redirection to a competitor.

Where the JP-DRP is not available or produces an adverse outcome, the remaining route is litigation in the Japanese courts – handled with local litigation counsel in Japan – potentially under Japan's Unfair Competition Prevention Act or trademark law, referenced here only by branch. That route is slower and more costly. It can, however, reach remedies the JP-DRP cannot, including damages.

Pre-acquisition due diligence matters equally here. Before purchasing a re-registered .jp domain on the secondary market, a buyer should verify the full registration history, search JPNIC's published JP-DRP decision database for any prior complaint involving that name, and structure any purchase through escrow so that title does not transfer until the dispute risk is confirmed as low. A domain bought without that check can arrive carrying a live dispute or a history that hands the next complainant an easier argument.

In a recent matter (a .jp re-registration, spring 2025), we advised a brand owner who had let a domain lapse during a corporate restructuring. The current registrant had held the name for less than four months and was running pay-per-click advertising on it. We identified sufficient bad-faith indicators to support a JP-DRP complaint, assembled the chain-of-title record, and the client was in a position to file a well-evidenced complaint promptly.

Related at COGNOMEN

• Domain transactions, pre-acquisition due diligence, and brand-protection monitoring
• Verify chain of title and prior dispute history before a domain purchase
• How to suspend a new-gTLD domain under the URS – a step-by-step guide