Update: changes affecting how to recover a .it domain held passively…

Update: changes affecting how to recover a .it domain held passively. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .it. Email the firm to assess your case.

A brand owner searches the RDDS record for a .it domain that mirrors its Italian trademark. The registrant holds it inactive – no website, no evident commercial use, no reply to any outreach. That pattern, passive holding, sits at the center of a recurring question in .it disputes: does silence in a ccTLD where the UDRP does not apply directly still constitute actionable bad faith?

To recover a .it domain held passively in bad faith, brand owners must work through the Registro.it Reassignment procedure – the governing ccTLD mechanism for .it – rather than a standard UDRP filing. The test maps closely to the three UDRP elements of Paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity to a mark you hold, no legitimate interest in the registrant, and registration and use in bad faith, with passive holding recognized as a form of bad-faith use when corroborating circumstances are present. A standard proceeding runs on a timeline comparable to UDRP arbitration – typically a matter of weeks to a few months – and the remedy is reassignment of the domain to the complainant.

This alert covers what the Reassignment procedure requires, how passive holding is assessed, what evidence decides the outcome, and the realistic next step for a brand owner facing this situation.

What Applies in .it – and Why the UDRP Alone Does Not Reach It

The .it ccTLD is administered by Registro.it, the Italian registry, under its own Dispute Resolution Service for domain names – the Reassignment procedure. Italy has not adopted the UDRP as its governing mechanism, so a WIPO or Forum UDRP complaint will not compel Registro.it to transfer a .it domain. The correct forum is the Registro.it procedure itself, governed by the registry's published rules.

The substantive test, however, is structurally familiar. A complainant must satisfy all three Paragraph 4(a)-equivalent elements: rights in a name or mark, the registrant's lack of legitimate interest, and bad-faith registration combined with bad-faith use. That last element is where passive holding cases concentrate, because an inactive domain produces no visible bad-faith conduct on its face.

Panels and decision-makers across procedures – including those applying UDRP consensus reasoning by analogy – have consistently held that passive holding can satisfy the bad-faith use requirement when surrounding facts are sufficiently telling. Relevant corroborating circumstances include: the registrant's inability to identify any plausible legitimate use, the fame or distinctive character of the complainant's mark, a pattern of registering third-party names, or the implausibility of any good-faith explanation for acquisition.

What Changed and Who Is Affected

Enforcement practice under the Registro.it Reassignment procedure has continued to develop its treatment of passive holding cases. Decision-makers have increasingly applied the same analytical approach that UDRP panels formalized – examining the totality of circumstances rather than requiring proof of active misuse. This convergence matters for brand owners who previously assumed that an inactive .it domain was beyond reach without evidence of a live infringing website.

The affected universe is specific: trademark holders with registered rights (Italian, EU, or international with Italian designation) whose mark is reproduced or confusingly similar in a .it registration that sits dormant. Businesses entering or expanding into the Italian market are disproportionately exposed – a domain squatted before the brand's Italian launch carries exactly this passive-holding profile.

If you hold a .it domain as a registrant with a genuine interest in the name, this development also has a defensive dimension. A dormant domain with no content, no business plan, and no response to outreach is a weaker position than a domain with documented legitimate purpose – even a simple landing page explaining the registrant's connection to the name.

For an assessment of whether your .it passive-holding situation meets the threshold for a Reassignment filing, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

What to Do Now

For brand owners, the immediate priority is evidence assembly. The Reassignment procedure, like UDRP arbitration, is document-driven. Build the record now: trademark registration certificates, RDDS screenshots showing the dormant registration, any correspondence with the registrant, and evidence that the registrant has no plausible legitimate connection to the mark. The 20-day response window that runs once a proceeding commences leaves little time to gather materials after filing.

For registrants holding .it domains passively, the corresponding action is to articulate the legitimate purpose – in writing, on the domain, or both. If you registered a .it domain for a business reason, document it. An undeveloped domain with no supporting record is a harder position to defend than one with even a basic demonstration of intent.

The choice of route matters across zones. If the disputed name also appears as a .com, the UDRP at WIPO – where the filing fee starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel – runs in parallel with the .it Reassignment procedure. Coordinated filings can resolve both registrations in roughly the same timeframe. If the situation requires a damages remedy or if arbitration is unavailable, court action with local litigation counsel in Italy remains an option, though it is substantially more costly and slower than the administrative route.

To weigh the Reassignment procedure against a parallel UDRP filing for your .it and .com registrations, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP recovery service – filing complaints at WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC
• Analysis: recovering a domain after a failed private buyback attempt
• Case study: defending a fair-use registration in a ccTLD dispute