Case study: resolve a .pl domain dispute under the national procedure
A European software company discovered its registered trademark – the exact brand string it had traded under for several years – sitting in a .pl registration held by a party with no apparent connection to Poland or to the software sector. The registrant was not using the domain for any active site. Instead, the domain pointed at a parking page laden with competitor links. A five-figure buy-back demand arrived shortly after the brand owner's first inquiry. The company needed to resolve a .pl domain dispute under the national procedure and recover the name without paying the ransom.
Poland's .pl registry (NASK) does not operate a UDRP-style administrative panel. Disputes over .pl domains are resolved through the Polish civil courts, principally on the basis of unfair competition law and trademark rights, with NASK offering a DISPUTE notation to block transfers while litigation proceeds. Because there is no quick administrative filing comparable to a UDRP complaint, the evidentiary record and the choice of legal theory are decisive from the outset. A well-prepared filing can produce an interim court order relatively quickly; a poorly prepared one can stall for months.
This case study covers the situation, the strategy we built, and the outcome – and what the case illustrates for any brand owner facing the same scenario.
What applied: .pl disputes and why the UDRP does not reach them
Unlike .com, .net, or .org – and unlike .uk or .eu, which each have their own administrative procedures – .pl is resolved through Polish national courts, not through WIPO or the Forum. NASK, the .pl registry, does not administer an extrajudicial dispute mechanism equivalent to the UDRP. The UDRP, which requires complainants to satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) and delivers a transfer or cancellation decision within roughly two months, simply does not cover .pl.
This matters. The brand owner in this case initially believed it could file a standard UDRP complaint. It could not. The governing law is Polish civil law: primarily the Act on Combating Unfair Competition and the Industrial Property Law, referenced here by branch rather than by article number because the analysis turns on how courts apply the rules, not on citing statutory provisions. A complainant must typically show that it holds trademark or trade-name rights recognized in Poland, that the domain registration creates a likelihood of confusion or constitutes an act of unfair competition, and that the registrant is acting in bad faith or without legitimate justification.
This is broadly analogous to the UDRP's three elements – rights, no legitimate interest, bad faith – but the procedural vehicle is entirely different. There is no administrative panel. There is a judge. Evidence standards follow Polish civil procedure. The timeline is longer and the cost structure differs materially from a WIPO filing.
If you are unsure whether a .pl domain falls under a national procedure or an available administrative route, contact info@cognomenlaw.com for an assessment before committing to a filing strategy.
How the national procedure for .pl actually works: strategy in this case
Poland's national court route for .pl domain disputes begins with identifying the proper legal basis and securing a DISPUTE notation – a registration block entered by NASK – before or alongside the court filing, to prevent the registrant from transferring the domain during proceedings. Without this step, a domain can be sold or transferred to a third party, complicating or nullifying any recovery.
In this matter, we identified three converging bases for the claim: the client's registered EU trademark (valid in all member states and recognized in Polish law), its earlier trade-name use in the Polish market, and the registrant's evident intent to extract a commercial payment by holding the domain against its legitimate owner. The parking page with competitor links supplied direct evidence of bad-faith use; the buy-back demand supplied direct evidence of bad-faith registration purpose. Neither element required expert witnesses or complex commercial discovery.
We prepared the NASK DISPUTE request and coordinated the court filing simultaneously, engaging local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction to handle procedural steps under Polish civil procedure. The DISPUTE notation was entered promptly, freezing the domain. The court accepted jurisdiction on the basis of the trademark and unfair competition claims. The registrant did not mount a substantive defense within the required period, which under Polish civil procedure allowed the case to proceed on the pleadings without a contested hearing.
The contrast with a UDRP default is instructive. Under the UDRP, a registrant who does not file a response within 20 days of commencement allows the panel to decide on the complaint alone – which often, though not invariably, leads to transfer. Under Polish civil procedure, a default by the registrant triggers a different mechanism: the court may issue a default judgment, but procedural requirements still apply and timelines vary with the court's docket. The brand owner cannot assume speed equivalent to a WIPO single-panel case.
What decided the outcome: evidence and the realistic next step
The outcome in this matter was a court-ordered transfer of the .pl domain to the brand owner, executed through NASK on the basis of the judgment. The proceeding concluded in the first half of 2025. Several evidentiary factors were decisive.
First, the client held a registered trademark predating the domain registration. That chronology is fundamental. Courts applying Polish unfair competition doctrine look to whether the registrant could plausibly have been unaware of the mark at the time of registration – and a registration that postdates a well-established mark in the same sector is difficult to defend as coincidental. Second, the parking page with competitor links demonstrated active misuse; passive holding alone might have raised questions, but active exploitation removed any ambiguity. Third, the buy-back demand, documented in writing, supplied a near-textbook illustration of registration for commercial gain at the mark owner's expense.
What did not help the client early in the matter was the initial assumption that a UDRP complaint would suffice. That misconception delayed the engagement of local litigation counsel and the preparation of the DISPUTE request by several weeks. Had the registrant used that window to transfer the domain to a connected party, the recovery path would have been substantially more complex. The lesson is consistent with what we see across .pl and similar court-only zones: speed of action, ahead of any demand or transfer, is the single most controllable factor in the outcome.
Key distinction: the NASK DISPUTE notation blocks transfer while litigation proceeds. Requesting it promptly – before serving the registrant – reduces the risk that a demand letter triggers a quick sale to a third party.
If you hold a trademark and a third party has registered the matching .pl domain, email info@cognomenlaw.com to assess the evidence and plan the DISPUTE notation and court filing.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions
What changed?
Nothing changed procedurally – .pl has always resolved disputes through Polish civil courts rather than an administrative panel. What this case illustrates is how the absence of a UDRP-style route affects timing and strategy. Brand owners who identify the correct route at the outset, and who secure the NASK DISPUTE notation promptly, substantially reduce the risk of a transfer to a third party during proceedings.
Who is affected?
Any brand owner, trademark holder, or trade-name user whose brand or mark is registered as a .pl domain by a party without apparent rights or legitimate interest. EU trademark holders, in particular, may underestimate how directly Polish courts recognize their rights. The issue is also relevant to domain investors who have acquired .pl registrations that may be subject to challenge under Polish unfair competition law.
What should you do now?
If you have identified a .pl domain that conflicts with your trademark, act before making contact with the registrant. A demand letter can trigger a transfer. The priority steps are to assess the strength of the trademark-law claim, to request the NASK DISPUTE notation, and to prepare the court filing with local litigation counsel in Poland. Contact info@cognomenlaw.com to begin that assessment.
Author: Gabriel Tennison — ccTLD and European procedures (.uk, .eu, .de). Meet the team.
Speak with Cognomen Law
For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter
This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.