Case study: recover a .global domain after a failed buy-back negotiat…
Case study: recover a .global domain after a failed buy-back negotiat. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .global. Email the firm to assess your…
A buy-back negotiation ended without a deal. The third party holding the .global domain matching our client's brand name refused every offer and kept the domain pointed at a pay-per-click parking page. The question then became whether the UDRP could reach a .global registration — and whether the evidence on hand was strong enough to win.
The .global top-level domain operates under the UDRP, which means a brand owner who meets all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) can file a complaint before WIPO and seek a transfer or cancellation order. The respondent receives 20 days to file a response once the case commences; most standard proceedings conclude within roughly two months. No damages are available — only transfer or cancellation.
What follows is an anonymized account of the situation, the strategy we pursued, and the result.
What Was the Situation?
A consumer-goods company had been building brand recognition under a distinctive trade name for several years. When it went to register the matching .global domain, the name was already taken. A private party held it with no apparent operational use. The registrant made contact first, offering to sell for a sum in the high five figures.
Our client attempted good-faith negotiation. Several rounds of counter-offers followed over roughly three months. Each time the registrant's price came down slightly but never reached a range the brand owner was prepared to accept. The domain remained pointed at a generic parking page throughout. At the final exchange, the registrant stated that the price was firm and that "the clock is running on your brand."
That last sentence mattered. It confirmed the registrant understood whose brand was at stake — and that the holding strategy was deliberate. When the client brought the matter to us, we assessed whether the conduct described in Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP mapped onto these facts.
What Did the Firm Do?
We opened with a full assessment of the three elements before recommending any filing. Element one — confusing similarity — was straightforward: the domain reproduced the client's registered mark without alteration, adding only the .global suffix. Panels consistently treat the top-level domain as irrelevant to the similarity comparison; the test runs on the second-level string alone.
Element two — absence of legitimate interest — was equally clear. The registrant had no trademark registration, no business operating under the name, and no history of being commonly known by that name. The parking page carried generic links unconnected to any genuine offering. Nothing in Paragraph 4(c) offered the registrant a safe harbor.
Element three — registration and use in bad faith — required the most careful work. The evidence package we assembled included: screenshots of the parking page across several dates (establishing ongoing commercial use by click-through monetization); the full email chain from the buy-back negotiation (establishing that the registrant knew of the brand before and during negotiations, and had registered with intent to sell at a premium); and WHOIS records timed against the client's first trademark registration date, showing the registration postdated the mark.
The registrant's own written statement — "the clock is running on your brand" — was particularly useful. Panels examining Paragraph 4(b)(i) look at whether the registrant registered the domain primarily to sell it to the mark owner at a profit. That exchange, preserved in writing, spoke directly to intent.
We filed at WIPO, selecting a single-member panel to minimize cost and preserve speed. The filing fee was USD 1,500. We prepared the complaint to address all three elements with specificity, anticipating a defense centered on generic use of a common word — the registrant's only plausible argument, given the domain's second-level string.
The respondent filed a response within the 20-day window, arguing the term had a descriptive meaning in the relevant sector and that it had registered the domain for a planned project. We submitted a short supplemental filing to address the project claim, attaching evidence that no such project had ever been publicly announced, incorporated, or funded.
If a buy-back approach has broken down and the domain continues to harm your brand, we can assess the three UDRP elements, assemble the bad-faith evidence, and file the complaint at the appropriate forum. Contact us at info@cognomenlaw.com.
What Was the Outcome?
The panel ordered a transfer. The decision, issued roughly eight weeks after filing, found all three Paragraph 4(a) elements proven. On the bad-faith limb, the panel credited the email record of the buy-back negotiation as direct evidence of registration to sell to the mark owner at a premium — the paradigm case under Paragraph 4(b)(i). The parking page revenue, while modest, reinforced the commercial-gain finding under Paragraph 4(b)(iv).
The respondent's planned-project defense did not persuade the panel. The absence of any corroborating evidence — no business filings, no domain development, no third-party references — left the claim unsupported. A bald assertion of intended use, without documentary backup, carries little weight against a well-evidenced complaint.
The domain transferred to our client within two weeks of the decision. The total elapsed time from first instruction to domain transfer was approximately eleven weeks. The client holds the .global domain today alongside its primary .com registration, which it had secured separately.
The case illustrates two practical points. First, a failed buy-back negotiation is not a dead end — it is often the evidence base. Written communications that establish the registrant's awareness of your mark, and its intent to extract a premium, can be the core of a Paragraph 4(b)(i) bad-faith case. Second, .global operates fully under the UDRP: there is no separate national procedure, no local eligibility requirement, and no additional jurisdictional step. WIPO handles it on the same timeline and under the same rules as .com.
To weigh UDRP against other options for your domain situation, email info@cognomenlaw.com.
Related at COGNOMEN
Case Summary: Frequently Asked Questions
What was the situation?
A consumer-goods brand discovered that a third party had registered the exact .global domain matching its trademark and was demanding a high five-figure sum to sell it. After several months of failed buy-back negotiations, the registrant refused further compromise. The domain continued to resolve to a pay-per-click parking page throughout.
What did the firm do?
COGNOMEN assessed all three UDRP Paragraph 4(a) elements, assembled an evidence package — including the full buy-back email chain, dated parking-page screenshots, and WHOIS records — and filed a complaint at WIPO. We also addressed the respondent's planned-project defense in a supplemental filing, supported by evidence that no such project existed in any verifiable form.
What was the outcome?
The panel ordered a transfer roughly eight weeks after filing. The buy-back email chain proved decisive on the bad-faith element. The domain transferred to our client within two weeks of the decision. Total time from instruction to transfer was approximately eleven weeks — within the typical UDRP timeframe and without any court action.
COGNOMEN is an independent boutique focused exclusively on domain-name disputes. We recover, defend, and transact internet domains across generic and country-code zones — before WIPO, the Forum, CAC, ADNDRC, and national procedures, and in court where arbitration cannot reach. We act for brand owners, domain investors, and registrants, including on respondent-side defense and reverse domain name hijacking matters. The .global zone is among the generic top-level domains we handle on a regular basis. To discuss a domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
Disclaimer: This article is general information about domain-name dispute procedures and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, the zone, and panel or court discretion. For advice on your domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
Speak with Cognomen Law
For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter
Related
This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.