FAQ: resolve a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure

What does it mean to resolve a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure?

Resolving a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure means filing a formal complaint through ADR.eu – the dispute-resolution platform administered by the Czech Arbitration Court – under the rules published by EURid, the .eu registry. This is the designated administrative route for .eu disputes. It is not the UDRP, though it shares conceptual ground. The complainant must show rights in a name and that the respondent's registration is either abusive (taking unfair advantage of those rights) or speculative (registered primarily to sell, rent, or transfer for consideration exceeding documented out-of-pocket costs). The remedy can be transfer, where the complainant meets EU and EEA eligibility, or revocation where the complainant does not qualify to hold a .eu domain. No monetary damages are available. Panels have consistently held that the abuse or speculation standard differs from the UDRP's "registered and used in bad faith" test – a meaningful distinction for cases where registration motive is clear but operational use is absent.

Who is eligible to file – and to receive a transferred .eu domain?

A complainant does not need EU or EEA eligibility merely to file a complaint; any rights holder with a cognizable claim can bring proceedings. However, to receive a transfer – rather than a revocation – the complainant must independently qualify to hold a .eu domain under EURid's eligibility rules. Those rules require a demonstrable EU or EEA connection: an undertaking or organization established in the EU or EEA, an EU or EEA citizen, or a natural person resident in the EU or EEA. A brand owner outside the EU or EEA that wins its complaint will receive a revocation rather than a transfer. That outcome still removes the abusive registration and clears the namespace, but the domain does not pass to the complainant. If your entity is incorporated outside the EU but maintains a registered branch or subsidiary within an EEA member state, that subsidiary's status may satisfy the eligibility threshold – confirm the precise requirement with counsel before filing. We regularly advise non-EU brand owners on whether a group entity can legitimately anchor the EU eligibility needed to request a transfer rather than a revocation.

For an assessment of your .eu domain dispute and your eligibility to receive a transfer, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the .eu procedure differ from the UDRP?

Several differences shape strategy. First, rights recognized under the .eu rules extend beyond registered trademarks – unregistered marks, trade names, company names, and other designations recognized in national law can qualify where established by evidence. Second, the abuse test is formulated as "abusive or speculative registration," not the UDRP's cumulative "registered AND used in bad faith." A complainant under the .eu rules does not need to demonstrate ongoing bad-faith use; evidence of abusive intent at the registration stage can be enough. Third, the EU eligibility requirement for transfer has no UDRP parallel. Fourth, the procedure is administered by the Czech Arbitration Court rather than by WIPO or the Forum, meaning different administrative staff, different procedural rules, and different filing mechanics. Fifth, the rights recognized as a basis for complaint are interpreted through European and national law sources, not exclusively through US or international trademark frameworks. Taken together, these distinctions mean that a complaint strategy built for the UDRP may need substantial reworking before it is filed at ADR.eu.

What evidence is needed to resolve a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure?

Evidence falls into three categories, each addressing a different element of the claim. First, the complainant must establish rights: trademark registrations (national or EU-wide), company registrations, trade name evidence, or documented reputation in the relevant territory. Community (EUTM) registrations are particularly strong here given their EU-wide effect. Second, the complainant must show priority – that the right predates or is cognizable against the registrant's conduct. Third, the complainant must demonstrate that the registration is abusive or speculative. Useful evidence includes communications in which the registrant offered to sell the domain at a price exceeding out-of-pocket costs; content on the domain pointing at the complainant's competitors; a pattern of registering names corresponding to third-party marks; or a domain left entirely inactive where the registrant had no plausible independent interest in the name. Conversely, a registrant who can show a prior genuine connection to the domain string – a personal name, a longstanding trade use, or registered rights of its own – presents a meaningful defense. We have seen panels decline transfers where the complainant's rights were weak, the domain string was descriptive, or the registration predated the complainant's own rights in the name.

Can I resolve a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure for more than one domain at once?

The .eu ADR rules permit a single complaint to cover multiple .eu domains, provided the domains are held by the same registrant. This mirrors the UDRP's consolidation principle. Filing a consolidated complaint where the same party holds a cluster of .eu domains incorporating your mark is both procedurally efficient and strategically useful – it places the full pattern of abusive registrations before one panel at one time. However, if the disputed domains are registered to different holders, separate complaints are required. Portfolio holders who have registered multiple variants of a brand across different registrant identities may still be reachable through separate filings; panels have been receptive to arguments that formally distinct registrants are in fact acting in concert, though the evidence burden for that argument is higher. We advise clients to map all .eu domains in a portfolio audit before filing, to identify consolidation opportunities and separate the cases that must proceed independently.

How long does it take to resolve a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure?

The .eu ADR procedure does not publish a rigid timeline equivalent to the UDRP's standardized schedule, but a contested case typically resolves within a matter of weeks to a few months from filing, depending on whether the respondent participates, whether supplemental submissions are permitted, and the panel's workload. Uncontested cases where the registrant files no response tend to move more quickly. There is no mediation stage equivalent to Nominet's DRS mediation in the .eu procedure; the case proceeds directly to a panel decision once the response period closes. Implementation of any transfer or revocation order then depends on EURid and the relevant registrar acting on the panel's ruling. Delays at the registrar level are uncommon but can add days to what the written timeline suggests. We recommend treating any quoted timeline as an estimate and building the strategy around the substantive merits rather than a projected close date.

What does it cost to resolve a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure at ADR.eu?

The Czech Arbitration Court publishes an official fee schedule for ADR.eu proceedings; the filing fees are distinct from any legal fees and are paid directly to the CAC. As a general reference, CAC fees for domain dispute proceedings begin at roughly USD 500–800 for single-domain cases – the lowest entry point among the recognized UDRP-accredited providers – though .eu-specific fees should be confirmed against the current CAC schedule at the time of filing. Legal fees are separate and depend on the complexity of the matter, the volume of evidence, and whether the respondent participates. A straightforward .eu dispute handled with professional representation typically falls within a range comparable to a simple UDRP complaint; a contested multi-domain case with an active respondent will cost more. We publish our approach to fee transparency as a matter of practice: where a flat-fee structure is feasible for your matter, we will say so at the outset rather than move to an open-ended hourly arrangement. For a cost assessment specific to your .eu dispute, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

What are the possible outcomes when you resolve a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure?

Three outcomes are possible. Transfer: the domain is moved to the complainant, provided the complainant satisfies EURid's eligibility requirements. Revocation: the domain is cancelled and returned to the pool of available registrations – the practical outcome for complainants without EU or EEA eligibility, or where transfer was not requested. Denial: the complaint is rejected and the registrant retains the domain. There is no monetary remedy, no costs award to either party, and no injunctive relief available through the ADR procedure. Where a complainant believes the .eu registration is part of a wider pattern that also involves gTLDs or other ccTLDs, the ADR.eu outcome does not resolve those parallel registrations – separate proceedings before WIPO, the Forum, or the relevant ccTLD body are required. And where the infringement also involves passing off, trademark infringement, or unfair competition claims that require monetary redress, those claims belong in national courts, handled with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.