FAQ: recover a .ch domain from a serial cybersquatter

FAQ: recover a .ch domain from a serial cybersquatter. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .ch. Email the firm to assess your case.

Your brand is registered in Switzerland. Someone – a registrant with a documented history of grabbing names that belong to others – holds the .ch domain that should be yours. You want it back. The question is how Swiss domain law reaches that situation and what it takes to win.

To recover a .ch domain from a serial cybersquatter, you generally rely on the SWITCH dispute procedure or Swiss court proceedings, since .ch does not operate under the UDRP. The governing national procedure applies, administered by SWITCH as the .ch registry. Evidence of the registrant's broader pattern of abusive registrations is directly relevant and can materially strengthen a bad-faith showing. The only available remedies are transfer or deletion of the domain.

The questions below address the procedure, the evidence that decides outcomes, the timeline, and the realistic next step. Each answer is self-contained.

Does SWITCH or a court decide a .ch dispute?

For .ch domains, disputes are handled through Swiss court proceedings – SWITCH itself does not adjudicate ownership disputes between a complainant and a registrant in the way a UDRP panel does. SWITCH is the assigned registry for .ch and enforces its registration conditions, but it does not operate an administrative arbitration procedure equivalent to the UDRP. If a registrant violates SWITCH's terms – for example, by providing false registration data or abusing the domain in a way that breaches registry rules – SWITCH may suspend or delete the registration. However, a claimant seeking a transfer of the domain to itself typically must pursue the matter through the Swiss civil courts.

Swiss intellectual property law and the general rules on unfair competition provide the substantive basis for most .ch domain disputes. A brand owner with trademark rights can pursue a claim of unfair competition or trademark infringement. For matters needing local-court action, COGNOMEN works with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. The absence of an administrative fast-track means .ch proceedings are generally longer and more costly than a UDRP filing. That context matters when you are comparing routes across a portfolio that includes both .ch and .com registrations.

If the cybersquatter also holds the .com or another gTLD version of your brand, a UDRP complaint before WIPO, the Forum, or CAC remains available for those domains in parallel, at a WIPO filing fee starting at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel. The two routes can run simultaneously.

For an assessment of your domain dispute – including which route applies to your .ch and any parallel gTLD registration – contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

When can I recover a .ch domain from a serial cybersquatter?

You are in the strongest position when you hold trademark rights that predate the registrant's acquisition of the domain, and when the registrant's conduct demonstrates bad faith – particularly a pattern of targeting brand owners rather than making legitimate use of the name. Serial cybersquatting is precisely that pattern: a registrant who has repeatedly registered domains corresponding to third-party marks, often across multiple zones, with no apparent intention to use them for a genuine business purpose.

Swiss law does not apply the three-part UDRP test (Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP), because the UDRP does not govern .ch. Instead, the applicable national trademark act and Swiss unfair competition rules shape the analysis. The core questions are whether you hold protectable rights in the name, whether the registrant's registration or use of the domain infringes those rights or constitutes an act of unfair competition, and whether you can establish that the registration was made without a legitimate basis.

The serial-cybersquatter dimension matters. Evidence of prior abusive registrations by the same registrant – whether documented through UDRP decisions (even decisions in other zones, because UDRP panel decisions are publicly searchable and referenced), Nominet DRS findings, or court judgments – can support the inference that this registration was not made in good faith. We regularly advise brand owners who have discovered that the same registrant holds their mark in multiple zones simultaneously. In those situations, a coordinated multi-forum strategy is often more effective than pursuing each domain in isolation.

You should also consider whether the registrant is actually using the domain or simply holding it. Passive holding – parking a domain with no active use – does not automatically excuse the registrant under Swiss law or under the UDRP rules that would apply to any parallel gTLD filings. In a recent matter (a coordinated .com and national ccTLD cybersquatting case, spring 2025), we assembled UDRP decision records from three prior proceedings against the same registrant, and that evidence proved decisive in resolving the gTLD portion within the standard two-month window.

Who can recover a .ch domain from a serial cybersquatter?

Any party with enforceable rights in the name – a registered trademark, a well-established trade name, or another recognized right under Swiss law – can bring a claim for a .ch domain that a cybersquatter holds. You do not need to be a Swiss domiciliary, but the claim must be pursued through Swiss procedure, which raises practical questions about jurisdiction and representation.

Foreign brand owners face the additional step of confirming that their trademark rights are recognized in Switzerland – either through Swiss national registration, an international registration designating Switzerland, or rights established through use and reputation. Swiss trademark law and the rules on well-known marks are relevant here. A mark that is merely famous in another jurisdiction is not automatically protectable in Switzerland without that nexus.

Domain investors who hold .ch registrations for legitimate commercial purposes occupy a different position: they may themselves need to defend against a claim, including a claim that their registration is abusive. COGNOMEN handles respondent-side defense as well as complainant-side recovery. If you are on the receiving end of a demand letter asserting that your .ch registration infringes another party's rights, the same substantive analysis applies – and a clear record of good-faith registration and legitimate use is the foundation of the defense.

What evidence decides the outcome of a .ch dispute?

Evidence is the core of any .ch dispute, because unlike a UDRP proceeding (where panels apply a standardized three-element test and the only remedies are transfer or cancellation), a Swiss court weighs the full factual record. The categories of evidence that consistently matter are:

• Proof of your trademark or trade-name rights, including priority date and scope of registration or use.
• The registrant's registration date relative to your rights – registration after your mark had become established strengthens the inference of targeting.
• The registrant's use of the domain, or absence of use – a domain pointed at a pay-per-click parking page or a site selling competing goods is more damaging than a blank page, but passive holding is not a defense.
• Evidence of prior abusive registrations by the same registrant – UDRP decisions, court judgments, or correspondence demonstrating a pattern of demanding payment from brand owners.
• Any communications between the registrant and your organization – a demand for payment far exceeding out-of-pocket costs is a classic bad-faith indicator, whether the case is decided under the UDRP or national law.
• WHOIS or RDDS data showing ownership history, including any transfers that may have obscured the original registrant's identity.

We have defended and pursued domain disputes where the registrant's prior UDRP losses, documented in WIPO's publicly available case database, formed a significant part of the evidentiary record against them. That database is an underused resource in national proceedings.

What if the registrant does not respond?

Default by the registrant – failure to appear or respond – does not automatically produce a transfer in Swiss court proceedings. Unlike a UDRP proceeding, where a registrant who does not file a response within the 20-day response window faces a default, and panels routinely infer that the complainant's factual allegations are uncontested, Swiss civil procedure follows its own rules on default and on the burden of proof. A court may proceed to judgment in the registrant's absence, but the claimant still bears the burden of satisfying the court on the merits.

In UDRP proceedings covering any gTLD registrations held by the same cybersquatter, the position is different. Default in a UDRP case means the panel decides on the complaint alone, and panels consistently hold that uncontested allegations – supported by evidence – are taken as established. If the serial cybersquatter also holds a .com or other gTLD version of your mark and fails to respond, that is a significant procedural advantage for the complainant. A standard UDRP case is normally decided within about two months of filing; a default does not usually shorten that window because the panel still reviews the record carefully.

To weigh UDRP against a court action for your case – particularly where the cybersquatter holds both .ch and gTLD versions of your brand – email info@cognomenlaw.com.

Can the decision be appealed or challenged?

In Swiss court proceedings, the normal appellate routes available under Swiss civil procedure apply. A first-instance judgment can be appealed to the cantonal appellate court and, in certain cases, to the Federal Supreme Court. The grounds and time limits for appeal are governed by the applicable procedural rules – confirm the current rules with counsel, as they are subject to change. An appeal does not automatically suspend enforcement of the first-instance order.

For UDRP decisions covering any parallel gTLD registrations, the position is distinct. A UDRP decision is not final in the way a court judgment is. The registrant or the complainant may commence court proceedings within the 10-business-day lock period following a transfer decision, and if the registrant initiates a court action in a court of competent jurisdiction within that window, the registrar will not implement the transfer pending the court's outcome. In practice, post-UDRP court challenges are uncommon, but they do occur – particularly where the losing respondent believes the panel incorrectly found bad faith.

There is also the question of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). In a UDRP proceeding, if a complainant brings a complaint in bad faith – to deprive a registrant of a domain the complainant knows it cannot legitimately claim – a panel may enter an RDNH finding. That finding carries reputational consequences but no monetary penalty. COGNOMEN handles respondent-side defense and has pursued RDNH findings in appropriate cases.

What is the deadline once a case starts?

For UDRP proceedings covering any parallel gTLD domains, the procedural deadlines are fixed by the Rules: the registrant has 20 days to file a response once the case commences. Missing that deadline means the case proceeds on the complaint alone. Extensions require a showing of exceptional circumstances and are rarely granted as a matter of routine. The WIPO expedited option, available for single-panel cases of up to five domains, can deliver a decision within about one month.

For Swiss court proceedings over the .ch domain itself, deadlines depend on the court and the procedural track chosen by the claimant. Interim relief – a precautionary measure to prevent transfer of the domain while the main case proceeds – is available if you can demonstrate urgency and a prima facie right. Seeking interim relief promptly after discovering the abusive registration is generally advisable, particularly if the registrant is likely to transfer the domain to a third party to complicate enforcement.

In our practice, we advise brand owners to move quickly once a cybersquatting pattern is identified. Delay in filing can complicate an interim-relief application and, in some national jurisdictions, may affect the overall assessment of whether the claimant has acted promptly to protect its rights.