Step-by-step: use mediation before a .br domain decision

Step-by-step: use mediation before a .br domain decision. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .br. Email the firm to assess your case.

A Brazilian competitor registers the domain that carries your brand, points it at a near-identical site, and refuses to negotiate. You want the name. The question is not simply whether you can win a formal proceeding — it is whether you should attempt mediation first, and what each step of that path demands of you.

To use mediation before a .br domain decision, a complainant or registrant engages Brazil's SACI-Adm procedure, administered by the São Paulo Chamber of Mediation and Arbitration alongside Registro.br. The governing standard for .br is not the UDRP: it is a national framework requiring proof of rights in a name and evidence that the registration conflicts with those rights. A mediation stage is available at the outset and, if used, can resolve the dispute in a fraction of the time a full expert decision takes. The trap is that skipping or mismanaging that stage costs both parties time and often position.

This guide walks each step — from eligibility through the mediation session itself to what follows if no agreement is reached — and flags the decision that bites at every turn.

What governs .br domain disputes, and how does it differ from the UDRP?

Brazil's .br ccTLD operates under a national dispute procedure called SACI-Adm (Sistema de Resolução de Disputas em Nome de Domínio em Âmbito Administrativo), not under the UDRP. Registro.br — the Brazilian registry — administers .br registrations, and the dispute procedure runs through accredited arbitration and mediation bodies designated for that zone.

The difference from the UDRP is more than cosmetic. Under the UDRP, a complainant must show that a domain was registered and is being used in bad faith — a cumulative, two-limb requirement. The SACI-Adm framework applies Brazilian law principles, including trademark protection under the relevant national legislation, and evaluates whether a registration creates confusion with, or damages, a recognized right in a name or sign. That framing is closer to the standard used in some European ccTLD procedures than to the UDRP's rigid "registered and used" test.

Another key distinction: eligibility. Unlike the UDRP, which any trademark holder anywhere in the world can invoke, SACI-Adm is not equally accessible to every foreign brand owner. A complainant relying on a mark registered outside Brazil should confirm, with counsel, whether that mark is recognized at the relevant time and whether the applicable procedure accepts it as a qualifying right. The rules here reward preparation and punish assumption.

The remedy, if the proceeding succeeds, is cancellation or transfer of the .br domain. No monetary damages are awarded in the administrative procedure. A separate court route exists under Brazilian civil and IP law for parties who want compensatory relief — that route is handled with local litigation counsel in Brazil.

For a read on whether your rights qualify under the .br procedure, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

Who can bring a .br dispute, and what rights qualify?

Standing in SACI-Adm turns on the rights you hold — not just the domain you want. A qualifying complainant must demonstrate a right in the name or sign that the disputed .br domain reproduces or imitates. Registered Brazilian trademarks are the clearest qualifying right. Well-known marks (marcas de alto renome or marcas notoriamente conhecidas) recognized under Brazilian IP law may also qualify, even without a full registration, provided the mark meets the relevant legal threshold under the applicable national statute.

Trade names, company names, and civil names can in principle support a complaint, though those categories require closer analysis. The less formal the right, the more evidence you need to establish it before you enter mediation. Bringing weak or incomplete rights documentation into a mediation session is one of the most common ways a legitimate complainant undermines its own position before a word is spoken.

Respondents — the domain registrant — should likewise know their position before mediation begins. If you registered a .br domain that incorporates a third-party trademark, your position in mediation depends on whether you can demonstrate prior use, a distinct legitimate purpose, or some other basis that distinguishes your registration from opportunistic cybersquatting. Mediation is not a concession. It is a stage at which a well-prepared respondent can present a case that an expert panel might not evaluate in the same depth.

We regularly advise registrants in SACI-Adm proceedings where the complainant has filed a dispute that, on closer analysis, overstates the scope of the mark or misidentifies the registrant's actual business. The mediation stage creates an opportunity to surface those flaws before a formal decision is issued.

Step 1 — Assess the dispute before filing: what is the trap at the start?

Every .br dispute begins with a question that most parties answer too quickly: is this the right procedure, the right time, and the right opponent? Filing a SACI-Adm complaint without confirming registrant identity, the current use of the domain, and the strength of your rights documentation is a mistake that creates momentum in the wrong direction.

The specific trap at Step 1 is conflating the .br domain dispute with a UDRP complaint. The evidence you would assemble for a WIPO complaint — a global trademark certificate, a printout of the disputed site, a demand letter timeline — is not identical to what SACI-Adm requires. Brazilian law governs the merits. Translating your rights into the vocabulary of the applicable national procedure takes work that is best done before the clock starts, not during the mediation session itself.

Practical checklist before you file:

• Confirm the current registrant in the Registro.br WHOIS record and verify that the record matches the party you intend to name.
• Gather certified evidence of your qualifying right — registration certificates, priority documents, or evidence of notoriety recognized under Brazilian law.
• Capture the current and historic use of the .br domain: screenshots, archived pages, any communications from the registrant.
• Identify whether any prior correspondence, demand letters, or prior disputes exist that could inform the mediation dynamic.
• Confirm the applicable mediation body under SACI-Adm and its current procedural rules, as these govern timing and submission format.

Skipping any of those items does not disqualify your complaint, but it weakens your position exactly at the moment — mediation — when a strong opening statement matters most.

Step 2 — Initiating the SACI-Adm procedure: how does mediation fit in?

After the complaint is filed and formally accepted, the SACI-Adm procedure provides for a mediation stage before any expert decision is issued. This is structurally similar to the Nominet DRS mediation step for .uk domains: the parties are brought together (in person, by video, or in writing, depending on the body's current rules) to attempt a negotiated resolution before the matter goes to an expert or panel.

Mediation in this context is not arbitration. The mediator does not decide the case. The mediator facilitates a structured conversation aimed at a voluntary agreement. That distinction matters for strategy: in arbitration, you argue to persuade a decision-maker; in mediation, you argue to persuade the other party. The skills and the preparation are different.

What does a productive mediation opening look like? Lead with your strongest right — the clearest trademark registration or the most compelling evidence of reputation — and with a concrete proposal. Registrants who enter mediation with a specific, time-limited offer ("transfer at cost by a fixed date") fare better than those who attend expecting the other side to negotiate against themselves. Complainants who enter with documented bad-faith evidence — a monetized landing page, a prior demand for an outsized sum, prior abusive registrations — often achieve settlement because the registrant can see where the expert decision is likely to land.

The trap at Step 2 is treating mediation as a formality to be crossed on the way to the expert stage. Parties who attend unprepared, without a mandate to settle, regularly convert a resolvable dispute into a months-long formal proceeding. Mediation that fails for preventable reasons is an expensive way to reach the same outcome you could have reached on day one.

Step 3 — What evidence decides the mediation (and the expert stage after it)?

The evidence that moves a .br domain dispute — whether at mediation or before an expert — falls into two categories: rights evidence and conduct evidence. Both must be strong. Weakness in either undermines the whole.

Rights evidence establishes that you hold a qualifying right in the name. For a trademark complainant, this means certified registration data, the scope of the mark (word mark, figurative, combined?), the classes covered, and any evidence of reputation extending beyond the registered classes. If you rely on a mark outside Brazil, expert analysis of its recognition status under Brazilian law is essential before mediation begins.

Conduct evidence establishes what the registrant has done with the domain. The more the registrant's use suggests opportunistic targeting — pay-per-click parking on your brand, a demand for a sum substantially above registration costs, a pattern of similar registrations across other brands — the stronger your position at mediation. A registrant who can demonstrate genuine prior use of the name in connection with a legitimate business, predating any notice of the dispute, holds a card worth playing early.

In a recent matter involving a .br domain (spring 2025), we assembled a rights record that included not only the Brazilian trademark registration but also archived evidence of the brand's market presence in Brazil predating the domain's registration by several years. The mediation settled on the first session. The registrant, faced with that record, recognized that the expert stage would not produce a different outcome.

Documents to prepare before mediation:

• Certified trademark registration certificate(s) with translation if not in Portuguese.
• Timeline of brand use in Brazil, with date-stamped commercial evidence.
• Full WHOIS history and current registration data for the disputed domain.
• Screenshots and archived captures of the domain's content across time.
• Any communications from or to the registrant, including any demand for payment.
• Evidence of prior abusive registrations, if any, by the same registrant.

To weigh your evidence before a SACI-Adm filing or mediation, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

Step 4 — What happens if mediation fails?

If mediation does not produce an agreement, the SACI-Adm procedure moves to the expert stage, where an appointed expert reviews the complaint, the response, and the evidence. The expert applies the governing national standard — not the UDRP — and issues a decision that may order cancellation, transfer, or maintenance of the registration.

The trap at Step 4 is assuming the expert stage is a fresh start. It is not. The record built during mediation — including any position you took, any offer you made, and any evidence you introduced — can inform the context in which the expert reads the file. Parties who made unreasonable demands or raised specious defenses during mediation do not enter the expert stage with a blank slate. Conduct in mediation has strategic consequences beyond the session itself.

For the complainant whose mediation failed because the registrant simply did not engage, the expert stage is often quicker and more favorable: non-participation in mediation, combined with a domain that is parked on a brand-related keyword, is exactly the pattern that experts recognize as abusive. Documenting non-participation precisely — dates, responses received, the mediator's record — matters.

For the respondent who participated in mediation in good faith and produced a legitimate-interest argument, the expert stage is an opportunity to develop that argument formally. A respondent who can demonstrate that its registration predates the complainant's mark, or that its use of the name is entirely unrelated to the complainant's sector, has a viable case that the mediation stage may not have resolved simply because parties could not agree on terms — not because the right is absent.

How does the .br route compare to UDRP or other ccTLD options when a brand is registered across zones?

The right route depends on the zone and what you want. Consider three common situations.

If your brand is registered as both a .com and a .br, and a single registrant holds both in bad faith, the UDRP handles the .com — at WIPO, with a USD 1,500 filing fee for a single-member panel, on a timeline of roughly two months — while the .br must proceed through SACI-Adm separately. There is no consolidated cross-zone procedure. You file two proceedings, each under its own rules, potentially producing decisions on different timetables. Sequencing matters: a favorable UDRP decision for the .com can be useful context at SACI-Adm mediation for the .br, though it is not binding.

If you only hold a .br presence and the domain is a .com, the UDRP applies to the .com regardless of where you or the registrant are based. SACI-Adm does not reach .com. The forum is determined by the zone, not by geography.

If the domain is a .br and you also face registrations in other Latin American ccTLDs, each national procedure applies to its respective zone. Some ccTLDs in the region use WIPO as their provider and operate under UDRP-like rules; others have bespoke procedures. Confirm the applicable procedure for each zone with counsel before filing anywhere — the eligibility rules and evidentiary standards diverge materially between countries. For a comparison of how national ccTLD procedures relate to the UDRP across different jurisdictions, see our guide on UDRP versus national ccTLD procedures.

Court action in Brazil is the route when administrative remedies are inadequate — where the registrant has caused measurable commercial damage, or where the dispute involves a question of law that a SACI-Adm expert cannot resolve. That route is handled with local litigation counsel in Brazil. It takes substantially longer and costs more than the administrative procedure, but it can reach monetary relief that SACI-Adm cannot.

In a recent matter (autumn 2024), we coordinated a simultaneous UDRP filing for the .com and a SACI-Adm filing for the .br on behalf of a brand owner facing a registrant who held both. The UDRP resolved first, producing a transfer order within two months. That outcome materially accelerated the SACI-Adm mediation: the registrant, aware of the UDRP result, reached a settlement on the .br in the mediation session rather than proceed to an expert decision that was likely to follow the same logic.

Myth: mediation in .br domain disputes just delays the outcome

Parties who have lost time in inconclusive negotiations before filing sometimes resist the mediation stage. The reasoning: "We already tried talking. It didn't work. Skip to the decision." That instinct is understandable and almost always wrong in the SACI-Adm context.

Pre-filing negotiation and a structured SACI-Adm mediation session are not the same thing. Informal negotiations happen without a mediator, without a defined framework, and without the shadow of an imminent expert decision giving both sides an incentive to resolve. The mediation stage in SACI-Adm is formal, timed, and conducted with the expert stage visible on the horizon. That visibility changes behavior. Registrants who stonewalled informal outreach for months have settled at the mediation table in a single session when facing the procedural record of an active complaint and documented bad-faith evidence.

What is true is that a poorly prepared mediation delays the outcome. A well-prepared one typically shortens it. The distinction is in the preparation — not the stage itself. For a broader view of how respondent-side strategy and rights protection interact across dispute types, see our guide on responding within deadlines in domain disputes.

Our broader ccTLD dispute services page covers the full range of national procedures we handle, including SACI-Adm and other Latin American ccTLD routes.

Related at COGNOMEN

• ccTLD Dispute Services — national procedures across .br, .uk, .eu, .de, and beyond
• UDRP vs. national ccTLD procedures — how the standards diverge by zone
• Respondent defense — meet your deadline and build the legitimate-interest record