Step-by-step: bring a court action when UDRP cannot reach a .pl domain

A Polish cybersquatter registers your brand as a .pl domain. You look for the UDRP. There is none. NASK, the .pl registry, operates no administrative dispute procedure equivalent to the UDRP or Nominet DRS. For a .pl domain, the only compulsory route to transfer or injunctive relief is the Polish civil courts – and that means understanding a different body of rules, a different evidence standard, and a set of procedural traps that do not exist in arbitration.

To bring a court action when UDRP cannot reach a .pl domain, a brand owner must file before the competent Polish civil court relying on the applicable national trademark act and unfair competition law, supported by evidence of bad-faith registration and use. No administrative shortcut exists for .pl: NASK offers no mandatory dispute-resolution procedure, and the UDRP governs only accredited-registrar gTLDs. A Polish court action can order transfer, injunction, or damages – remedies the UDRP cannot provide – but requires local litigation counsel and typically runs longer than an arbitration proceeding.

This guide walks each step in sequence, names the trap inside each one, and addresses the cross-zone decisions a brand owner faces when a .pl dispute also touches a .com or .eu registration.

Why the UDRP cannot reach a .pl domain – and what fills the gap

The UDRP applies only to domains registered under gTLDs with accredited registrars and to ccTLDs that have adopted it by contract. .pl is administered by NASK and has not adopted the UDRP or appointed WIPO as a dispute-resolution provider. NASK's registration rules do not incorporate any mandatory third-party arbitration equivalent. That is the structural gap.

What fills the gap is Polish civil litigation. A trademark owner, a company asserting unfair competition, or an individual whose name has been misappropriated must sue in the competent Polish district or regional court. The applicable legal bases include Polish trademark legislation (the industrial property act branch), the act on combating unfair competition, and where relevant, the Polish civil code provisions on personal rights. None of those statutes need to be cited by article number here – counsel in Poland will identify the correct pleading basis. What matters at this stage is understanding that the cause of action exists, that it is fact-intensive, and that it is enforceable through the Polish court system.

The trap in this step: brand owners sometimes assume NASK will freeze a domain on a trademark owner's request alone, the way a registrar lock works in UDRP proceedings. It will not. NASK's rules allow a lock only on court order or certain statutory grounds. Without filing in court and obtaining interim relief, the domain can be transferred, deleted, or allowed to expire while the brand owner waits.

How does a Polish court action for .pl cybersquatting compare to UDRP arbitration?

The comparison matters because many brand owners who reach this problem also hold a .com or .eu registration of the same mark – and they want to know which forum handles which domain, and whether the two proceedings can run in parallel.

Under the UDRP, all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) must be satisfied – identical or confusing similarity to a trademark, no legitimate interest, and registration and use in bad faith. The only remedies are transfer or cancellation. A standard case runs about two months from filing. No damages are available.

A Polish court action is broader in scope but slower in result. The court can award transfer of the .pl domain, an injunction against use, publication of a corrective statement, and monetary damages – remedies the UDRP cannot touch. The trade-off is time: Polish civil proceedings can run from several months to several years, depending on complexity, interim applications, and whether the defendant contests. Interim injunctive relief – a court order suspending the defendant's use of the domain pending judgment – is available but requires demonstrating urgency and a clear legal basis.

The decision matrix in practice: if the disputed name is a .com, file a UDRP at WIPO or the Forum (starting at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel on one to five domains) and expect a decision in roughly two months. If it is a .pl only, there is no UDRP – go directly to Polish court. If it is both a .com and a .pl, a parallel strategy – UDRP for the .com while Polish litigation handles the .pl – is often the most efficient path, provided evidence from one proceeding is gathered in a way that does not prejudice the other.

For .eu domains in the same dispute, the ADR.eu procedure through the Czech Arbitration Court is available and can run alongside Polish court proceedings. The .eu and .pl are governed by entirely different rules; a transfer of the .eu does not automatically affect the .pl, and vice versa.

To assess whether a UDRP, a Polish court action, or a parallel strategy is the right fit for your domain situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Step 1: Conduct the pre-litigation evidence audit

Before any filing, an accurate evidence audit prevents wasted costs and tactical errors. Courts – unlike UDRP panels, which rule on documents alone – may hear witnesses and require formally authenticated records. Gathering evidence correctly from the outset is the single highest-return investment in a Polish court proceeding.

The core record must include the following:

• Proof of trademark rights: certificates of registration from the relevant national or EU trademark office, with filing and registration dates that predate the .pl registration.
• Domain registration data: the WHOIS/RDDS record for the .pl domain, captured and dated by a process that preserves the timestamp – a screen capture with metadata, or a notarized printout.
• Evidence of bad faith registration and use: screenshots of the website at the .pl domain (parking pages, pay-per-click links to competitors, offers to sell, or phishing content), again date-stamped and preserved.
• Any communications from the registrant: demands for payment, replies to cease-and-desist letters, or silence after written notice – all of which can be framed as conduct evidence.
• The chain of registrant identity: if the registrant used a privacy service, counsel will need to pursue disclosure of the underlying registrant through NASK's processes or a court-ordered disclosure.

The trap in Step 1: failing to preserve dynamic website content. A cybersquatter can change the content of a .pl domain overnight. Evidence gathered today may not exist tomorrow. Use a qualified web-preservation service, a process server's affidavit, or a notary's protocol – the kind of record a Polish court will treat as credible proof of the state of the domain at a specific moment.

Step 2: Assess interim relief – should you apply for a domain lock before the merits?

Polish civil procedure allows a claimant to apply for interim measures before or alongside the merits claim. For domain disputes, the most relevant form of interim relief is an order requiring NASK to freeze the domain registration – preventing transfer, modification of registrant details, or deletion – pending the outcome of the main proceedings.

To obtain interim relief, the applicant must demonstrate two things: a plausible legal claim on the merits (a fumus boni iuris standard) and the risk of harm if the measure is not granted (urgency or irreparable prejudice). The bar is not as demanding as winning the main case, but it is not automatic. A credible trademark certificate and a clear showing that the domain is actively harming the brand or could be dissipated are typically sufficient to support the application.

The trap in Step 2: applying for interim relief without simultaneously filing the merits claim. Polish procedure generally requires the main action to be filed within a specified period after an interim measure is granted, failing which the measure may lapse. Local litigation counsel in Poland must coordinate both filings. Missing the deadline can undo the very protection the interim order was meant to provide.

In our practice, we have seen cases where a brand owner secured a domain freeze through interim relief – preventing a transfer to a third party – only to lose the procedural advantage because the merits filing came too late. That sequencing error is avoidable with proper coordination from the outset.

Step 3: Identify the competent court and the correct legal basis

Polish courts have jurisdiction over domain-name disputes involving .pl domains where the registrant is in Poland or where the harmful effects of the registration are felt there. Venue and competence questions are highly fact-specific – the seat of NASK, the registrant's address, the place of commercial harm – and must be resolved by counsel before filing.

The legal bases available in a .pl domain action typically include:

• Trademark infringement: where the .pl domain reproduces or is confusingly similar to a registered mark, and the registrant is using it in the course of trade.
• Unfair competition: where the domain registration misleads consumers, passes off the registrant's goods or services as those of the mark owner, or exploits the mark owner's reputation.
• Personal rights (dobra osobiste): where a company name or an individual's name has been misappropriated, regardless of whether a registered trademark exists.

The remedies available under each basis differ. Trademark infringement and unfair competition actions typically support a claim for transfer of the domain. Personal rights claims may yield an injunction and damages but the transfer remedy requires careful pleading. Mixing all three causes of action in a single complaint is common and generally permissible, but counsel must ensure each is properly supported by the evidence audit completed in Step 1.

The trap in Step 3: filing on trademark infringement alone when the mark was registered after the .pl domain. If the registrant can show its registration predates the trademark, the infringement claim weakens significantly. The unfair competition or passing-off basis may survive even where trademark seniority is disputed – which is why counsel must assess each available ground before choosing the pleading strategy.

If a prior filing produced an unsatisfactory result, or if the evidence record needs review before a Polish court action is filed, email info@cognomenlaw.com – a focused second read often identifies the element that was missed.

Step 4: File the claim and manage the registrant's response

The merits claim is filed with the competent district or regional civil court in Poland. The filing document – the statement of claim – must identify the parties, state the factual background, identify the legal basis, and specify the remedies sought. Where transfer of the domain is the primary goal, that must be expressly requested in the petitum; a court will not order a remedy not asked for.

NASK is typically joined as a third party or notified of the proceedings to ensure any court order on the domain can be implemented at the registry level. Counsel must confirm the current procedural requirement for joining or notifying the registry, as practice can evolve.

Once the claim is served, the registrant has an opportunity to file a response. Common defenses in .pl domain cases include:

• Prior rights: the registrant claims an earlier or independent right to use the name (a company name, a personal name, or an unregistered mark).
• Generic or descriptive term: the registrant argues the domain is a common word and no one brand can monopolize it.
• Good faith use: the registrant demonstrates active, legitimate use of the domain before any notice of the dispute.
• No confusion: the domain and the mark are sufficiently different that no consumer would be misled.

The trap in Step 4: serving the claim on a registrant who has used a privacy service or a false address. If the registrant cannot be served, the proceedings stall. Counsel must pursue disclosure of the registrant's identity through NASK or through the court's discovery mechanisms before service is attempted. This is a step that takes time and should be anticipated in the overall timeline.

Step 5: Build the bad-faith and trademark harm case for the merits hearing

Polish courts assess bad faith and trademark harm through a factual lens that overlaps with, but is not identical to, the UDRP's Paragraph 4(b) bad-faith factors. Under Polish trademark and unfair competition law, the court looks at the totality of conduct. Useful evidence includes:

• A pattern of similar registrations targeting other brands in the same sector – analogous to the UDRP's "pattern of conduct" bad-faith ground.
• An unsolicited offer to sell the domain at a price that clearly exceeds registration costs – a fact pattern courts across jurisdictions recognize as classic cybersquatting.
• Active use of the domain to redirect traffic, host competing services, or display pay-per-click links targeting the brand owner's customers.
• Passive holding combined with a demand: the domain resolves to a blank page, but the registrant responds to a cease-and-desist with a buy-back figure in the five figures.
• Timing: the .pl domain was registered shortly after the brand owner's trademark was published, its product was launched, or its media coverage appeared.

In a recent matter we were involved in – a .pl domain used to mirror a mid-sized consumer brand, late 2024 – the court found the combination of registration timing (within weeks of the complainant's product launch), a passive holding posture, and a subsequent five-figure demand sufficient to establish bad-faith use under the applicable unfair competition provisions. The brand obtained an interim freeze followed by a transfer order at the merits stage. No guarantee of the same outcome exists in any other case; every dispute turns on its own facts and the discretion of the panel or court.

Step 6: Enforce the judgment and implement the domain transfer

A Polish court judgment ordering transfer of a .pl domain must be implemented at the NASK registry level. This requires coordination between litigation counsel and any technical or domain-management support the brand owner has in place. The judgment must typically be presented to NASK with a request for implementation; NASK will act in accordance with the order.

Where the registrant refuses to cooperate or contests enforcement, Polish enforcement procedure (egzekucja komornicza) is available. A bailiff (komornik) can be engaged to enforce the court's order. Domain transfer by court order is a recognized form of relief, but the mechanics of implementation through a registry are fact-specific and should be confirmed with counsel at the time of the order.

The trap in Step 6: the domain expires during proceedings. If a cybersquatter allows the .pl registration to lapse while litigation is pending – and a third party registers it before judgment is enforced – the situation becomes significantly more complex. An interim order preserving the registration (Step 2) guards against this risk. If no interim order was obtained and expiry is approaching, counsel must take urgent steps to address the gap.

A second, related trap: the domain is transferred to a connected third party during proceedings, purporting to break the chain of liability. Polish courts generally allow claims against a successor registrant where the transfer was made with notice of the dispute or in bad faith – but the pleading must be extended and the new registrant joined. Again, an early interim freeze avoids this entirely.

Cross-zone strategy: when a .pl dispute also involves a .com, .eu, or other zone

Brand owners who discover a .pl cybersquatter rarely find that it is the only front. The same actor frequently holds the .com, the .eu, and several typosquats across new gTLDs. The right multi-zone strategy depends on what each zone offers.

For the .com – and for new gTLDs – a UDRP complaint at WIPO is the fastest route. A single-panel WIPO case on one to five domains carries a filing fee of USD 1,500 and typically resolves in about two months. The remedy is transfer or cancellation only; no damages. If the same registrant holds the .com and the .pl, the UDRP complaint and the Polish court action can proceed simultaneously: they involve different legal regimes and different forums, and there is no procedural bar to both.

For the .eu, ADR.eu – administered through the Czech Arbitration Court – offers a dedicated procedure. The .eu rules recognize a wider category of "rights" than registered trademarks alone, and the remedy can include transfer or revocation. .eu proceedings and Polish court proceedings do not interfere with each other.

For .de registrations by the same actor, there is no administrative dispute procedure: German courts handle .de disputes, and DENIC offers a DISPUTE entry to block a transfer while litigation proceeds – structurally similar to what a Polish interim order achieves for .pl. Coordinating across .pl and .de, both of which require court action, requires local litigation counsel in each jurisdiction.

The practical question is sequencing. Filing UDRP for the .com first is often preferred: a UDRP transfer order creates a factual record – a panel's findings of bad faith – that a Polish court may find persuasive as evidence of a broader abusive pattern, even though the Polish court is not bound by the UDRP decision. That record can strengthen the Polish merits case. We regularly advise brand owners on this sequencing question; the optimal order depends on where the most harm is being done and how quickly interim relief can be obtained in each zone.

Related at COGNOMEN

• Court recovery services: domain theft, transfer reversal, and anticybersquatting litigation
• Reverse an unauthorized domain transfer and restore registrant control
• Case study: choosing between URS and UDRP for a multi-domain group

Author: Adrian Harland — Court anticybersquatting and domain theft recovery. Meet the team.

Speak with Cognomen Law

For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter

Domain in disputeYour sideI want to recover a nameI received a complaint — I need a defensePortfolio / brand protectionWhat happenedEmailI agree to the processing of my enquiry as described in the privacy policy.Assess my case

No obligation. Confidential. We reply within two hours in business hours.

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.