Step-by-step: prove bad faith registration of a .eu domain
A brand owner discovers that a stranger registered the .eu version of its trademark the day after the company announced a European expansion. The domain resolves to a blank page. Demands for a "reasonable offer" arrive within the week. The question is not whether something went wrong. The question is whether the evidence on hand is strong enough to prove it – systematically, before a panel that will decide on the papers alone.
To prove bad faith registration of a .eu domain, a complainant must satisfy the .eu dispute procedure administered through the ADR.eu platform of the Czech Arbitration Court. That procedure applies the core UDRP logic – including the three Paragraph 4(a) elements – but the remedy available, and the eligibility rules the complainant must meet, differ from a standard .com filing. A case typically runs within a comparable timeline to the UDRP, and the only remedies are transfer or revocation of the domain.
This guide walks each step in sequence, flags the trap concealed in each one, and identifies the evidence that decides the outcome.
Step 1: Confirm that ADR.eu – not the UDRP – governs your .eu dispute
The first and most consequential decision is choosing the correct procedure. The UDRP does not apply to .eu domains. The governing procedure is the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution process, administered through the ADR.eu platform of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC). Confusing these two paths at the outset wastes filing fees and resets your timeline.
The .eu dispute procedure shares the conceptual DNA of the UDRP – it looks for abusive registration, it evaluates the registrant's conduct, and it produces a binary outcome. But it operates under Regulation rules specific to the .eu zone, and the CAC applies its own published procedural rules. Importantly, the complainant must generally demonstrate an EU or EEA nexus: either the complainant or its trademark right must connect to the European Union or European Economic Area. If that eligibility condition is not met, the complaint fails at the threshold regardless of how strong the underlying bad-faith evidence is.
The trap: brand owners with a US-registered trademark and no EU filing sometimes assume they can rely on common-law reputation alone. For .eu, confirm your rights source and your EU/EEA eligibility before filing anything.
For a read on whether your trademark rights and EU nexus meet the .eu threshold, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.
Step 2: Does your trademark actually survive the confusing similarity test?
Confusing similarity is the first of the three elements, and it is usually the easiest to establish – but a .eu-specific trap exists here. The comparison is between the domain name (stripped of the ".eu" suffix) and the mark in which you hold rights. Exact matches are straightforward. Phonetic or visual near-matches, transliterations, and typosquats – where one letter is swapped or added – regularly satisfy the test under the applicable rules.
The trap emerges with descriptive or generic marks. If your mark is weak – registered but barely distinctive – a registrant can argue the domain reflects an ordinary word or phrase, not your brand. Panels in comparable procedures have regularly declined to find similarity where the overlap is limited to a generic term that many parties might legitimately register. The solution is to document registration date, priority, and acquired distinctiveness aggressively if your mark sits toward the descriptive end of the spectrum.
A second trap is geographic variation. If your mark is registered only in one EU member state and the registrant operates – or claims to operate – in another, the panel will still assess similarity against the mark as registered. Document your broadest trademark rights first; the geographical scope of those rights matters more at the second element (legitimate interest) than at the first.
Step 3: How do you strip away a claimed legitimate interest?
The second element requires you to show that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The burden is structured: you raise a prima facie case, then the registrant must rebut it. The practical challenge is that you rarely know who the registrant is or what they are doing with the domain until they file a response – or until they default.
Under the .eu procedure, the registrant's 20 days to respond is the critical window. In our practice, the most reliable way to displace a claimed legitimate interest is to document what the domain resolves to and when. Screenshots dated close to filing, and again at periodic intervals before the response deadline, build a factual record the registrant cannot easily contradict after the fact.
Three categories of claimed legitimacy arise most frequently. First, the "I registered it first" argument. Under the .eu rules, mere prior registration does not create a right if the registration was itself abusive. Second, the "I am commonly known by this name" argument. This requires actual use, not mere aspiration; a freshly formed shell entity with the same name as the domain does not satisfy the test. Third, the "I was making a bona fide offering" argument. A parking page with pay-per-click links to the complainant's competitors is the opposite of bona fide.
The trap: if you file a complaint and the registrant subsequently launches a genuine business under the name, the legitimacy picture becomes harder to resolve on the papers. Move quickly once you have identified the bad-faith conduct.
Step 4: Assembling the evidence that proves bad faith registration – and use
Bad faith is where most contested .eu cases are actually decided. Like the UDRP's Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the .eu procedure requires showing the domain was registered in, and is being used in, bad faith. Both limbs matter. A domain registered in good faith that is later weaponized, or a domain registered in bad faith that is never actively used, can each present evidentiary challenges.
The most reliable evidence of bad-faith registration is chronology. If the domain was registered days after your trademark publication, your press release, or your trademark filing in the EU – and the registrant has no plausible independent awareness of the term – the inference of targeting is strong. Panels in the analogous UDRP context have consistently held that registration shortly after a publicly known trademark event is a significant bad-faith indicator. The same logic applies in .eu proceedings.
For bad-faith use, the following categories carry weight in panel decisions:
- A demand to sell the domain to the trademark owner at a price clearly exceeding registration costs – this mirrors the Paragraph 4(b)(i) bad-faith factor.
- Pay-per-click parking pages monetizing traffic drawn by the complainant's mark.
- Redirection to a competitor's website.
- A pattern of registering multiple domains corresponding to third-party trademarks (if documentable).
- Passive holding – the domain resolves to nothing – combined with implausible registration circumstances. Panels have found bad faith even where a domain is passively held, when the overall factual pattern points strongly to an opportunistic registration. See our detailed analysis on passive holding in the related block below.
The trap in this step is assuming that one category of evidence is enough. A demand letter alone, without corroborating chronology or conduct evidence, can be explained away. Build a convergent case: timing plus conduct plus the registrant's implausible alternative explanation equals a strong record.
In a recent matter (a .eu cybersquatting complaint, spring 2025), we assembled a three-strand evidence package – registration date aligned with a client's EU trademark publication, a PPC parking page monetizing the client's brand terms, and an unsolicited demand email – and the panel ordered transfer without requiring a hearing. The registrant defaulted and offered no response.
Step 5: Navigate the passive holding problem specific to .eu disputes
Passive holding – where the domain resolves to nothing at all – is one of the hardest bad-faith situations to prove. The registrant is not doing anything visibly wrong. Yet the domain is unavailable to its rightful owner.
Under the UDRP's developed consensus – and applied by analogy in .eu proceedings – panels assess the totality of the circumstances rather than requiring active harmful use. The relevant factors include: how well known is the complainant's mark? Is there any conceivable legitimate use for the domain by this registrant? Has the registrant engaged at all, or has it been completely unresponsive? Has the registrant used false contact details in WHOIS/RDDS records?
The trap specific to .eu passive-holding cases is that the WHOIS/RDDS data for .eu domains may be incomplete or obscured. Collect whatever RDDS data is available at the time of filing, and document the registrant's identity to the extent the EURid registry allows. If the registrant's contact details are false or perpetually bouncing, note that expressly in the complaint: it is itself a bad-faith indicator.
One practical move before filing: send a cease-and-desist letter to the registrant's listed contact. If it bounces – or if the registrant responds with a demand for a payment that exceeds any plausible development value – both outcomes advance your case. If the registrant responds with a plausible legitimate use claim, you have learned something important before spending filing fees.
Step 6: File the complaint – and understand what follows
Once the evidence is assembled and the three elements are credibly made out, the complaint is submitted to the CAC's ADR.eu platform. The procedural mechanics matter here. The complaint must identify the disputed domain, the complainant's trademark rights (with supporting registrations or evidence), the registrant as respondent, and the grounds for each of the three elements with supporting exhibits.
After formal compliance review, the CAC commences the case and the 20-day response window opens for the registrant. A standard single-member panel case runs to a decision within a timeline broadly comparable to UDRP proceedings – commonly within a matter of weeks from commencement. The only remedies the panel can order are transfer to the complainant – provided the complainant meets EU/EEA eligibility – or revocation of the domain where eligibility is not established or where the complainant requests it.
No monetary damages are available. No injunctive relief beyond the domain itself. The panel decides on the documentary record, not at a live hearing.
The trap at this step is a drafting error in the remedies request. If you request transfer but you have not verified your EU/EEA eligibility at the time of filing, the panel may decline to order transfer and offer revocation instead – leaving the domain available for re-registration by anyone, including the same bad actor through a different registrant account. Verify eligibility. If in doubt, request revocation in the alternative.
To assess whether your evidence meets the bad-faith threshold for a .eu complaint, email info@cognomenlaw.com.
Step 7: What if the .eu complaint fails – or is the wrong vehicle entirely?
Not every .eu dispute belongs in the ADR.eu procedure. Two alternative routes deserve consideration before or alongside filing.
First, if the registrant also holds a .com or other gTLD variant of the same domain, a parallel UDRP complaint – before WIPO, the Forum, or the CAC in its UDRP capacity – is an option. UDRP complainants need not have EU eligibility. A UDRP complaint can cover multiple domains only if they share the same registrant. Filing simultaneous .eu ADR and UDRP proceedings is a strategic option in cases where the infringing domain portfolio spans zones.
Second, if the ADR.eu procedure produces an adverse outcome – or if the complainant needs monetary damages, broad injunctive relief, or enforcement against assets – national court action in an EU member state is the alternative. That route is longer, costlier, and managed with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. However, it is the only path to a damages remedy. For a .de domain held by the same registrant, the German court route is the mandatory path, since the UDRP does not cover .de and DENIC's DISPUTE entry only blocks transfer while litigation proceeds.
In a recent cross-zone matter (winter 2025), a client held both a .com and a .eu version of the problem: a registrant had acquired both during the same registration session. We filed a UDRP complaint at WIPO for the .com and a parallel .eu ADR complaint through CAC. Both resolved favorably, with transfer of the .com and transfer of the .eu, within a combined timeline of approximately three months. The cross-filing eliminated the risk of the registrant pivoting to the surviving domain after losing one.
The decision matrix in brief: if the only domain at issue is a .eu, and you have EU/EEA rights, ADR.eu is usually the fastest and lowest-cost route. If you also need the .com, add a UDRP. If you need money, go to court. If the domain is .de, skip ADR entirely and prepare for national litigation.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions
Is it worth it to prove bad faith registration of a .eu domain?
It depends on the commercial value of the domain and the strength of the evidence. Where your trademark clearly pre-dates the registration, the registrant has no plausible legitimate use, and the domain is either actively harming your brand or blocking a European launch, the ADR.eu procedure is generally the most proportionate route: it is faster than court action, cheaper than US anticybersquatting litigation, and the filing costs through the CAC are among the lowest in any major dispute forum. The investment is justified when the bad-faith evidence is convergent – timing, conduct, and implausible registrant purpose all pointing the same way. Where the evidence is thin, or where the registrant has a colorable legitimate interest, an honest pre-filing assessment may save more than it costs.
What are the most common mistakes when you prove bad faith registration of a .eu domain?
Three errors recur in our practice. First, filing without confirming EU/EEA eligibility for the complainant – a complaint that cannot support a transfer request risks producing only revocation, leaving the name available for re-registration. Second, treating one category of bad-faith evidence as sufficient on its own: a sale demand without chronological context, or a parking page without evidence of the registrant's awareness of the mark, tends to produce split results at the panel level. Third, failing to document the domain's content at multiple points in time before filing. Panels decide on the record presented; screenshots taken only after filing, or only on a single date, are weaker than a dated sequence.
Can a three-member panel change the outcome?
In principle, yes – and in practice, the dynamics differ meaningfully from a single-member panel. A three-member panel brings more deliberative scrutiny to close cases, which cuts both ways. For a complainant with a genuinely strong record, a three-member panel adds procedural credibility and reduces the risk of an outlier single-panelist decision. For a respondent, requesting a three-member panel in a case where the bad-faith evidence is thin can introduce dissenting reasoning that complicates a simple transfer order. The trade-off is cost: a three-member panel carries a higher fee than a single-member appointment, and if the complainant requested a single panelist but the respondent requests three, the parties generally split the higher fee.
Author: Cordelia Roe — UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery; domain transactions and brand protection. Meet the team.
Speak with Cognomen Law
For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter
This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.