Step-by-step: prove bad faith registration of a .global domain

Step-by-step: prove bad faith registration of a .global domain. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .global. Email the firm to assess your case.

A brand owner finds its registered mark reproduced in a .global domain it never registered. The registrant offers to sell it back — at a price well above any registration cost. That scenario is common. So is the question that follows: does the UDRP apply to .global, and if so, how do you actually prove the case?

The .global registry operates under the UDRP, which means WIPO and the Forum both have jurisdiction to hear complaints. To recover a .global domain you must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP: confusing similarity to a mark you own, no legitimate interest by the registrant, and registration and use in bad faith — the cumulative standard. The WIPO filing fee starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel, and a standard case is typically resolved within about two months.

This guide walks each step, identifies the trap hidden inside it, and ends with the realistic paths available once you have assembled your proof.

Why .global falls under the UDRP — and what that means for your complaint

The .global registry has adopted the UDRP as its mandatory dispute-resolution policy, so the same rules that govern .com and .net apply here. That is the short answer. The longer answer is that .global is a new gTLD, and new gTLD registrations are subject to the full ICANN accreditation stack, including the UDRP, the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), and the associated Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Any complainant who holds trademark rights anywhere in the world can file — there is no geographic eligibility requirement.

The practical consequence is that the forum choice is the same as for .com disputes: WIPO, the Forum, CAC, or ADNDRC. In our practice, WIPO handles the substantial majority of .global cases, and it is generally the default recommendation for international brand owners because of its institutional depth and published precedent base. WIPO and the Forum together account for roughly 97% of all UDRP proceedings globally.

One trap at this stage: some brand owners assume a new-gTLD dispute is harder to win because the zone is more obscure. That assumption is wrong. The legal test is identical. What changes is the likelihood-of-confusion analysis under the first UDRP element — .global is not a generic descriptor of your goods, so a domain that mirrors your mark in the second level does not benefit from any dilution in the string. If anything, the specificity of .global can sharpen the confusion argument in the right case.

If you are trying to assess whether the three elements are met for your specific .global domain, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com for a preliminary read of the facts.

Step 1: establish trademark rights that survive the similarity test

The first element of Paragraph 4(a) asks whether the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which you have rights. This is the most consistently straightforward of the three elements — but it still hides a trap.

The comparison is made by stripping the gTLD (".global") from the domain and placing the remaining string against your mark. Panels have consistently held that the TLD is typically disregarded for this analysis, because it is a technical requirement of registration rather than a meaningful differentiator. A domain that reproduces your mark exactly — or with a minor variation such as a transposition, an added hyphen, or a generic term appended — will satisfy the first element in virtually every case.

The trap is the nature of the rights you need to hold. A registered trademark is the clearest proof: the registration number, the mark, the goods-and-services specification, and the priority date all go into the complaint. Unregistered or common-law trademark rights can also satisfy the element, but the evidentiary burden is heavier. You will need to demonstrate use in commerce, secondary meaning, and a territorial nexus — ideally supported by revenue figures, advertising spend records, press coverage, or other objective markers of acquired distinctiveness.

A second trap: the registration priority date of your trademark relative to the registration date of the disputed domain becomes relevant at the third element (bad faith), not the first. Many complainants conflate the two. The first element is a pure similarity assessment; date questions belong in the bad-faith analysis. Keeping those analyses separate sharpens the complaint and avoids the cross-contamination that weakens filings.

Assemble at minimum: the trademark certificate or WIPO international registration extract, a screenshot of the RDDS/WHOIS record showing the domain registration date, and a side-by-side comparison of the mark and the second-level domain string. Those three documents form the factual spine of Element 1.

Step 2: show the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests

The second element shifts the analysis from your rights to the registrant's. You must show that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Proving a negative is, by design, difficult — and the UDRP procedure accounts for that with a burden-shift mechanism: you make out a prima facie case, and the burden moves to the registrant to rebut it.

The Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors tell you what a legitimate interest looks like: a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute; a situation where the registrant is commonly known by the name; or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent to mislead. If none of those safe harbors can plausibly apply, your prima facie case is straightforward.

How do you close the safe-harbor exits? Systematically. Check whether the registrant is using the domain for any active website. If the domain resolves to a parking page, a pay-per-click page monetizing your brand's traffic, or simply an offer-to-sell page, that use is inconsistent with a bona fide offering. If the domain is passively held — pointing nowhere — panels have found that passive holding can constitute bad-faith use, particularly where the mark is distinctive and there is no plausible legitimate use the registrant could make of the domain.

The trap here is the respondent who injects a website between receipt of your demand letter and filing of the complaint. A skeleton website put up after notice of the dispute carries little weight — panels treat it as a self-serving response rather than evidence of pre-existing legitimate use. Document the domain's resolution status before you contact the registrant or send any demand. A contemporaneous screenshot with a timestamp, or a Wayback Machine capture, establishes the pre-notice state of the domain and removes that escape route.

We regularly advise brand owners to conduct this audit silently — without alerting the registrant — to preserve the evidentiary record before any formal notice is sent.

Step 3: build the bad faith registration evidence — the hardest element to prove

Bad faith registration is the element where cases are won or lost. It is also the element most frequently misunderstood. The UDRP requires that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith — both, not either. That cumulative standard distinguishes the UDRP from some ccTLD procedures (Nominet's .uk DRS, for instance, requires registration or use abusively), and it is a harder bar to clear.

Paragraph 4(b) provides four non-exhaustive circumstances that constitute evidence of bad faith. The most commonly argued:

• Registration for the primary purpose of selling to the mark owner or a competitor at a price above out-of-pocket costs — the ransom scenario.
• Registration to disrupt the business of a competitor.
• Registration to attract internet users to the registrant's site by creating confusion with the complainant's mark for commercial gain.
• A pattern of such conduct — multiple domains registered against multiple brands or brand owners.

For a .global domain, the ransom-sale scenario is the easiest to prove: if the registrant has made an offer to sell the domain to you or your representatives at a figure that demonstrably exceeds the cost of registration and maintenance, that offer is itself an admission of bad faith. Preserve that communication meticulously — every email thread, every broker message, every platform listing with an ask price. Submit the full chain, not an excerpt.

The pattern evidence is also powerful. Search domaining marketplaces, WHOIS records, and any publicly available dispute database for the registrant's name or the registrant's known associated identities. A respondent holding dozens of domains that incorporate third-party brand names, with no apparent business use, creates a circumstantial pattern that panels take seriously. We have defended against overreaching complainants who conflated ordinary keyword registration with a pattern of abuse — the distinction matters on both sides of the docket.

A third trap: the registration date. If your trademark postdates the domain registration, your case fails the bad-faith registration prong, almost without exception. Panels cannot find that a registrant targeted a mark that did not yet exist. The escape routes are narrow: pre-registration filing dates, common-law rights predating the domain registration, or evidence that the domain was re-registered (the original registration lapsed and was re-registered by the current holder after your mark acquired fame). If the registration predates your rights, a court action or a private negotiated purchase is more likely your remedy, not the UDRP.

How do you use the passive-holding doctrine with a .global domain?

Passive holding — a registered domain that resolves to nothing — presents a structural challenge to the "used in bad faith" limb of Element 3. If the domain is not resolving, how is it being used at all?

Panels have developed the passive-holding doctrine to address exactly this. The doctrine recognizes that certain combinations of facts make it inconceivable that a registrant could ever put the domain to a legitimate use. The key factors panels weigh include: the distinctiveness and fame of the mark; whether the registrant concealed its identity or provided false contact details; whether any plausible legitimate use is available to the registrant; and how the registrant has responded (or failed to respond) to the complaint.

For a .global domain, distinctiveness of the mark in the international market is particularly relevant — .global self-identifies with global commerce and reputation, and a highly distinctive mark registered in that zone by a stranger is harder to explain away as coincidence. In a recent matter (a .global cybersquatting complaint, summer 2025), we built the passive-holding argument around the registrant's use of a privacy service, the absence of any traceable business operating under the name, and the registrant's complete default in the proceedings. The panel transferred the domain without requiring active use evidence, relying on the combination of those factors.

The trap: passive holding is a doctrine of last resort, not a first argument. If the domain is actively resolving to anything — a parking page, a generic portal, a placeholder — you argue those active uses first and add the passive-holding analysis in the alternative. Leading with passive holding when the domain is actively used signals to the panel that you have not assessed the evidence carefully.

If the .global domain against you is passively held and the registrant has defaulted, email info@cognomenlaw.com — that combination is frequently the strongest fact pattern for a transfer order.

What does the UDRP procedure look like from filing to decision?

The UDRP procedure has five stages: complaint → response → panel appointment → decision → registrar implementation. Each has a fixed clock.

Once the complaint is formally commenced, the registrant has 20 days to file a response. Missing that window does not guarantee you win — panels still evaluate the complaint on its merits — but a default removes the registrant's opportunity to contest the elements and present the Paragraph 4(c) safe-harbor evidence. In our practice, a majority of .global cybersquatting complaints result in a registrant default, because registrants who have no legitimate interest have nothing useful to say in a response.

After the response period, the forum appoints the panel. A single-member panel is the default and the faster path. A three-member panel can be requested by either side — the complainant at filing, the respondent by paying the difference in the three-member fee — and adds time and cost. For a standard single-member WIPO case covering one .global domain, the filing fee is USD 1,500. A three-member panel at WIPO costs USD 4,000.

From filing to decision, the standard timeline is roughly two months. WIPO also offers an expedited option — a single-member panel, up to five domains — that delivers a decision within about one month. For a brand owner with an active product launch, a competitor's trade show, or other time-sensitive event, that expedited track can matter.

Once the panel issues a transfer or cancellation order, the registrar implements it after a ten-business-day waiting period during which either side may seek court relief to stay the implementation. In practice, stays are rare in .global cybersquatting cases. If the decision issues in your favor, the domain will be in your account within two to three weeks of the decision date.

Choosing between UDRP, URS, and court action for a .global dispute

The right route depends on the remedy you need and the strength of your evidence. Three paths are available for .global domains.

If you want the domain transferred to you and your evidence meets the three-element standard, the UDRP is the fastest and lowest-cost route. Filing fees at WIPO are fixed, the timeline is roughly two months, and legal fees for a straightforward single-domain complaint typically fall in a market range of several thousand USD above the forum fee — specific to the complexity of the evidence rather than to the zone.

If you need suspension only — not transfer — and the violation is clear and indisputable, the URS is available for .global as a new gTLD. The URS is faster and cheaper, but it operates at a higher evidentiary standard ("clear and convincing evidence"), and it suspends the domain only for the remainder of the registration term rather than transferring ownership. Use URS when speed and cost are paramount and when full transfer ownership is not the goal — or when the .global domain is one of many in a multi-zone enforcement sweep.

If your trademark predates the domain registration but the UDRP's bad faith elements cannot be met — perhaps the registrant has a superficially plausible argument of legitimate interest — a court action is the remaining route. For US parties, US anticybersquatting litigation is the path that also allows recovery of monetary damages, something the UDRP cannot provide. For disputes with an international element and no viable UDRP case, we work with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

One comparative note: some brand owners consider filing simultaneously at WIPO and in court. The UDRP procedural rules do not bar that, but WIPO will typically suspend the UDRP proceeding if notified of pending court action. In most .global cybersquatting cases, the UDRP alone is sufficient, faster, and dramatically less expensive than litigation.

What can go wrong — and how to avoid the most common mistakes

Several patterns recur in cases that fail or produce a weaker outcome than the underlying facts warranted.

The first is filing before the evidence is complete. Complainants who file with only a trademark certificate and a WHOIS printout — without active research into the registrant's prior registrations, the domain's historical resolution, or the communication record — give the panel too thin a factual basis. Panels cannot make inferences not supported by the record; they can only decide what the complaint places before them.

The second is sending a demand letter before taking evidence captures. As noted above, a registrant who receives a demand can deploy a skeleton website, transfer the domain to an affiliate, or otherwise obscure the abuse. Preserve the record first. Send any communication second.

The third is ignoring the respondent's potential RDNH argument. RDNH — Reverse Domain Name Hijacking — is a finding that the complaint was filed in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant of the domain. It carries no monetary penalty, but it is a public finding against the complainant. RDNH findings arise most often when: the complainant knew its trademark post-dated the registration; the complainant had no real evidence of bad faith and filed anyway; or the complaint misrepresented material facts. We audit every complaint before filing to eliminate those risks.

The fourth mistake is forum selection without strategy. WIPO and the Forum produce different panel pools and different institutional cultures. For a complex .global dispute with novel passive-holding facts or a challenging respondent, WIPO's published jurisprudential overview provides a stronger precedential anchor. For a volume enforcement sweep involving many domains, the Forum's lower base fee structure may be relevant to the overall economics.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP Recovery Service — file a complaint and recover a domain across all UDRP forums
• FAQ: Serial cybersquatters and pattern-of-conduct evidence in UDRP proceedings
• Guide: Domain escrow and purchase due diligence for cross-border transactions