Step-by-step: recover a lapsed .global domain that was re-registered

Step-by-step: recover a lapsed .global domain that was re-registered. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .global. Email the firm to assess your…

Your brand's .global domain lapsed during a billing dispute, an administrative oversight, or a registrar migration. Within weeks, a stranger registered it. Now it redirects visitors, mimics your brand, or sits parked with a "buy this domain" banner. You want it back. The question is which path is fastest, what evidence wins, and where the process hides its traps.

To recover a lapsed .global domain that was re-registered, the standard route is a UDRP complaint filed with WIPO, because .global operates under an ICANN-accredited registry that applies the UDRP. You must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity to your trademark, no legitimate interest on the registrant's part, and registration plus use in bad faith. A standard case at WIPO runs about two months, with a filing fee starting at USD 1,500 for a single-panel proceeding covering one to five domains.

This guide walks each step in order, flags the trap concealed inside it, and closes with the evidence and the realistic next step for your situation.

Step 1: Confirm what procedure actually governs .global

The .global registry operates under an ICANN-accredited structure that requires all registrars to incorporate the UDRP by reference. That means the same three-element test that applies to .com governs your dispute here. This is not obvious to every brand owner, and it is the first trap: assuming .global requires a specialized or national procedure when in fact WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC all have jurisdiction.

Why does the zone choice matter? Because some new gTLDs are subject only to the Uniform Rapid Suspension system (the URS), which suspends rather than transfers a domain and applies a higher "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard. The .global zone is not limited to URS; a full UDRP complaint seeking transfer is available. The URS remains an option where speed matters more than ownership, but if you want the domain transferred back to you, a UDRP complaint is the appropriate vehicle.

Trap: do not assume the registrar's stated location defines the procedure. The .global registry agreement with ICANN is what determines dispute-resolution obligations, not the country where the current registrant happens to reside. Verify the current registry rules with counsel before filing anything.

Step 2: Run a chain-of-title check before you file anything

Before drafting a complaint, you need to understand who registered the domain after the lapse, how many times it has changed hands since, and whether any prior UDRP proceeding involved this exact domain. That record – sometimes called a chain-of-title check – can make or break your case.

Why does prior-dispute history matter so much here? Because panels weigh a registrant's knowledge of your mark at the moment of registration. If the domain previously had a UDRP filed against it, and the current registrant acquired it after that proceeding, a panel is far more likely to infer that the re-registrant knew exactly whose name they were taking. That inference supports your bad-faith argument under Paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Trap: the chain-of-title check also reveals a tainted domain problem. If the domain was acquired through a privacy service, a drop-catching service, or a series of quick resales after the lapse, the registrant may argue it had no knowledge of your brand and registered speculatively. That argument weakens if you can document that your mark was well-known and that your prior registration was publicly indexed – evidence you gather in this step, not later.

In our practice, we conduct this check by cross-referencing the domain's registration history, any WHOIS/RDDS records still accessible, and the WIPO and Forum case databases before advising a client to file. The result sometimes reveals that the current registrant is a serial cybersquatter – which in turn supports a bad-faith finding under the Paragraph 4(b) pattern-of-conduct factor.

Step 3: Assess whether your trademark rights are sufficient to meet Element 1

Element 1 of the UDRP is the most mechanical of the three, but lapsed-domain recoveries carry a specific risk that brand owners often underestimate. A registered trademark gives you the clearest footing. But if you abandoned the mark during the same period the domain lapsed, or if the mark's registration has since expired, your rights may be thinner than they look.

Panels consistently hold that trademark rights must exist at the time the complaint is filed, not only at the time of the original domain registration. A pending trademark application ordinarily does not satisfy Element 1 on its own, though it can support a claim of unregistered rights if accompanied by evidence of substantial use. The confusing-similarity analysis itself is generally straightforward where the domain incorporates the mark verbatim – as is common in lapse scenarios where the re-registrant simply registered the exact string you previously held.

Trap: do not overlook the possibility that your previous registration created common-law rights you can invoke even if the registered mark has since lapsed. The evidentiary bar for unregistered rights is higher, but it is not insurmountable. Document continuous commercial use, consumer recognition, and brand investment to support that argument.

To weigh whether your trademark rights meet the UDRP standard for a .global recovery, email info@cognomenlaw.com. The answer depends on how your rights are documented, not only on what is registered.

Step 4: Build the bad-faith record – the element that actually decides lapse cases

Element 3 is where lapsed-domain UDRP complaints are won or lost. The re-registrant of a lapsed domain will almost always argue good faith: they found a dropped name, registered it through a drop service, and had no obligation to check trademark status. Panels have split on this argument when the mark is obscure, but panels have consistently held bad faith where the mark was well-known, where the domain was used to redirect traffic commercially, or where the registrant demanded a price exceeding out-of-pocket registration costs shortly after acquiring the name.

The Paragraph 4(b) factors give you four non-exhaustive routes to bad faith. The most relevant in lapse cases are: acquisition primarily to sell to the mark owner at a profit (Paragraph 4(b)(i)); registration to disrupt your commercial activity (Paragraph 4(b)(iii)); and intentional use of the domain to attract users for commercial gain by trading on the confusion with your mark (Paragraph 4(b)(iv)). A parking page that monetizes your brand's traffic, or an offer to sell the domain the moment you contact the registrant, strongly evidences (b)(i) and (b)(iv).

Passive holding is a subtler point. A domain parked with no active content still supports a bad-faith finding if the mark is sufficiently famous that no plausible good-faith use of the name is conceivable. Panels use that reasoning frequently in lapse recovery cases where the domain previously belonged to the complainant.

Trap: preserve your screenshots, take dated captures of the landing page, download any click-to-buy solicitation emails, and retain any communication in which the registrant named a price. Evidence gathered quickly is evidence a panel can rely on. Evidence gathered after a complaint is filed is generally inadmissible without a panel's leave.

Step 5: Assess Element 2 and identify the registrant's likely counter-arguments

Panels treat Element 2 and Element 3 as closely linked in lapse cases. A registrant who argues legitimate interest under Paragraph 4(c) will typically claim one of three safe harbors: a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute; being commonly known by the domain name; or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Each of those can be challenged, but the challenge needs to be anticipatory.

The most common respondent argument in a re-registration scenario is the "bona fide offering" defense – the registrant will say it was using the domain for a PPC parking page or a general-purpose website before any notice. Panels have consistently held that a PPC page that trades on the complainant's trademark does not constitute a bona fide offering. But the counter-argument depends on whether the parking content was clearly trademark-exploitative or genuinely generic.

In a recent matter involving a .global lapse (summer 2025), we encountered a registrant claiming that the domain had been acquired through a drop-catching service for a speculative technology portfolio, with no specific awareness of the brand owner. The bad-faith case succeeded because we documented that the brand had a substantial international footprint in the exact sector the domain's parking page targeted – making a credible claim of ignorance implausible.

Trap: do not assume that because you previously owned the domain, the registrant's claim of good faith is automatically unsustainable. Panels evaluate the moment of re-registration, not the moment of your prior ownership. A domain that was obscure at the time it lapsed gives the re-registrant more argumentative room than one that expired at peak brand visibility.

If a registrant's response has already been filed, or you have received a counter-claim of legitimate interest, a focused review can identify the specific element that is in play. Reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

Step 6: Choose the forum and file the complaint strategically

For a .global domain, your principal options are WIPO and the Forum, which together handle the overwhelming majority of UDRP proceedings. WIPO charges USD 1,500 for a single-panel proceeding covering one to five domains. The Forum begins around USD 1,300 for one to two domains with a single panel. CAC is available as a lower-cost option for straightforward cases. ADNDRC is typically used where the parties have an Asia-Pacific nexus.

Which forum fits a lapse recovery? The choice turns on a few practical factors. WIPO offers an expedited one-month track for single-panel cases involving up to five domains; if you need the name back before a product launch, that acceleration matters. The Forum's panelist pool includes practitioners with strong familiarity with drop-catching and lapse-recovery factual patterns. CAC may offer a lower entry cost but a smaller panelist pool. None of the forums guarantees a specific outcome – a well-drafted complaint filed at any of them gives you the same substantive path.

WIPO also offers a partial refund of approximately USD 1,000 of the standard filing fee if the case is withdrawn or settled before panel appointment. In lapse cases, some registrants settle once a complaint is served; that possibility is a legitimate reason to file promptly rather than negotiate indefinitely.

Trap: a complaint may cover multiple domains only where all are registered by the same holder. If the re-registrant also holds typosquats of your brand in other gTLDs, confirm before filing whether they share a single registrant record, because a consolidated complaint can be cost-effective if the holder is truly the same entity. Our approach at COGNOMEN is to evaluate typosquat registrations alongside the primary complaint so that related domains do not survive a targeted filing.

Step 7: Consider URS, negotiated transfer, or escrow as alternatives

The right route depends on the zone and the goal. If you need the domain suspended quickly while a dispute is pending – for instance, to prevent active consumer confusion during a product launch – URS is faster and cheaper than UDRP, but it suspends rather than transfers, and it applies a higher "clear and convincing" standard. For .global domains, URS is available and may serve as a stopgap while a UDRP proceeds.

A negotiated acquisition is a second alternative. If the re-registrant holds the domain speculatively and is willing to sell at a price your business can absorb, a structured purchase avoids litigation cost and timeline. The traps here are distinct: you should run pre-acquisition due diligence on the domain's chain of title and prior dispute history before paying anything, because a tainted domain can bring its problems with it. Prior UDRP findings against the same registrant or the same domain string may affect the value you should pay and the risk you accept. Escrow through a licensed escrow service – not the seller's chosen platform – is the standard protection for any domain purchase above a nominal amount.

When does a court action become relevant? If the re-registrant is identifiable, located in a jurisdiction with anticybersquatting legislation, and you need remedies beyond transfer – notably damages – US anticybersquatting litigation or court action in the applicable jurisdiction, handled with local litigation counsel, is the path the UDRP cannot provide. The UDRP's only remedies are transfer or cancellation; no monetary award is available. See our broader overview of domain transactions and brand protection services for context on when a court route fits better than arbitration.

What evidence actually decides the outcome?

Three categories of evidence dominate lapse-recovery UDRP outcomes. First, mark-recognition evidence: trademark registration certificates, advertising expenditure records, press coverage, and web analytics documenting that your brand was publicly known before the domain lapsed. The stronger the mark's recognition at the moment of lapse, the more implausible the registrant's claimed innocence becomes.

Second, the landing page and any communications: dated screenshots of the page the domain resolved to, any email thread in which the registrant offered to sell (name the price if it exceeds registration costs), and any content that clearly trades on your brand – competitor ads, diverted checkout pages, or brand-specific PPC links. Third, registration history: WHOIS/RDDS records for the period between your expiry and the re-registration, evidence of who operates any privacy or proxy service listed, and any connection between the re-registrant and prior UDRP respondents.

In another recent matter (a .global brand-registration dispute, spring 2025), the complainant had lapsed a domain during a corporate restructuring and discovered approximately three months later that the new registrant had placed competitors' pay-per-click ads on the landing page. The dated screenshots, combined with a prior dispute history linking the registrant to similar conduct in two other TLDs, produced a clear bad-faith record. The combination proved decisive.

What you do not need is a letter of demand prior to filing. Panels do not require prior contact with the registrant. In fact, alerting the registrant to a forthcoming complaint can prompt rapid transfer of the domain to a third party, complicating your case – another reason to move from evidence-gathering to filing without delay.

Related at COGNOMEN

• Domain transactions and brand protection – full service overview including portfolio monitoring
• Pre-acquisition domain due diligence – chain of title, dispute history, and escrow structure
• Recovering typosquat registrations alongside primary UDRP complaints