Step-by-step: compare UDRP with the .br national procedure

A brand owner finds a .br domain – identical to its registered trademark – pointing at a competitor's storefront in São Paulo. The instinct is to file a UDRP complaint. That instinct is understandable but almost certainly wrong for this zone. Brazil's .br namespace sits entirely outside the UDRP, governed instead by a distinct national procedure administered through SACI-Adm, the arbitration mechanism operated under the authority of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and its registry, Registro.br.

To compare UDRP with the .br national procedure, the central fact is this: the UDRP does not apply to .br domains. Brazil's ccTLD operates under the SACI-Adm procedure, which applies its own eligibility requirements, its own substantive test, and its own remedy framework. A complainant must satisfy Brazilian-specific rules; a registrant defending a .br domain faces a different evidentiary burden than a UDRP respondent. The right route, the right evidence, and the realistic timeline all differ – sometimes substantially – from what the UDRP would require for an equivalent .com dispute.

This guide walks each decision point: what governs .br, how SACI-Adm works step by step, where the two procedures diverge on evidence and remedy, and how to choose the correct path when a dispute spans both a .com and a .br.

Step 1 – Establish Which Procedure Actually Applies to Your .br Domain

Before spending a single hour on evidence, confirm the governing procedure – because filing in the wrong forum wastes both time and money. The UDRP applies to gTLD domains (.com, .net, .org, and other generic extensions under ICANN's mandatory administrative procedure), and to the small number of ccTLDs that have voluntarily adopted it. Brazil has not adopted the UDRP. Registro.br, the registry operator for .br, administers its own dispute mechanism called SACI-Adm. There is no path to a UDRP panel for a pure .br dispute.

The trap at Step 1 is assuming that a WIPO or Forum filing covers global enforcement. It does not. A WIPO panel that transfers a .com cannot reach the parallel .br. That domain requires a separate SACI-Adm proceeding, filed through Registro.br, governed by Brazilian rules, and decided by Brazilian arbitrators drawn from approved panels. In our practice, we regularly advise brand owners who arrive with a single set of evidence believing it will serve both proceedings at once. The overlap is real but partial; the differences are consequential.

Practical trap: .br domains require an eligibility holder. Unlike .com, a .br domain can be registered only by entities or individuals with a Brazilian tax registration number – a CNPJ (for legal entities) or a CPF (for individuals). That eligibility rule shapes both the registrant's likely profile and the complainant's standing to receive a transfer.

Step 2 – Understand the SACI-Adm Framework and How It Differs from the UDRP

SACI-Adm is the Serviço de Resolução de Disputas de Nomes de Domínio (domain-name dispute resolution service) for .br. It provides an administrative path short of litigation in Brazilian courts. The framework's substantive test – while sharing some conceptual DNA with the UDRP – is not identical, and the differences can decide a case.

Under the UDRP, a complainant must prove all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): (i) confusing similarity to a mark; (ii) no legitimate interest of the registrant; (iii) registration and use in bad faith. All three are cumulative. Under SACI-Adm, the test is organized differently. The complainant must demonstrate a prior right (typically a registered trademark or trade name recognized under Brazilian law), that the domain was registered without authorization, and that the registration conflicts with that prior right. The bad-faith element is assessed, but the structure of the inquiry – and the specific factors that satisfy or defeat each limb – follows Brazilian legal tradition rather than the ICANN consensus view codified in the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview.

The most consequential structural difference: SACI-Adm does not have an exact counterpart to the UDRP's Paragraph 4(b) non-exhaustive bad-faith factors, nor does it have a codified equivalent to the Paragraph 4(c) safe-harbor defenses. Respondents defending a .br domain must work from the procedural rules and the substantive criteria as written in Registro.br's own policy documents, not from the large body of UDRP jurisprudence. A respondent who treats this like a UDRP defense – and relies on Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors by name – risks presenting an argument the panel cannot recognize.

A further structural difference concerns reverse domain name hijacking. The UDRP formally recognizes RDNH – a finding that a complaint was brought in bad faith to strip a legitimate registrant of a domain. SACI-Adm does not carry the same formal RDNH mechanism. That matters to investors and registrants holding .br domains of descriptive or generic value: the formal deterrent against abusive complaints is structured differently, and the defensive strategy must be adapted accordingly.

For an assessment of whether SACI-Adm or a parallel UDRP complaint is the right route for your domain situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Step 3 – Map the SACI-Adm Process Step by Step

The SACI-Adm procedure follows a defined sequence; understanding each stage also reveals where it diverges from the UDRP's five-stage model (complaint → response → panel appointment → decision → registrar implementation).

1. Filing the complaint. The complainant submits a complaint through the Registro.br portal, identifying the disputed domain, the prior right relied upon, and the grounds for the claim. Documentation of the prior right – typically certified trademark registration in Brazil – is submitted at this stage. Unlike WIPO, which accepts complaints in multiple languages and applies a language-of-proceeding rule, SACI-Adm proceedings are conducted in Portuguese. Non-Brazilian brand owners should prepare for this from the outset.
2. Notification and response period. Registro.br notifies the registrant of the complaint. The registrant has a defined period to file a response. Failure to respond does not result in automatic transfer – the panel still reviews the merits – but a default substantially limits the registrant's factual position. This differs from the UDRP, where a default typically results in a decision on the complainant's written record alone, with the panel still required to make independent findings.
3. Panel appointment and arbitration. An arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators, where a party requests it) is appointed from Registro.br's approved list. There is no cross-party selection mechanism equivalent to the UDRP's three-member panel election, where each party nominates candidates and the provider appoints from a list. SACI-Adm's panel structure is more compact.
4. Decision. The arbitrator issues a reasoned decision. The remedies available include transfer of the domain to the complainant or cancellation. Monetary damages are not within scope; SACI-Adm, like the UDRP, is limited to domain-disposition remedies.
5. Implementation. Where transfer is ordered, Registro.br implements the decision. The complainant must satisfy Brazilian eligibility to hold a .br domain – meaning the transferee must have a valid CNPJ or CPF. A foreign complainant that wins a SACI-Adm case but lacks Brazilian tax registration cannot simply receive the domain. This is the trap most often missed by international brand owners.

In a recent matter – a .br dispute involving a well-known consumer brand, early 2025 – we coordinated Brazilian eligibility registration for the client in parallel with the SACI-Adm complaint preparation, so that a transfer order could be implemented without delay. The two tracks must run concurrently, not sequentially.

Step 4 – Assess the Evidence Differences Between UDRP and SACI-Adm

Evidence that wins a UDRP case does not automatically win a SACI-Adm case – and vice versa. Each procedure has its own evidentiary emphasis. Assembling the right record from the start avoids costly amendment filings or supplemental rounds.

Under the UDRP, the evidence arsenal for element (i) typically includes trademark certificates, WIPO Global Brand Database records, and proof of continuous use. For element (ii), the complainant shows absence of license, no WHOIS/RDDS name match, and no bona fide commercial use by the registrant. For element (iii), common evidence includes screenshots of pay-per-click parking pages, demand letters from the registrant seeking above-cost sale prices, patterns of similar registrations, and registration timing relative to the mark's first use.

Under SACI-Adm, the prior-rights showing draws heavily on Brazilian trademark registers – specifically the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI) database. A complainant with only a foreign trademark registration will need to show how that right is recognized under Brazilian law. Trade names registered with the Brazilian commercial registry (Junta Comercial) can also ground a claim, which is broader than the pure trademark-certificate approach common in UDRP practice. The conflict between the domain and the prior right must be demonstrated with specificity; general assertions of fame or global recognition carry less weight than a precisely documented Brazilian right.

What about bad faith? SACI-Adm requires evidence that the registration was made without authorization and conflicts with the prior right. Evidence of the registrant's commercial activity under the domain, communications demanding payment, or deliberate mimicry of the brand's visual identity are relevant. The absence of legitimate use by the registrant remains persuasive – but a panel applying SACI-Adm rules is not bound by the UDRP's Paragraph 4(b) factors as such. We describe those factors to clients as useful conceptual categories rather than binding safe harbors or per se violations.

The trap at Step 4: relying on passive holding as automatic bad faith. Under UDRP jurisprudence, panels have recognized that passive holding of a domain can, in certain circumstances, constitute bad faith use. Whether SACI-Adm panels apply the same concept is not settled by a large public body of decisions the way UDRP jurisprudence is. Treat passive holding as a factor to be argued, not a doctrine to be assumed.

Step 5 – Run the Decision Matrix: UDRP or SACI-Adm, or Both?

The practical question for most brand owners is not theoretical. It is: given this specific domain dispute, where do I file, and what do I need to win? Here is how to work through the matrix.

Situation A: the domain is a .com only, no parallel .br. File a UDRP complaint. Forum choice is WIPO (filing fee USD 1,500 for a single-member panel on one to five domains) or the Forum (fees beginning around USD 1,300). The three UDRP elements apply. Timeline is approximately two months. No Brazilian-law considerations arise unless the registrant is Brazilian-based and service of process in parallel litigation is contemplated.

Situation B: the domain is a .br only, no parallel gTLD. File through SACI-Adm at Registro.br. Confirm Brazilian trademark or trade-name rights before filing. Confirm that the brand owner – or an affiliate – holds or can obtain a Brazilian CNPJ, because transfer eligibility is a precondition to a useful remedy. The UDRP is simply not available. Court action in Brazil remains an alternative if SACI-Adm is procedurally or substantively unavailable for the specific facts.

Situation C: the registrant holds both a .com and a .br. This is the most common scenario in our cross-border practice. The .com dispute is filed under the UDRP; the .br dispute is filed simultaneously under SACI-Adm. The evidence overlaps substantially but requires separate packaging – Portuguese-language filings for SACI-Adm, with Brazilian-law framing, and English-language filings for WIPO or the Forum under UDRP standards. Timelines run in parallel; the UDRP case will likely resolve first, with the SACI-Adm case concluding on its own schedule. Do not expect the UDRP transfer order to influence the SACI-Adm panel. They are entirely separate proceedings before separate decision-makers applying different rules.

Situation D: the brand owner wants monetary damages, not just domain transfer. Neither the UDRP nor SACI-Adm awards damages. For monetary relief in connection with a .br domain dispute, litigation in the Brazilian courts is required, coordinated with local litigation counsel in Brazil. The SACI-Adm route and the court route are not mutually exclusive; they can run in parallel where the facts support both.

In a parallel-dispute matter (a .com and a .br registration, both squatted by the same party, summer 2024), we filed a WIPO complaint and coordinated SACI-Adm documentation simultaneously. The UDRP transfer order was implemented within approximately ten weeks; the .br proceeding required additional coordination on eligibility that extended its timeline.

To weigh UDRP against the SACI-Adm procedure for your domain, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

Step 6 – Understand the Respondent's Position in Each Procedure

Most guides on domain-name disputes are written from the complainant's perspective. A registrant holding a .br domain in good faith faces a materially different situation under SACI-Adm than a UDRP respondent would under Paragraph 4(c).

Under the UDRP, a respondent has 20 days to file a response after commencement. The Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors – demonstrating a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice, being commonly known by the name, or legitimate noncommercial fair use – are well-documented in thousands of public decisions. A well-prepared UDRP response cites the applicable jurisprudential consensus, draws on the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview, and structures the argument around those safe harbors. Where the complaint is overreaching or filed against a registrant with a genuine independent right to the name, seeking an RDNH finding is a tactical option with real strategic value for the respondent's reputation.

Under SACI-Adm, the respondent's position is grounded in demonstrating an independent Brazilian right to the domain. Generic or descriptive domain names registered for legitimate commercial use in Brazil need a defense built on the Brazilian legal concept of prior use and on the absence of confusing similarity or bad-faith registration under SACI-Adm's criteria. Because SACI-Adm does not carry a formal RDNH mechanism, a registrant defending against an abusive claim has fewer procedural tools than a UDRP respondent. The defense must be grounded in the substantive merits.

We have defended .br domain holders where the complainant held a foreign mark but lacked sufficient Brazilian recognition to ground a SACI-Adm claim. The defense strategy in each case began with identifying the specific gaps in the complainant's prior-rights showing under Brazilian law – not by citing UDRP jurisprudence, which the SACI-Adm panel is not bound to follow.

Step 7 – Plan the Next Step: What to Do Before You File Anything

Whether you are a brand owner seeking to recover a .br domain or a registrant who has just received a SACI-Adm complaint, the highest-value action before any filing is the same: build the record that decides the substantive question under the governing procedure.

For a complainant, that means: confirm Brazilian trademark or trade-name registration at INPI; run a WHOIS/RDDS check on the disputed .br domain and preserve the results; document any commercial activity visible under the domain (screenshots with timestamps); confirm Brazilian eligibility for the intended transferee; and identify whether a parallel .com or other gTLD registration by the same registrant is also in dispute, because that triggers the concurrent-filing analysis in Step 5.

For a respondent, it means: document the circumstances and date of registration; gather evidence of any bona fide commercial use under the domain in Brazil before receipt of the complaint; identify any independent Brazilian right (trademark, trade name, registered entity name) that predates or parallels the complainant's right; and assess whether the complainant's Brazilian trademark coverage is strong enough to ground the claim at all.

The key cross-border consideration: if the brand owner also holds a US-registered mark and the registrant is US-based, a US anticybersquatting action is a separate route that can reach monetary damages and compel transfer – but it is a court action, substantially more expensive, and requires local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For a dispute that is purely a .br matter with a Brazilian registrant, that route is not the primary path.

What should you not do before consulting counsel? Do not contact the registrant to negotiate before you understand which procedure applies. A demand letter sent before a SACI-Adm filing can inadvertently create a factual record that complicates the "no authorization" limb of the complaint. Conversely, a registrant who responds to an informal demand in writing may create admissions that assist the complainant. The evidentiary implications of pre-complaint communications are real in both procedures.

Related at COGNOMEN

• ccTLD dispute services across national procedures, zones, and registries
• ccTLD mediation and administrative dispute resolution for .ca and comparable zones
• How confusing similarity is assessed in UDRP complaints and what it means for your mark

Author: Gabriel Tennison — ccTLD and European procedures (.uk, .eu, .de). 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.