How to check eligibility to recover a .eu domain

A stranger registers the .eu version of your brand and parks it, redirects it to a competitor's site, or simply sits on it. You want it back. Before any filing, one question must be answered first: do you qualify to hold a .eu domain at all – and does the registrant's conduct meet the threshold for an abusive registration under the rules that govern this zone?

To check eligibility to recover a .eu domain, a complainant must satisfy two distinct tests: first, an EU/EEA nexus requirement (the complainant must be an EU or EEA citizen, resident, organization, or undertaking with a registered office or central administration in the EU or EEA); and second, the substantive dispute test administered through the Czech Arbitration Court's ADR.eu platform, where the remedy can be transfer or revocation, unlike the UDRP's transfer-only outcome. Eligibility and merits are assessed together, and both must hold before a panel will order relief.

This page covers the ADR.eu procedure, how it differs from the UDRP, what evidence moves a panel, and what the realistic next step looks like from the moment you decide to act.

What procedure governs .eu domain disputes?

The .eu dispute procedure is distinct from the UDRP and operates under rules set by EURid, the .eu registry, administered through the Czech Arbitration Court's ADR.eu platform. It does not use the UDRP's three-element test or its standard bad-faith cumulative test. Instead, the ADR.eu rules draw on EU law and EURid's own registration regulations, and a complainant may rely on a wider set of "rights" than registered trademarks alone – earlier rights under national law, trade names, business identifiers, and in some cases personal names can ground a complaint.

The procedure has two primary tracks. The first is a standard complaint for a domain that was speculatively registered or is being used abusively. The second is a complaint that the registrant lacked eligibility to hold the domain at all at the time of registration – a separate and powerful ground that has no direct parallel in UDRP procedure. If the registrant was not an EU/EEA entity when the domain was registered, that alone can be grounds for revocation regardless of bad faith.

We regularly advise brand owners who have handled UDRP complaints before and assume the .eu route is identical. It is not. The rights that can be invoked, the eligibility trap for the registrant, and the remedy options all differ in ways that change both the case theory and the evidence you need.

What are the EU/EEA eligibility requirements for a complainant?

Before any dispute can proceed on the merits, the complainant itself must satisfy the EU/EEA nexus requirement applicable to .eu registrants and complainants alike. A complainant who lacks this nexus cannot hold a .eu domain even if they win, making the eligibility check the first practical step – not an afterthought.

Eligible complainants include: an individual who is a citizen of an EU or EEA member state or who is a resident of the EU or EEA; an undertaking that is established in the EU or EEA; an organization that is established in the EU or EEA; and an institution, body, office, or agency of the European Union itself. The word "established" matters. A company incorporated outside the EU that merely has customers in the EU does not automatically qualify. A branch, registered subsidiary, or office with genuine presence in the EU generally does.

Where does this leave a US, UK post-Brexit, or other non-EU brand owner? Those parties typically cannot file a direct .eu ADR complaint in their own name. Two practical paths remain: filing through an EU-based subsidiary or affiliated entity that holds the relevant rights; or pursuing a court action in the applicable jurisdiction where eligible. We assess this eligibility question as the first step in every .eu matter we handle, because filing through an ineligible entity wastes cost and time and may foreclose better options.

If you are unsure whether your entity qualifies to hold a .eu domain, the eligibility question is worth resolving before any other step. To check eligibility to recover a .eu domain for your situation specifically, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the ADR.eu test differ from the UDRP elements?

The ADR.eu complaint requires the complainant to show that the registered domain is identical or confusingly similar to a name in which the complainant has rights under EU law or national law – and that the registration was either speculative or abusive. That second limb is broader than the UDRP's "registered AND used in bad faith" cumulative standard, and narrower in other respects. Understanding where it diverges is critical to building the right case.

First, the rights base is wider. A registered EU trade mark (EUTM) is the clearest and strongest basis. But panels have accepted prior rights arising from national trademark registrations, trade names used in commerce, geographical indications, and protected designations of origin. An unregistered mark that has acquired a reputation in the relevant territory can also support a complaint where the applicable national law recognizes such rights. This means a complainant without a registered mark is not automatically excluded – but the evidentiary burden for unregistered rights is meaningfully higher.

Second, the abusive-registration concept under ADR.eu rules includes conduct that the UDRP would treat as bad faith – registering to sell, registering to block, registering to attract users by confusion – but it also expressly includes registration in circumstances where the registrant had no eligible nexus to hold the domain. A domain registered by a non-EU entity is potentially vulnerable on eligibility grounds alone, without the complainant needing to prove intent or use.

Third, the remedy options differ. The UDRP transfers or cancels. The ADR.eu procedure can revoke a domain without transferring it to the complainant – relevant where the complainant cannot itself hold .eu, or chooses revocation over transfer for strategic reasons. Transfer is available where the complainant is eligible and requests it.

In our practice, the distinction between revocation and transfer is one that brand owners often overlook when they first approach a .eu dispute. If a non-EU brand owner secures revocation, the domain returns to the registry pool and may be registered by anyone. If the ultimate goal is to control the name, the eligibility question must be resolved before the remedy question.

What evidence decides the outcome in a .eu ADR complaint?

The evidence that moves a .eu panel follows a recognizable pattern, but the specific documents that count differ from a UDRP filing in ways that matter at submission.

On the rights side: a certified copy of the EUTM registration or the national trademark certificate is the clearest anchor. If relying on unregistered rights or a trade name, you need evidence of use in commerce – advertising spend records, dated press coverage, website analytics, contracts with EU customers – sufficient to show the name had a reputation in the relevant territory at the time of registration. The date of first use matters, because a complainant who acquired rights after the domain was registered faces a harder merits argument, though the eligibility-based revocation ground may still apply.

On the abusive-registration side: registration history and WHOIS records, the registrant's use (or non-use) of the domain, any communications from the registrant demanding payment, evidence of a pattern of similar registrations, and the registrant's apparent lack of EU/EEA nexus at the time of registration. Traffic data, redirect destinations, and screenshots of the resolving website are all standard exhibits. If the domain is passively held with no content – a parking page or blank resolution – panels have found that passive holding can support an abusive-registration finding where the complainant's mark is well known and no plausible legitimate use exists.

In a recent matter (a .eu complaint, spring 2025), we assembled an EUTM certificate, six months of archived screenshots showing a pay-per-click parking page monetizing traffic from the mark owner's customers, and WHOIS records showing the registrant was incorporated in a non-EU jurisdiction. The panel ordered transfer within the standard decision period. No case is identical, and outcomes depend on the specific facts and panel discretion.

How does the ADR.eu procedure run end to end?

The ADR.eu process is administered by the Czech Arbitration Court and follows a structured sequence with published timelines. Unlike the Nominet DRS for .uk, there is no mandatory mediation stage before the expert decision, though settlement remains possible at any point.

The filing is submitted online through the ADR.eu platform. The complaint must be in one of the official EU languages (or in the language of the registration agreement, which for many .eu domains is English). The case is checked for formal compliance, after which the respondent is given a period to file a response. A panel is appointed – one expert for standard cases, three for cases where a party requests a larger panel (at higher cost). The expert reviews the submissions and issues a decision. If the panel orders transfer, EURid implements the remedy unless a court stay is obtained.

Timelines under the ADR.eu procedure are generally comparable to a UDRP proceeding. A standard case typically runs from filing to decision within a period of several months, though the precise schedule depends on the complexity of the case, the panel workload, and whether either party seeks an extension. Verify current timelines with counsel, as registry procedures can be updated.

One procedural point that often surprises complainants: because the ADR.eu procedure is administered through the Czech Arbitration Court, all filings go through that platform rather than through WIPO or the Forum. This makes the .eu route distinct in practical administration from every UDRP forum. The fees are published by the Czech Arbitration Court and are separate from any legal fees; verify current rates directly with the CAC at the time of filing.

If you have a potential .eu complaint ready to file, or have received a complaint and need to respond, a direct assessment of your position is the fastest way to understand which route fits. Email info@cognomenlaw.com for a read of the three threshold questions: rights, eligibility nexus, and abusive registration.

How does the .eu route compare to UDRP and court options?

Choosing among the ADR.eu procedure, a UDRP complaint, and court action requires a clear view of what each route can and cannot do for this zone.

If the domain is purely a .eu and the complainant is EU/EEA eligible, the ADR.eu procedure at the Czech Arbitration Court is almost always the right starting point. It is purpose-built for this zone, faster and less costly than litigation, and the panel has authority over EURid's implementation of any decision. A UDRP complaint filed at WIPO or the Forum has no jurisdiction over a .eu domain; those forums handle gTLD disputes, and a complainant who files a UDRP targeting a .eu simply has the wrong forum for that domain.

If the disputed name appears in both a .com and a .eu, the complainant faces a split-forum situation: a UDRP for the .com and an ADR.eu complaint for the .eu, filed and managed separately, each under its own rules. We coordinate both tracks concurrently when the evidence record is shared, reducing duplication of cost and avoiding inconsistent submissions.

Court action in the applicable EU member state jurisdiction is available where the ADR.eu remedy is insufficient – for example, where the complainant seeks damages, injunctive relief against broader conduct, or where the registrant contests the panel's decision. Court proceedings are substantially more time-consuming and costly than ADR.eu, but they reach remedies that no panel can award. Where court action is required, we work with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

If the registrant lacks any EU/EEA nexus and the complainant wants the domain removed from the registry pool but cannot yet take transfer (because the complainant is also non-EU), revocation through ADR.eu may be the fastest outcome available, with the EU entity pathway organized for a subsequent registration. The decision between revocation and transfer is a strategy call that depends on the complainant's own eligibility timeline.

In a separate matter (a .eu dispute involving a non-EU registrant, autumn 2024), a client with an EUTM and a new EU subsidiary used the subsidiary as the named complainant, secured transfer, and retired the dispute in a single ADR.eu proceeding. The approach required advance planning of the EU entity structure but avoided the cost and delay of litigation.

What are the common reasons a .eu complaint fails?

A .eu complaint can fail on procedural grounds, on the merits, or on the remedy – and the failure modes differ from the UDRP in ways that a brand owner experienced only with gTLD disputes may not anticipate.

The most common procedural failure is a complainant who lacks EU/EEA eligibility. Filing in the name of the US or UK parent without checking the nexus requirement is a straightforward way to have a complaint rejected before it reaches the merits. The second common procedural issue is reliance on a trademark registration that post-dates the disputed domain's registration date – later-in-time rights do not automatically fail the complaint, but they shift the burden of the abusive-registration argument and require the complainant to rely more heavily on the registrant's conduct and intent.

On the merits, panels have declined to find abusive registration where the registrant had a plausible legitimate basis for the domain – a surname, a generic word combination, a business name predating the complainant's mark – and where the complainant could not show that the registration was targeted at it specifically. Panels have also declined transfer where both parties had arguable rights and neither clearly prevailed. And a complainant who relies solely on "parking page = bad faith" without demonstrating that the domain was targeting their specific mark may find that passive holding is insufficient without the additional indicia that panels look for.

A common myth among complainants is that having a registered EUTM automatically wins the dispute. The trademark is necessary but not sufficient. The abusive-registration element requires conduct by the registrant that goes beyond merely having registered a domain that resembles a mark. Panels look at the totality: the strength and distinctiveness of the mark, how closely the domain matches it, what the registrant knew or should have known, and what the registrant has done with the domain since registration.

What practical steps should a brand owner take right now?

The most useful thing a brand owner can do before instructing counsel is to gather the initial record quickly and in an organized way. That record will anchor every decision that follows.

Identify the trademark registrations that cover the name in question – EUTM, national EU-member-state registrations, or both – and note their registration dates and goods/services. Pull the current WHOIS/RDDS record for the disputed domain, note the registrant name, registration date, and registrar. Take dated screenshots of the domain's current use: what does it resolve to, and when? Check whether the registrant appears elsewhere in domain portfolios – a pattern of similar registrations strengthens the abusive-registration case significantly.

Confirm your own entity's EU/EEA status. If you are filing as a corporate entity, ensure the entity named as complainant has a registered office or genuine place of business in the EU or EEA. If the EU nexus is through a subsidiary, confirm that subsidiary is the rights holder or has an exclusive license to the mark in the EU.

Then bring that record to a review. An experienced eye can assess in a first meeting whether the rights base is solid, whether the registrant's conduct meets the abusive-registration standard, and whether the remedy you want (transfer versus revocation) is achievable on the current facts. In our practice, this initial assessment is where most cases are either confirmed as strong filings or identified as needing a different approach – sometimes a court route, sometimes a negotiated acquisition, and sometimes both running in parallel.

Related at COGNOMEN

• ccTLD dispute services – recovery and defense across .eu, .uk, .de, and other national zones
• .it domain eligibility case study – how eligibility issues were assessed and resolved in a comparable European ccTLD dispute
• URS vs UDRP – comparing suspension and transfer remedies across gTLD dispute routes

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.