How to resolve a .br domain dispute under the national procedure

A Brazilian domain name sits at the center of your brand's digital presence in Latin America's largest market. Then a stranger registers it – or holds it hostage with a five-figure buy-back demand. You want to know whether the UDRP applies, and what actually governs .br. The answer matters immediately, because the wrong procedural choice wastes months.

To resolve a .br domain dispute under the national procedure, you file before SACI-Adm, the administrative dispute-resolution system operated by Registro.br, Brazil's ccTLD registry. The procedure applies its own three-part test – not the UDRP – and the primary remedy is cancellation or transfer of the domain registration. Because .br operates under a national framework distinct from the UDRP, eligibility requirements, the evidentiary test, and the available remedies differ in ways that are not obvious from UDRP practice.

This page covers the governing procedure, the eligibility rules, how the test compares to the UDRP, what evidence decides these cases, and how to structure the next step.

What governs .br disputes, and why the UDRP does not apply?

Registro.br – the ccTLD registry for Brazil – has not adopted the UDRP and is not among the registries that have appointed WIPO as a dispute-resolution provider under the UDRP framework. That means the standard path used for .com, .net, .org, and many other zones is simply unavailable for .br domains. The governing procedure is SACI-Adm, an administrative system established by Registro.br to handle abusive registration complaints.

SACI-Adm is a purely administrative channel. It does not replace Brazilian civil courts, and it does not award monetary damages. A complainant who needs financial compensation for harm caused by the abusive registration must pursue a separate court action through local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Within SACI-Adm, the possible remedies are limited to cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain registration – structurally similar to the UDRP in that respect, but arrived at through a different evidentiary test and a different process.

The practical consequence for brand owners is this: trademark rights established and enforced under the UDRP for a corresponding .com do not automatically carry into a .br proceeding. Each system evaluates the claim on its own terms. Holding a UDRP transfer order for a parallel .com domain is persuasive evidence of prior rights, but it is not a shortcut through SACI-Adm's own requirements.

For an assessment of whether your .br situation meets the SACI-Adm test, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Who can file a complaint under the SACI-Adm procedure?

The SACI-Adm procedure is open to any holder of prior rights in a name – including registered trademark owners, parties with demonstrable rights in a trade name or brand identifier, and in some circumstances personal-name rights holders. The complainant does not need to be domiciled in Brazil, which is a practical advantage for international brand owners pursuing a .br domain held by a Brazilian registrant. However, establishing the scope and seniority of the prior right is a central battleground in these proceedings.

A key eligibility consideration is the relationship between the domain and the asserted right. The .br namespace uses a structured second-level system: most commercial registrations sit under .com.br, professional categories under their own second-level labels (such as .adv.br for attorneys or .med.br for medical practitioners), and so forth. A complainant asserting rights against a .com.br domain must ground those rights in something that the registrant could not legitimately claim – which usually means a registered trademark or an equivalent showing of market recognition predating the domain's registration.

Non-Brazilian rights holders frequently ask whether a foreign trademark registration is sufficient. In our practice advising international brand owners, a foreign registered trademark is generally accepted as a qualifying right, provided the complainant demonstrates that the mark has some meaningful presence or recognition that the Brazilian registrant would have been aware of. A purely speculative or obscure foreign mark with no Brazilian footprint is a weaker foundation, and we regularly advise complainants to bolster the rights showing with evidence of Brazilian market activity, press coverage, or local distribution.

How does the SACI-Adm test differ from the UDRP three-element test?

The SACI-Adm test evaluates three elements, but their formulation and the weight given to individual factors diverge from UDRP practice in important ways. Understanding the differences determines how a complainant frames the complaint and what evidence to assemble.

Under the UDRP, Paragraph 4(a) requires the complainant to prove: (1) confusing similarity to a mark, (2) no legitimate interests on the registrant's side, and (3) registration and use in bad faith – both prongs of that third element, cumulatively. Under SACI-Adm, the test focuses on whether the registration constitutes an abusive registration in relation to the complainant's prior rights. The concept of abusive registration draws on similar bad-faith indicators, but the cumulative "registered AND used" formulation of the UDRP does not map precisely onto the SACI-Adm framework. A registration that was made in bad faith but is not yet actively used may still be challenged – closer in structure to the Nominet DRS "registered OR used" formulation than to the strict UDRP standard.

Legitimate-interest defenses are recognized under SACI-Adm: a registrant who holds a corresponding Brazilian trademark, who operates a genuine business under the name, or who can show a bona fide connection to the string may defeat the complaint. The analysis is fact-specific, and outcomes depend on the panel's assessment of the totality of the evidence – not on any single bright-line rule.

One further divergence: SACI-Adm proceedings are conducted in Portuguese. For international complainants, this means all submissions and evidence must be prepared or translated accordingly. That is a practical hurdle, not a legal bar, but it underscores the importance of working with counsel who can manage the Brazilian procedural environment.

What evidence decides a .br dispute?

In any SACI-Adm proceeding, the weight of the case rests on the documentary record the parties assemble before the panel. Administrative panels in .br proceedings have no power to compel discovery; they decide on the papers submitted. Building that record is the core of the work.

For the complainant, the essential evidence bundle typically includes: proof of trademark registration or equivalent prior rights, the date of registration and the territorial scope; WHOIS records showing the domain's registration date and registrant details; evidence of the registrant's awareness of the complainant's mark (prior communications, cease-and-desist correspondence, industry coverage in Brazil); and evidence of the abusive nature of the registration, such as parking-page content, phishing use, or a demand for payment. Where the registrant has made a buy-back demand, preserving those communications is critical – they are among the strongest available indicators of bad faith.

In a recent matter (a .com.br dispute, spring 2025), we assembled a rights record spanning Brazilian and EU trademark registrations alongside local press coverage and prior cease-and-desist correspondence. The panel found the registration abusive and ordered transfer. The registrant had offered no legitimate-interest defense, which is common in cases where the domain mirrors an established mark with no plausible connection to the registrant's actual activity.

For respondents, the defensive record must demonstrate a prior or independent connection to the string – a corresponding Brazilian trademark, a longstanding business name, demonstrable use before any notice of the dispute, or a legitimate noncommercial purpose. A registrant who can show that the domain string corresponds to a common descriptive term or a geographic reference, rather than a distinctive mark, has a strong foundation. Panels have consistently held that a registrant cannot cure bad faith at the time of registration by pointing to later legitimate use, so the timing of the registrant's claimed interest is examined closely.

How does the SACI-Adm process run from filing to outcome?

The SACI-Adm process follows a structured sequence, though its precise timeline reflects Brazilian administrative practice rather than the UDRP's fixed timetable. A complainant files the complaint electronically through the Registro.br platform, paying the applicable official fee. The complaint must identify the domain, state the asserted prior rights, and articulate the grounds for finding the registration abusive – the equivalent of what a UDRP complaint sets out under Paragraph 4(a).

Once the complaint is filed and accepted as formally compliant, the respondent is notified and given an opportunity to file a response. The panel – typically a single panelist, with a three-panelist option – is then appointed from the SACI-Adm roster. The panel reviews the submissions and the evidence and issues a written decision. If the panel orders cancellation or transfer, Registro.br implements the decision absent a timely court challenge from the losing party.

The official fees for SACI-Adm proceedings are set by Registro.br and published on its platform. Those fees are modest compared to WIPO filing fees for UDRP proceedings (which begin at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel on one to five domains). Verify the current SACI-Adm fee schedule directly with Registro.br or with counsel before filing. Legal fees for preparing the complaint, translating evidence, and managing the proceeding are separate from official fees and depend on the complexity of the matter.

What happens if the respondent challenges the panel's decision in court? A Brazilian court has jurisdiction to review SACI-Adm outcomes and can stay or reverse a transfer. This is the key reason the administrative procedure does not fully displace civil litigation for high-stakes or contested .br matters. Where the respondent holds countervailing rights or where the domain has significant commercial value, a parallel or follow-on court action – handled with local litigation counsel in Brazil – may be necessary to fully protect the outcome.

To weigh SACI-Adm against a court action for your .br domain, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

Is a court action necessary, and when does it make sense?

The SACI-Adm route is not always sufficient on its own. Three scenarios typically push a brand owner toward Brazilian court action, whether as an alternative to SACI-Adm or in parallel with it.

First, when damages are the goal. SACI-Adm cannot award compensation for lost sales, reputational harm, or phishing losses caused by the domain. A civil action before the Brazilian courts, through local litigation counsel, is the only path to a monetary remedy.

Second, when the registrant holds a competing Brazilian trademark. A registrant who can show a validly registered Brazilian trademark covering a similar scope creates a legitimate-interest defense that may be difficult to overcome administratively. A court proceeding that challenges the validity or priority of that trademark registration may be required before or alongside an administrative complaint.

Third, when speed is the only priority and the evidence of abuse is overwhelming. Brazilian courts can grant provisional injunctions – including orders to lock domain registration pending the outcome – on an urgent basis. In cases where the domain is actively being used for phishing, fraud, or consumer deception at scale, a court injunction may be faster and more decisive than waiting for the SACI-Adm process to conclude.

In a recent matter (a .org.br phishing domain targeting a financial services brand, autumn 2024), we coordinated the SACI-Adm complaint alongside a referral to local litigation counsel in Brazil, who obtained a provisional transfer lock within weeks. The combined approach addressed both the immediate security risk and the longer-term registration question.

The decision between routes depends on the urgency, the strength of the competing-rights picture, and whether the complainant needs damages. That is a judgment call made on the specific facts. We regularly advise clients on which path – administrative, judicial, or combined – fits their situation in .br.

How does .br compare to other ccTLD procedures in the region and globally?

Understanding how SACI-Adm compares to other dispute procedures helps brand owners prioritize resources when a dispute spans multiple zones.

For .com domains, the UDRP at WIPO or the Forum provides the clearest path: all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) must be met, the process runs in roughly two months, and the only remedies are transfer or cancellation. A UDRP filing does not resolve the parallel .br registration, but a UDRP transfer order is useful evidence in subsequent SACI-Adm proceedings of the complainant's prior rights and the bad-faith pattern.

For .eu domains, the ADR.eu procedure operated through the Czech Arbitration Court governs, with its own eligibility rules requiring an EU or EEA nexus. For .uk domains, the Nominet DRS applies, with a free mediation stage before any expert decision and a test centered on "abusive registration" that reads "registered or used" – lower than the UDRP's cumulative standard. For .de, there is no UDRP-equivalent; disputes go to the German courts, with DENIC's DISPUTE entry available to block transfer in the interim.

Among Latin American ccTLDs, .br is notable for having its own well-developed administrative procedure through SACI-Adm. Other national zones in the region vary: some use UDRP-adjacent procedures through WIPO as a designated provider, while others rely primarily on local courts. Where a dispute spans .br and another Latin American ccTLD, the procedures run separately and on different evidence standards, requiring parallel filing strategies.

The practical upshot: a brand owner who secures a UDRP transfer for the corresponding .com should not assume the .br dispute resolves itself. SACI-Adm must be separately filed, on its own record. We have handled matters where the .com was recovered cleanly under the UDRP while the .br required a distinct evidentiary showing tailored to SACI-Adm's abusive-registration test.

What is the respondent-side picture in SACI-Adm?

Not every .br dispute involves a clear-cut cybersquatter. We act on both sides of these proceedings, and the respondent's perspective is worth addressing directly.

A registrant who holds a .br domain in good faith – because the name reflects a real business, a descriptive term, or a personal identifier – can and should contest an abusive complaint. The legitimate-interest safe harbors under SACI-Adm parallel those recognized under the UDRP: a registrant who was operating a genuine business under the name before any notice of the dispute, who holds a corresponding Brazilian trademark, or who can demonstrate a bona fide purpose unrelated to the complainant's brand has a strong defensive record.

Reverse domain name hijacking – a finding that the complaint was brought in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant – is recognized within UDRP practice and is a concept that respondents in any administrative forum can raise as a matter of argument, even where the specific RDNH label may not formally apply under SACI-Adm's own rules. Where a complainant with weak or contested rights attempts to use the administrative process to pressure a legitimate registrant into surrendering a domain, the respondent's interests must be actively defended from the moment the complaint is filed.

We build the legitimate-interest record early, document the good-faith registration timeline, and where the complainant's conduct warrants it, frame the response to put the abuse of process argument squarely before the panel. A respondent who defaults – simply ignoring the complaint – loses the ability to shape the outcome. The 20-day UDRP response window is a useful benchmark for the urgency; SACI-Adm has its own deadline, and failing to meet it has the same practical effect.

Related at COGNOMEN

• ccTLD Disputes – full service overview across national procedures and zones
• ccTLD mediation FAQ – understanding procedural options before you file
• Recovering a phishing domain – cross-zone strategy for brand protection

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.