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

How to resolve a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .eu. Email the firm to assess your case.

A brand owner finds its registered trademark sitting inside a .eu domain it has never controlled – pointed at a competitor's site, a parking page, or simply held as leverage. The immediate question is not whether there is a remedy. There is. The question is which path is fastest, what the governing procedure demands, and whether the evidence already in hand is enough to file.

To resolve a .eu domain dispute under the national procedure, a complainant files before the Czech Arbitration Court's ADR.eu platform – the designated dispute-resolution provider for .eu registrations administered by EURid. The procedure is distinct from the UDRP: it operates under its own rules, allows a broader set of "rights" than registered trademarks alone, and the remedy can include transfer or revocation depending on whether the complainant meets EU/EEA eligibility. A defended case typically concludes in a matter of weeks, not months.

This page covers the governing test, the eligibility requirements, how the procedure differs from the UDRP and from national court action, the evidence that decides outcomes, cost structure, and the practical next step.

What governs .eu domain disputes – and why ADR.eu is not the UDRP

The .eu dispute procedure is a self-contained administrative mechanism administered through the Czech Arbitration Court's ADR.eu platform at the direction of EURid, the .eu registry. It is not the UDRP. It shares the same general architecture – a written complaint, a response period, a panelist decision, and a binding registry instruction – but the substantive test, the rights that qualify, and the available remedies differ in ways that matter for case strategy.

Under the UDRP, only trademark rights trigger standing. The .eu procedure accepts a wider set: registered trademarks, unregistered (common-law) marks, trade names, business identifiers, personal names, and in some cases other intellectual-property interests recognized under EU or member-state law. That breadth is an advantage for complainants who hold a strong reputation without a registered mark. It also means respondents face a different defensive posture than in a standard UDRP proceeding.

The other critical difference is eligibility for the transfer remedy. EURid's rules require that a .eu domain be held by an entity or individual with a connection to the EU or EEA: a registered business presence in an EU/EEA member state, a natural person resident there, or an organization established under EU or national law. If a complainant lacks that nexus, the available remedy is revocation of the domain rather than transfer to the complainant. Assessing eligibility before filing is therefore not a formality – it determines which outcome is actually achievable.

In our practice, the eligibility question is the first thing we resolve. Filing for transfer when revocation is the correct remedy, or mischaracterizing the rights basis, are the two most common structural errors we see in .eu complaint drafts that arrive for review.

Who can file a complaint and what rights qualify?

Any holder of a prior right recognized under EU or member-state law may file a .eu complaint against a registrant whose domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that right and whose registration is abusive. The "prior right" is defined broadly: it includes rights established before the .eu registration date of the disputed domain – not merely before the complaint is filed.

Qualifying rights include: a registered trademark in any EU/EEA member state (or an EU-wide registration); a national or EU-wide geographical indication or appellation of origin; a company name, trade name, or business identifier protected under national law; a personal name (in jurisdictions where personal names carry legal protection); and rights protected under EU regulations covering specific categories of designations. The complainant does not need to be located in the EU, but – as noted – EU/EEA eligibility governs whether transfer or only revocation is available as a remedy.

What the procedure does NOT accept as a qualifying right: a generic term used descriptively, a domain name held in another zone (without underlying IP rights), or an aspirational brand without demonstrable use or protection. Panels have consistently held that a mere desire to own a .eu domain, without an established prior right, cannot anchor a complaint.

For an assessment of whether your rights qualify under the .eu procedure and which remedy is available to you, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

What is the legal test for an "abusive registration" under the .eu rules?

The .eu procedure requires the complainant to prove two elements: (1) that the complainant holds a prior right; and (2) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that right AND the registration is abusive. Abusiveness is the operative concept – analogous to, but not identical to, the UDRP's "registered and used in bad faith" standard.

A registration is abusive if it was registered primarily for the purpose of selling it to the rights holder or a competitor at a profit; if it was registered to prevent the rights holder from reflecting a right in a domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; if it was registered primarily to disrupt the professional activities of a competitor; or if it is being used deliberately to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion with a name in which the complainant has rights. This list is not exhaustive – panels retain discretion to find abusiveness on other grounds consistent with the purpose of the procedure.

Note a key structural point: the .eu abusiveness test examines the purpose and effect of the registration as a whole. Unlike the UDRP, it does not require the complainant to separately establish that the registrant has "no rights or legitimate interests" as an independent second element. The absence of a legitimate interest is a factor in assessing abusiveness, but the test is unified, not tripartite. That makes the complaint structure different – and failure to account for that difference is a recurring issue in complaints drafted by practitioners unfamiliar with the EU procedure.

In a recent matter (a .eu domain registered in the name of a dormant shell entity, spring 2025), we built the abusiveness case around a pattern of prior similar registrations by the same beneficial controller, combined with the absence of any active use consistent with a bona fide business purpose. The panel's decision applied the abusiveness standard without requiring us to construct a standalone "no legitimate interests" argument.

How does the .eu procedure compare to a UDRP complaint or court action?

The right route depends on the zone, the goal, and the evidence available. Three routes are in play for a .eu dispute, and they are not interchangeable.

If the domain is a .eu and the goal is to recover or eliminate it through a rapid administrative decision, the ADR.eu procedure is the primary vehicle. It is faster than litigation, less expensive, and produces a binding registry instruction. A defended case typically runs several weeks from filing to a panel decision, though the precise timeline varies with case complexity and the ADR.eu caseload at the time of filing. The procedure does not produce damages or an injunction.

If the same brand is infringed across a .eu and a .com simultaneously, the complainant faces two separate proceedings under two separate rulebooks. A UDRP complaint at WIPO covers the .com – with a USD 1,500 filing fee for a single-member panel on one to five domains – and the ADR.eu procedure covers the .eu. The two can run in parallel; they are procedurally independent. In our practice, coordinating the timing of parallel filings to prevent a respondent from using one proceeding's record against the other is an underappreciated tactical consideration.

If the available remedy under ADR.eu is only revocation (because the complainant lacks an EU/EEA nexus) but the complainant wants the domain transferred to itself, court action in the relevant EU member state may be necessary. Court proceedings allow for damages, injunctive relief, and a broader set of orders, but they are substantially more expensive and slower than administrative proceedings. COGNOMEN coordinates with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction for EU court work.

If the infringement involves a .de domain, no administrative procedure applies – that route goes to the German courts, with a DENIC DISPUTE entry available to block any transfer during the litigation. If the domain is a .uk, the Nominet DRS procedure applies, with its own eligibility rules and a free mediation stage before any expert decision. Each zone has a distinct procedure, and the choice of forum is determined by the zone, not by the complainant's preference.

To weigh the ADR.eu procedure against UDRP or court action for your .eu dispute, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

What evidence decides the outcome of a .eu complaint?

Evidence in a .eu complaint does most of the work. A panel reads the written record only – there is no hearing, no cross-examination, and no opportunity to supplement the file after the pleadings close except in limited circumstances. What is filed with the complaint (or with the response) is what decides the case.

For the rights element, the complainant must submit documentary proof of the prior right: a trademark registration certificate, a printout from the relevant IP office registry, evidence of commercial use predating the .eu registration, corporate registration documents showing a protected trade name, or equivalent. An unregistered right requires more: evidence of use, market recognition, and the date from which the right was established. A declaration without supporting documentation is rarely sufficient.

For the abusiveness element, the most useful categories of evidence are: WHOIS/RDDS records showing registration dates and the registrant's identity or affiliation; web archive captures showing how the domain was used over time; communications in which the registrant offered to sell the domain to the rights holder or demanded payment; a pattern of similar registrations across other zones or under similar names; and the absence of any credible business use consistent with the registrant's claimed interest. Passive holding – a domain that resolves to nothing and has no evident use – can support an abusiveness finding, particularly where the domain is identical or nearly identical to a well-known mark and there is no plausible legitimate use.

Respondents who contest a complaint successfully typically do so by demonstrating one or more of the following: that the complainant's asserted right predates the registration date is incorrect; that the registration reflects a legitimate business activity, a personal name, or a generic term used descriptively; or that the complainant filed opportunistically – particularly where the domain predates the complainant's rights or the complainant registered only a mark after the domain was already in place. That last scenario, where the chronology is reversed, is the single most common ground for a panel to reject a complaint.

In a recent matter (a .eu domain registered by a reseller operating in the same sector, autumn 2024), we successfully defended a registrant by producing web archive records showing bona fide commercial use from before the complainant's trademark application date. The panel declined to find abusiveness and rejected the transfer request. That outcome illustrates that the procedure is genuinely bilateral – not a complainant-only remedy.

How much does a .eu dispute proceeding cost?

The cost of a .eu dispute has two components: the official ADR.eu filing fee and the legal fee for drafting the complaint or response.

The official ADR.eu procedure is administered through the Czech Arbitration Court. CAC's published entry-level fees for the .eu dispute procedure are among the lowest of the major dispute forums, beginning at a modest official rate for a single panelist. The fee structure scales with the number of domains and the panel composition. For current and precise ADR.eu fee schedules, consult the CAC's published schedule directly, as the figures are subject to periodic revision.

Legal fees for a .eu complaint or response depend on the complexity of the rights analysis, the volume of evidence to be assembled, and whether parallel proceedings (a companion UDRP or national litigation) require coordination. Market rates for a single-domain administrative complaint in this procedure run broadly in the same range as a UDRP complaint: typically in the several-thousand-dollar range for a straightforward case, with higher fees for multi-domain, multi-zone, or disputed-chronology matters. COGNOMEN provides fee estimates before any engagement, in writing, with no hidden scale-up for standard scope.

Compared to EU court litigation, the ADR.eu administrative route is dramatically less expensive. Court proceedings in most EU member states involve local counsel fees, court filing fees, translation costs where applicable, and a timeline measured in months or years rather than weeks. For many disputes, the administrative procedure is the correct first step precisely because it produces a binding result at a fraction of the cost of litigation – provided the evidence supports the complaint.

What should a respondent do when served with a .eu complaint?

A registrant who receives notice of a .eu complaint has a defined window to file a response. Failing to respond does not guarantee a panel will rule for the complainant, but default removes the most effective tool a registrant has: the ability to put a factual and legal record in front of the panelist. Panels deciding uncontested complaints still assess the evidence on the record, but they do so without the registrant's perspective – a structural disadvantage that consistently correlates with complainant success in default proceedings.

The threshold question for any respondent is whether the registration was made in good faith and whether there is a credible, documentable legitimate interest. Where the answer is yes – the registrant holds a personal name, operates a genuine business under the disputed term, registered the domain before the complainant's right arose, or acquired the domain for a purpose unrelated to the complainant's mark – the defense record should make that case precisely and with documentary support. Where the answer is more equivocal, an early assessment of the complaint's merits may reveal grounds for a negotiated resolution before the panel decides.

The .eu procedure also recognizes conduct analogous to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – a complaint filed in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant of a domain name the complainant covets but has no valid claim to recover. Where a complaint is demonstrably abusive, a respondent's submission may put that characterization before the panel. The finding carries no monetary sanction under the administrative procedure, but it is a matter of record and can affect the complainant's credibility in any subsequent proceeding in the same zone.

We regularly advise registrants who receive .eu complaints – including registrants who hold domains for entirely legitimate purposes and face complaints that mischaracterize the chronology or overstate the complainant's rights. COGNOMEN acts on the respondent side as a matter of standard practice, not as an exception.

Related at COGNOMEN

• ccTLD Disputes – full service overview across national zones and procedures
• ccTLD transfer remedy for .tv – how the transfer procedure works in practice
• Respondent defense and RDNH – protecting a legitimate .org registration from abuse