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

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

A stranger registers your brand as a .it domain, points it at a competing service, and waits. You want it back. The question is whether the Italian national procedure – known as Reassignment – is the right path, and what the evidence must show to win it.

To resolve a .it domain dispute under the national procedure, a complainant submits a Reassignment request to the Registro.it, Italy's national registry, showing that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a name or mark in which the complainant has rights, and that the current registrant holds it without a legitimate basis. The procedure runs entirely in Italian, is administered by the registry directly, and leads to one of three remedies: reassignment to the complainant, revocation, or rejection of the request. It is structurally distinct from the UDRP and does not follow the three-element UDRP test.

This page sets out the governing rules, the eligibility requirements, the evidence that decides outcomes, costs, and how .it compares to gTLD routes – so you can decide whether to file today.

What governs .it domains – and why it is not the UDRP

The .it ccTLD is administered by the Istituto di Informatica e Telematica (IIT) of the Italian National Research Council, operating as Registro.it. Italy has not appointed WIPO or any other external UDRP provider for .it. Instead, the registry administers its own Dispute Resolution Procedure, commonly called the Reassignment procedure, under its published Registration Policy and related rules. Those rules are governed by Italian law and EU regulations applicable to domain registrations, not by ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.

That distinction matters immediately for complainants accustomed to WIPO or the Forum. The UDRP requires that a domain was registered and is used in bad faith – a cumulative test. The .it procedure asks whether the registration itself is abusive or the registrant lacks a legitimate basis, evaluated against Italian law on unfair competition, trademark rights, and personal name protections. A domain that a panel might deny under the strict UDRP cumulative test can still be reassigned under the Italian procedure if the registration is found to be contrary to the complainant's rights under national law.

We advise brand owners and registrants on .it disputes regularly. The procedural difference between Registro.it and the UDRP fora is one of the first things we explain, because misunderstanding it leads to the wrong filing, the wrong evidence bundle, and a lost opportunity.

Who can use the .it Reassignment procedure, and for which domains?

Any person or entity with a legitimate interest in the domain name – a trademark owner, a company holding a trade name right, a public body, or even an individual with a recognized personal name right under Italian law – may submit a Reassignment request against a .it domain registration. The complainant does not need to be Italian or EU-resident, though having an Italian or EU trademark registration provides the clearest rights basis in practice.

The registrant against whom a complaint is filed must hold a .it domain. That is the only geographic scope: the procedure does not reach .com, .eu, or any other zone. If the same bad-faith registrant holds both a .it and a .com, two separate actions are required – the Reassignment procedure for .it and either a UDRP complaint or, for .eu, the ADR.eu procedure administered by the Czech Arbitration Court.

One practical point: .it registration policy requires registrants to hold an Italian fiscal code or VAT number, or to have a recognized EU/EEA presence. Registro.it's eligibility rules have evolved, and current policy should be verified at the time of filing. Where a registrant obtained a .it through a proxy or reseller, tracing the real holder can be a preliminary step in building the complaint.

For an assessment of your .it domain dispute, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the Reassignment procedure work, step by step?

The .it Reassignment procedure is a documentary process administered by Registro.it with no in-person hearing. The complainant submits a written request – in Italian – along with supporting evidence. The registry reviews the request for formal completeness, notifies the current registrant, and invites a response. A panel of independent evaluators, maintained by the registry, then reviews the submissions and issues a decision.

The process has five operational stages:

1. Submission: The complainant files the Reassignment request form with the registry, setting out the rights basis, the confusing similarity, and the grounds for finding the registration abusive. The form and all attachments must be in Italian.
2. Registry review: Registro.it checks the request for formal compliance. Deficiencies can be corrected within a short window; a materially deficient request is rejected without reaching the merits.
3. Notification: The registrant is notified and given the opportunity to respond. Failure to respond does not guarantee the complainant succeeds, but a default significantly narrows the panel's factual inquiry.
4. Expert evaluation: The registry's evaluators apply the national rules, consider the submissions, and issue a reasoned decision. The panel may order reassignment, revocation, or rejection.
5. Implementation: If the decision orders reassignment, Registro.it transfers the domain to the complainant. If revocation is ordered, the domain is deleted and becomes available for re-registration – a risk for complainants who need the name rather than its removal.

Timelines under the Registro.it procedure are not as tightly codified as the UDRP's 20-day response window and roughly two-month overall timeline. In practice, straightforward cases are typically decided within a few months of filing, though contested matters with full exchanges can take longer. Complainants should verify current timelines with Registro.it's published rules at the time of filing.

What evidence decides a .it Reassignment case?

Evidence of rights and of the registrant's lack of a legitimate basis is the core of any Reassignment request. The evaluators look at the same broad categories of proof that matter across domain dispute procedures, but apply them through the lens of Italian and EU law rather than the UDRP consensus view.

The evidence bundle should demonstrate:

• Rights in the name: Italian or EU trademark registrations are the cleanest rights basis. Unregistered marks, company trade names, and personal names may also qualify, but they require stronger supporting proof – commercial use history, advertising spend, press coverage, or official records showing the name is identified with the complainant.
• Confusing similarity: The domain must be identical to, or likely to be confused with, the complainant's name or mark. Minor variations – a hyphen, a generic suffix, a deliberate misspelling – do not necessarily defeat the similarity finding if the overall impression is one of confusion.
• Absence of legitimate basis on the registrant's side: Evidence that the registrant has no trademark, trade name, or other legal right to the string; no prior use of the name; and no plausible reason to hold it other than to trade on the complainant's reputation. Bad-faith indicators under Italian law include registration for resale at an inflated price, registration to disrupt the complainant's operations, and passive holding of a domain that serves no function except to block the rights holder.
• Bad-faith indicators: Pay-per-click advertising on the domain using the complainant's brand, redirects to a competitor, demand letters seeking payment for transfer, and a history of similar registrations by the same registrant all strengthen the case considerably.

One distinction from UDRP practice is worth stating plainly. Under the UDRP, a complainant who cannot show that the domain was registered in bad faith at the moment of registration often fails, even if subsequent use is clearly abusive. Italian law and the Registro.it procedure place greater weight on the overall abusive character of the registration, which gives the evaluators some flexibility where the facts show an opportunistic registration even without a contemporaneous bad-faith communication.

In a recent matter (a .it trademark dispute, spring 2025), we assembled a rights evidence package combining Italian trademark registration certificates, consumer survey excerpts showing brand recognition, and WHOIS history demonstrating the domain was registered the same week the complainant launched a national advertising campaign. The evaluators ordered reassignment. A well-documented factual record, not the legal argument alone, decides these cases.

How does the .it procedure compare to the UDRP and other routes?

The choice between the Registro.it Reassignment procedure and other routes depends on the zone, the remedy you need, and whether court action is worth its additional cost and time.

For a .it domain: the Reassignment procedure is the designated path. There is no UDRP option for .it. A complainant who needs a .it recovered must use the national procedure, period. The UDRP is simply not available.

For a .com registration by the same bad-faith registrant: the UDRP at WIPO is the standard route. WIPO's single-member panel filing fee is USD 1,500 for up to five domains, and a standard case resolves in about two months. The UDRP requires the cumulative "registered and used in bad faith" showing, which is stricter than the .it national standard in several respects. Running both procedures simultaneously – .it Reassignment and a WIPO UDRP complaint – is legally possible and sometimes necessary where a registrant has replicated the abusive registration across zones.

For a .eu domain: the ADR.eu procedure, administered by the Czech Arbitration Court, applies. A .eu complainant must satisfy EU eligibility and may rely on a wider range of rights than registered trademarks alone. The remedy can be transfer or revocation.

For any zone where arbitration cannot reach – or where the complainant also wants damages: court action is the only path. In Italy, this means proceedings before the competent Italian court (Tribunale), handled with local litigation counsel in Italy. Italian courts can grant injunctions, award damages, and order domain transfer. The timeline and cost are substantially greater than the administrative Reassignment procedure, but for high-value disputes or registrants who resist implementation, the judicial route provides enforcement mechanisms that the registry procedure does not.

What should drive the choice? If the domain is .it, start with Reassignment. If the registrant also holds .com or .eu versions, plan parallel filings. If the registrant is a serial abuser across many zones, a coordinated multi-forum strategy – with UDRP covering gTLDs and national procedures covering the relevant ccTLDs – is usually the most efficient path to a clean result.

To weigh UDRP against the .it national procedure for your case, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

What does it cost to resolve a .it domain dispute under the national procedure?

The Registro.it publishes its own official procedure fees, which should be verified directly with the registry at the time of filing, as they are subject to change. Unlike the UDRP, where WIPO's USD 1,500 single-member panel fee is a well-known reference point, the .it Reassignment procedure's official fee is a national registry charge that does not map to the UDRP fee schedule. In our experience, the administrative cost of the national procedure is modest relative to UDRP; the legal preparation cost is the larger variable.

Legal preparation for a .it Reassignment typically covers drafting the request in Italian, translating and certifying the evidence bundle, trademark and WHOIS research, and substantive legal argument under Italian law. Market rates for this work vary by complexity, but the preparation investment is comparable to a straightforward UDRP complaint. For multi-zone matters where a .it filing runs alongside a UDRP, the incremental cost of the .it filing relative to the UDRP preparation is lower, because much of the rights evidence overlaps.

A separate cost consideration applies if the registrant contests the Reassignment and the dispute escalates to Italian court proceedings. Judicial costs are in a different category – substantially higher, hourly in structure, and require local litigation counsel in Italy. For most brand-protection disputes where the goal is recovery of the domain name rather than damages, the Reassignment procedure is the proportionate and cost-efficient route.

Common defenses and how registrants respond

What does a registrant typically argue in a .it Reassignment defense? And how does that change the complainant's strategy?

The most common respondent positions are: (1) the registrant claims its own trademark or trade-name right that predates the complainant's; (2) the registrant asserts a legitimate commercial use unrelated to the complainant; (3) the registrant argues the complainant's mark is insufficiently distinctive or widely known in Italy to command protection over the string; and (4) the registrant claims the registration was made in good faith and that any similarity is coincidental.

Each of these defenses is handled differently. A priority rights argument – "I registered the .it first" – is addressed with the complainant's trademark priority evidence: certificate dates, first use in commerce evidence, and any correspondence showing the registrant was aware of the complainant before registering. A legitimate-use defense – "I operate a genuine business using this name" – is rebutted with evidence that no such business exists, that the domain is parked or misdirected, or that the registrant's claimed use postdates the complaint itself. Distinctiveness challenges are answered with consumer recognition evidence and market presence documentation.

In a recent matter (a .it company-name dispute, autumn 2024), the registrant filed a detailed response claiming it had operated a business under a similar name for several years. We countered with Italian business registry records showing the registrant's stated entity was dormant, and with domain WHOIS records showing the .it was registered the same month our client's Italian subsidiary launched publicly. The evaluators sided with our client. Registrant defenses rarely survive a well-evidenced timeline.

One point specific to the respondent-side perspective: where a legitimate domain holder receives a Reassignment complaint that lacks a genuine rights basis – a large company attempting to claim a generic term or a common surname – the Registro.it procedure does recognize that a bad-faith complaint can be found and noted. We act for respondents as well as complainants on .it matters and across all ccTLD zones.

The myth that a .it dispute requires an Italian lawyer to file

A persistent misconception is that resolving a .it domain dispute under the national procedure requires Italian-qualified legal counsel filing on behalf of the complainant. That is not the case as a formal procedural requirement: Registro.it's Reassignment rules do not mandate representation by an Italian attorney. However, the submission must be in Italian, the evidence must be presented under Italian and EU legal concepts, and the substantive analysis applies Italian trademark and unfair competition law.

In practice, effective preparation requires either Italian legal fluency or collaboration with Italian-qualified counsel for the translation and legal framing of the filing. COGNOMEN manages this coordination as part of our ccTLD dispute service: we handle the strategy, the rights analysis, and the evidence assembly, and we work with qualified practitioners in Italy for the language-specific requirements. This approach gives clients a single point of contact for multi-zone matters – someone who understands both the UDRP and the .it procedure – rather than two separate firms working from different angles.

The same principle applies on the respondent side. A .it registrant receiving a Reassignment complaint in Italian needs substantive help, not just a translation. We respond to Reassignment complaints on behalf of registrants who have a legitimate interest in the name and need to document it effectively.

Related at COGNOMEN

• ccTLD Disputes – national procedures for .uk, .eu, .de, and other country-code zones
• Guide to ccTLD transfer remedies – when transfer, revocation, or suspension applies
• Analysis: recovering a domain used for phishing – evidence and forum strategy