How to run due diligence before buying a .it domain

How to run due diligence before buying a .it domain. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .it. Email the firm to assess your case.

A brand team shortlists a .it domain that matches its Italian market name precisely. The asking price is significant. Before any deposit changes hands, one question matters above all others: is this domain safe to buy, and will it stay safe once you own it? That question is what due diligence for a .it acquisition answers.

To run due diligence before buying a .it domain, a buyer must verify three things: that the current registrant holds clean title with no active or historic dispute, that the domain does not infringe a third-party trademark that could trigger a Reassignment complaint after closing, and that the transaction closes through a structured escrow that prevents the seller from retaining or recovering the name. The Italian Registry (Registro.it) operates a distinct national procedure called Reassignment, which is the primary route for challenging a .it domain outside the Italian courts. Understanding Reassignment risk is the central task of any .it acquisition review.

This page covers what Reassignment is, how a chain-of-title check works, the trademark clearance a buyer needs, how to structure the escrow and transfer mechanics, and what decides whether a post-acquisition challenge succeeds or fails.

What Is the Registro.it Reassignment Procedure and Why Does It Govern Your Risk?

The Reassignment procedure is the primary dispute mechanism for .it domains, operated through Registro.it under the rules published by Italy's national registry. It is not a UDRP. It is not a WIPO procedure. It is a bespoke national arbitration administered by Italian accredited dispute-resolution providers, decided under rules specific to the .it zone. A complainant who proves that a .it registrant registered or used the domain in bad faith, or that the registration violates the complainant's prior rights, can obtain a Reassignment order that transfers the domain away from whoever holds it at the time of the complaint – including a subsequent buyer who acquired the domain in good faith but without adequate diligence.

That last point is the buyer's core risk. Acquiring a .it domain does not immunize the new holder against a Reassignment complaint based on the prior registrant's conduct. Panels applying the .it rules look at the registration history as a whole. A domain with a toxic registration history can expose a new owner to a challenge that the seller's bad faith created. In our practice, we have reviewed .it acquisitions where the target domain carried an unresolved Registro.it dispute flag that the broker had not disclosed – and where closing without a contractual remedy against the seller would have left the buyer holding a name worth far less than the purchase price.

The Reassignment procedure accepts complaints from any party with prior rights in a name or mark – Italian registered trademark holders, EU trademark holders, and in some circumstances holders of unregistered rights recognized under Italian law. The remedy is transfer or cancellation, not damages. That makes the pre-acquisition review the only opportunity to price and manage the risk before it materializes.

If you are assessing a .it domain for purchase and need a structured opinion on Reassignment risk and chain of title, contact us at info@cognomenlaw.com before committing to price or escrow terms.

How Do You Check Chain of Title for a .it Domain?

Chain-of-title review for a .it domain begins with the WHOIS/RDDS record and works backward through every change of registrant the domain has undergone. Registro.it maintains registrant records, but full historical WHOIS data is not always publicly available in the depth needed for a transactional review. A buyer relying solely on the current RDDS record will miss prior disputes, prior bad-faith registrations under a different holder, and lapsed trademark claims that were never formally resolved.

The practical steps in a .it chain-of-title check are as follows.

Step one: current registrant verification. Confirm that the seller is the recorded registrant at Registro.it and that no transfer lock, dispute flag, or administrative hold is active. Registro.it's WHOIS output includes a domain status field; any status indicating a dispute or a pending administrative action is a material finding that must be resolved before closing.

Step two: registration history and prior registrant analysis. Use historical WHOIS archives and domain age records to identify prior registrants and any gap periods in which the domain lapsed and was re-registered. A domain that was previously held by a party with a trademark conflict, then dropped and picked up by the current seller, carries residual risk depending on how long ago the prior registration occurred and whether any complaint was filed or threatened.

Step three: Registro.it dispute database check. The Italian registry publishes information on domains subject to active Reassignment proceedings. Any active proceeding is a deal-stopper or at minimum a material condition that must be addressed in the purchase agreement. Historic proceedings that concluded in favor of the current registrant are relevant context; historic proceedings that were dismissed on procedural grounds without a merits finding require closer scrutiny.

Step four: trademark landscape review. Identify all Italian and EU trademarks that are identical or confusingly similar to the domain string. A live EU trademark registration for the exact string, held by a party other than the seller, creates a clear Reassignment risk for a buyer. The review must cover both registered and, where feasible, unregistered trade names with established Italian market presence, because Reassignment rules in Italy recognize a broader class of prior rights than the UDRP's trademark-only test.

In a recent matter – a .it acquisition review, spring 2025 – we identified two prior Reassignment complaints against the domain's original registrant, both of which had lapsed due to non-payment of the filing fee rather than a decision on the merits. The client restructured the purchase price downward and obtained a seller indemnity covering any future Reassignment order, with the escrow held until the end of the limitation period.

What Trademark Clearance Does a .it Buyer Need Before Closing?

Trademark clearance for a .it acquisition serves two functions: it confirms that the domain itself does not infringe a prior mark that a third party could enforce through Reassignment, and it assesses whether the buyer's intended use of the domain after closing would trigger a fresh claim against the buyer as the new registrant. Both functions matter, because the relevant moment for bad-faith or rights-infringement analysis can be the date of registration by the original registrant or the date the buyer puts the domain to new use.

The clearance review should cover:

• The EUIPO trademark register for EU trademarks matching the domain string (identical and confusingly similar searches).
• The Italian Intellectual Property Office (UIBM) register for Italian national trademarks.
• Well-known marks under Italian law, which can generate Reassignment rights even without formal registration.
• Company name registrations and domain trade-name rights that Italian courts and panels have recognized as conferring standing in disputes.
• Prior court or Reassignment decisions specifically referencing the domain, the string, or close variants.

A clean clearance result does not guarantee that no challenge will arise. It does provide the factual foundation for a post-acquisition defense: the buyer reviewed the landscape, found no live rights conflict, and proceeded on that reasonable basis. Panels and courts consider the buyer's diligence as a factor in assessing good or bad faith. A buyer who skipped clearance and encountered a known mark holder cannot easily claim ignorance.

To structure the trademark clearance and Reassignment risk review for your .it acquisition, email info@cognomenlaw.com. We assess the three risk dimensions – chain of title, trademark landscape, and intended use – before any funds are committed.

How Should the Escrow and Transfer Be Structured for a .it Transaction?

Escrow is not optional for a .it domain acquisition of material value. The standard risk in any domain transaction is that the seller receives payment and then fails to complete the registrar transfer, disputes the transfer instruction, or is subject to a third-party claim that freezes the domain after payment. For .it specifically, a further risk is that a Reassignment order is issued against the seller after payment clears but before the transfer completes, putting the domain in administrative limbo at Registro.it.

A properly structured .it transaction escrow covers these elements:

• Funds held by a neutral escrow agent until Registro.it confirms the registrant of record has changed to the buyer. Release on confirmation of completed transfer, not on initiation of transfer.
• Registrar authorization in advance: the seller provides an authorization code (EPP/auth-info) to the escrow agent or to the buyer's designated registrar before escrow opens, confirming the seller controls the technical transfer mechanism.
• Dispute-flag condition: the purchase agreement should state that if any Registro.it dispute flag appears between signing and transfer completion, the buyer may suspend closing and the escrow agent holds funds until the flag is resolved or the buyer elects to terminate.
• Seller indemnity: a contractual indemnity running from seller to buyer, covering any Reassignment order or court judgment obtained by a third party based on the seller's conduct before the transfer date, for a defined limitation period.
• Registrar-level transfer lock release: Registro.it requires the registrar to release the domain from any transfer lock before a push can complete. Confirm the domain's lock status with the registrar before setting the transfer timeline.

In a recent matter – a .it portfolio acquisition involving multiple domain strings, autumn 2024 – we structured an escrow that released funds in tranches tied to individual domain transfer confirmations at Registro.it, with a holdback against one domain that carried an unresolved Reassignment flag. The holdback was released six weeks later once the flag cleared and the registrant record updated without objection.

What Evidence Would Decide a Post-Acquisition Reassignment Challenge?

If a third party files a Reassignment complaint after a buyer completes a .it acquisition, the complaint succeeds or fails on whether the domain, at the time of the relevant registration, was registered or used in bad faith or in violation of the complainant's prior rights. The buyer's good faith in the acquisition is a factor but not an automatic shield. The question is what conduct preceded the transfer – and what evidence survives to prove or rebut it.

Evidence that matters for the defense of a post-acquisition Reassignment complaint includes:

• Documentation of the buyer's pre-acquisition due diligence: the trademark clearance report, the chain-of-title analysis, the date of each search, and the absence of any live complaint or flag at the time of review.
• The purchase agreement and escrow records showing arm's-length commercial terms, which support good-faith acquisition.
• Evidence that the domain has been put to a bona fide use after transfer – a genuine commercial website, a product or service landing page, or a redirect to a main domain with an obvious legitimate purpose.
• Absence of any pattern: a buyer who acquired a single .it domain for a clear commercial purpose is in a structurally different position from a buyer who acquired a portfolio of .it names matching competitors' brands.
• The seller's indemnity, which while not binding on the panel, documents that the buyer sought protection against the prior registrant's conduct and regarded that conduct as a risk they were not accepting.

A post-acquisition Reassignment complaint based entirely on the prior registrant's conduct, with no allegation that the buyer acted in bad faith or continued a bad-faith use, faces a harder path under the .it rules than one where the complainant can show that the buyer knew of the conflict and bought anyway. Diligence creates that factual separation.

How Does the Reassignment Procedure Compare to an Italian Court Action?

The Reassignment procedure and an Italian court action are not mutually exclusive, but they serve different purposes and carry different cost and timeline profiles. Understanding the comparison is essential for a buyer assessing residual risk and for any party who finds themselves defending a post-acquisition challenge.

The Reassignment procedure is the faster, lower-cost path. It is conducted entirely in writing, before an accredited arbitration provider. The remedy is limited to transfer or cancellation of the domain. No damages are available. No injunction against the registrant's broader conduct is available. The complaint must be brought under the .it Reassignment rules, which center on rights in a name or mark and bad-faith registration or use. A Registro.it dispute panel cannot award legal costs or impose penalties; it can only decide the fate of the domain itself.

An Italian court action, by contrast, is available for the full range of IP and unfair competition claims associated with a domain. A court can award damages, issue injunctions, order disclosure of the registrant's identity, and attach other intellectual property or assets. The cost and timeline of Italian court proceedings are substantially higher than Reassignment, and the proceedings operate in Italian. A buyer or a complainant who seeks a money remedy must go to court; a party who only wants the domain transferred can usually achieve that faster through Reassignment.

The decision matrix in practice: if the only goal is to acquire or to protect the .it domain name itself, Reassignment is the appropriate route. If the infringement extends beyond the domain – the registrant is also using confusingly similar marks on social media, in Italian commerce, or in advertising – a parallel court action, handled with local litigation counsel in Italy, addresses the full scope of the conduct. For a buyer doing pre-acquisition diligence, the key question is whether any third party with a prior rights claim would have a better outcome in court than in Reassignment: if the answer is yes, the acquisition risk is higher, because that party has a stronger financial incentive to file a broader action rather than settle for a Reassignment proceeding alone.

What Else Does a .it Buyer Need to Know About Post-Transfer Eligibility and Registrant Rules?

Registro.it imposes eligibility requirements for .it domain holders that a buyer must satisfy independently of the transaction. Unlike .com, where virtually any entity can hold a domain, .it registration requires that the registrant be a natural person resident in Italy or a legal entity with an Italian presence – or in some cases an EU/EEA nexus, depending on the current Registro.it eligibility rules at the time of transfer.

A buyer who does not meet the eligibility criteria cannot complete the transfer. This is a practical prerequisite that must be confirmed before the escrow is structured, not discovered at the point of transfer. A buyer without Italian or EU eligibility may need to use a local trustee or entity structure to hold the domain, which introduces its own due diligence and contractual requirements. Verify current Registro.it eligibility rules with counsel before signing a purchase agreement, because registry policies in this area can change and the rules as published by Registro.it govern.

There is also a local-presence requirement at the registrar level for some .it-accredited registrars. Not all international registrars are accredited to manage .it transfers directly. Confirm with the proposed registrar that it holds active .it accreditation and that the technical transfer process under Registro.it's EPP protocol is supported, before the escrow is opened and before any authorization codes are exchanged.

We regularly advise buyers – including investment-stage acquirers adding .it to a gTLD portfolio – on whether their existing entity structure satisfies Registro.it eligibility or whether a holding arrangement needs to be established before closing. That question takes time to answer properly and should not be left to the week of the scheduled transfer.

How Does .it Due Diligence Differ From a .com or .eu Acquisition Review?

The .it review is more demanding in several respects than a standard .com or .eu acquisition, and a buyer who applies a .com due-diligence template to a .it purchase will miss the key risks.

For a .com domain, the primary dispute risk after acquisition is a UDRP complaint, which is governed by uniform ICANN rules applied consistently across providers. The UDRP bad-faith test is cumulative: registered and used in bad faith. A domain acquired in good faith from a prior registrant, where the prior registration itself was not bad-faith, generally survives a UDRP challenge. The legal analysis is well-documented across thousands of WIPO decisions.

For a .eu domain, the ADR.eu procedure applies, administered through the Czech Arbitration Court. The .eu dispute rules have their own eligibility criteria and a remedy structure that can include revocation rather than transfer in some cases. The trademark and rights recognition rules differ from the UDRP. A .eu acquisition review requires familiarity with the EURid eligibility requirements and the ADR.eu procedural rules rather than the UDRP.

For .it, the Reassignment procedure is sui generis. The rules are published in Italian and administered by Italian-accredited providers. The standard for what constitutes "prior rights" is broader than the UDRP's trademark test. The eligibility rules for registrants are more restrictive than .com. And the historical depth of the review needs to be greater, because the Reassignment rules allow complaints based on conduct that predates the current registrant's acquisition in circumstances that the UDRP would not reach as easily.

A buyer managing a gTLD portfolio who is adding a ccTLD such as .it should treat it as a distinct risk profile requiring a separate, jurisdiction-specific review – not a faster version of the .com check. The variables are different. The forum is different. The governing law is different. And the consequences of an incorrect assumption – a Reassignment order transferring the domain away from a buyer who paid a significant price – are the same under any zone.

Related at COGNOMEN

• Domain transactions, acquisition due diligence, and portfolio brand protection services
• Due diligence for .biz domain acquisitions: chain of title and dispute risk
• New gTLD launch protection strategies for brand owners and domain investors