How to prove bad faith registration of a .tech domain

A stranger registers your brand as a .tech domain. They point it at a pay-per-click parking page, list it for sale at a price no legitimate buyer would pay, or simply hold it dark while you watch your technology product launch approach. You want the name. The question is how to prove bad faith registration of a .tech domain under the UDRP — and whether your evidence is strong enough to win.

The .tech top-level domain is subject to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. To recover it, a complainant must satisfy all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity to a trademark, the registrant's absence of rights or legitimate interests, and registration and use in bad faith. A standard case at WIPO runs approximately two months, with a filing fee of USD 1,500 for a single-member panel. The only remedies available are transfer or cancellation — no damages, no injunction.

This page sets out the three-element test, the evidence that decides .tech cases, the forum and cost mechanics, and the realistic next step for a brand owner ready to act.

Why .tech domains fall under the UDRP

.tech is a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD) operated under an ICANN-accredited registry, and every ICANN-accredited registrar is contractually bound to apply the UDRP to domains registered within it. That means the same rules that apply to a disputed .com apply to a disputed .tech. The forum choice — WIPO, the Forum, the Czech Arbitration Court, or ADNDRC — is yours as complainant, and the test is identical across all four.

In our practice we regularly advise brand owners who assume a new gTLD falls outside the UDRP or requires a different procedure. It does not. The three elements, the 20-day response window, and the transfer-or-cancellation remedy structure are fixed by the Policy and its Rules, not by the registry operator. The .tech zone has no special carve-out, no local dispute layer, and no grace period that a registrant can exploit to defeat jurisdiction.

Where .tech disputes do present a distinctive pattern is in the industry context. The suffix signals a technology orientation, which means bad-faith registrants in this zone frequently target software brands, SaaS products, cybersecurity companies, and hardware manufacturers — often registering the domain in close proximity to a product announcement. That context feeds directly into the bad-faith analysis under Paragraph 4(a)(iii).

What are the three UDRP elements a complainant must prove?

To win a UDRP proceeding and recover a .tech domain, you must prove all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) on the balance of probabilities. Miss one, and the complaint fails regardless of how strong the other two limbs are.

Element one — confusing similarity to a trademark you hold. The panel compares the domain's second-level label against the mark. For a .tech domain, the suffix itself is typically disregarded as a generic indicator. If the label is identical to your registered mark, this element is almost always satisfied. Where the registrant has added a generic word — "buy," "pro," "store" — panels assess whether the addition is sufficient to remove confusion, which it rarely is when your brand is the dominant element.

Element two — no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The complainant sets out a prima facie case that the registrant has none of the safe-harbor interests listed in Paragraph 4(c): no bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute, no common-name association, no legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The burden then shifts to the registrant to rebut. Default by the registrant — which occurs more often in .tech cases than seasoned practitioners sometimes expect — tends to satisfy this element in the complainant's favor, though the panel retains discretion.

Element three — registered and used in bad faith. This is the analytical center of most .tech disputes, and the element where evidence quality matters most. Paragraph 4(b) provides four non-exhaustive circumstances that evidence bad faith: registration primarily to sell to the mark owner at an inflated price; a pattern of abusive registrations; use to disrupt a competitor; and use to attract users for commercial gain by confusion. Each is available in the right fact pattern. The word "and" is cumulative — the conduct must be bad faith at both registration and in use, though panels have consistently recognized that passive holding of a domain can itself constitute use in bad faith where no plausible good-faith explanation exists.

For an assessment of whether the three UDRP elements are met for your .tech domain, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

What evidence proves bad faith registration of a .tech domain?

Evidence quality is the variable that separates successful .tech complaints from those that fail on the third element. The panel sees only what the parties submit; there is no discovery, no cross-examination, and no hearing.

The following categories of evidence carry the most weight in our experience:

• Registration timing relative to your mark. If the domain was registered after your trademark application or grant, or shortly before or after your product announcement, that sequence is a strong indicator. A registrant who claims ignorance of your brand is far less credible when registration occurred the day after a press release.
• Parking pages and pay-per-click monetization. A .tech domain pointed at a PPC page serving links in your industry, or displaying your competitors' ads, is among the clearest forms of bad-faith use under Paragraph 4(b)(iv). Screenshots taken promptly — and preserved with dated metadata or a certified web-archive capture — are the primary evidence.
• Offer to sell at a premium. An unsolicited email offering the domain for a price far exceeding registration cost, a Sedo or similar listing with an inflated asking price, or a broker inquiry tied to the registrant, all support the Paragraph 4(b)(i) ground. Preserve every communication in its original format.
• Pattern of abusive registrations. If the same registrant holds other domains incorporating third-party brands, that pattern is independently listed in Paragraph 4(b)(ii). RDDS/WHOIS data showing co-registered names under the same registrant handle, or multiple domains acquired through the same registrar account, is relevant here.
• Absence of any content or legitimate use over time. Passive holding does not immunize a registrant. Panels have consistently held that where there is no plausible use consistent with good faith, where the registrant chose a mark-incorporating label, and where no response explains the registration, passive holding supports a bad-faith finding.
• Identity concealment through privacy or proxy. RDDS privacy alone is not bad faith. But registration through a privacy service combined with an absence of any response or explanation — particularly in the .tech zone where the registrant could readily show a technical project or product — reinforces the overall picture.

In a recent matter (a .tech domain incorporating a software company's product name, spring 2025), we assembled a registration-timing sequence, a Sedo premium listing, and a PPC screenshot cache that collectively satisfied the panel on all three elements. The domain transferred approximately eight weeks after filing. The registrant did not respond.

A contrasting pattern is worth noting. In another .tech proceeding (autumn 2024), the complainant filed without a registered trademark — relying only on unregistered common-law rights — and the registrant submitted credible evidence of prior development of a technology product under the same name. The complaint failed on element one and element three. The outcome underlines a point we press at the assessment stage: the strength of your trademark rights shapes everything downstream.

How does the UDRP process work for a .tech domain at WIPO?

A standard UDRP complaint at WIPO runs through five stages and concludes, absent procedural complications, in approximately two months from filing.

1. Complaint preparation and filing. The complainant drafts the complaint, assembles the annexes, pays the filing fee — USD 1,500 for a single-member panel on one to five domains — and submits to WIPO's online portal. WIPO conducts a formal compliance review.
2. Commencement and the 20-day response window. Once WIPO notifies the registrant, the registrant has 20 days to file a response. Extensions require mutual consent or demonstrated hardship; they are not routine. A registrant who misses the window defaults, and the panel proceeds on the complaint alone.
3. Panel appointment. WIPO appoints a single panelist from its roster (or a three-member panel if requested). The complainant pays for the single-member option unless the respondent requests three members, in which case the parties generally split the higher fee of USD 4,000.
4. Decision. The panel issues its decision. WIPO publishes decisions publicly, which creates a searchable precedent record.
5. Registrar implementation. Following a transfer order, there is a short implementation window. The registrant may seek a court stay within that period to block implementation — rare, but available under the Policy.

WIPO also offers an expedited option that delivers a decision in approximately one month for eligible single-panel cases of up to five domains. For a brand owner facing a time-sensitive product launch, that route is worth evaluating.

The Forum is a well-established alternative with a similar timeline and a filing fee starting around USD 1,300 for one to two domains. The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) has the lowest entry fee — typically in the USD 500–800 range — though it attracts a smaller caseload. The choice of forum does not alter the legal test; it affects filing mechanics, panelist roster, and published-decision accessibility. We regularly advise on forum selection as part of pre-filing strategy.

If you have already filed a complaint that produced an adverse outcome, or if you received a complaint on a .tech domain you hold legitimately, email info@cognomenlaw.com for a focused second read on what element was missed or what defense is available.

What decides the outcome: winning and losing patterns in .tech

Panels approach .tech complaints through the same doctrinal lens applied to any gTLD — but the suffix's industry signal produces recurring fact patterns that determine wins and losses.

Complaints that succeed share a consistent profile. The complainant holds a registered trademark predating the registration. The domain is identical or nearly identical to the mark. The registrant has no web presence, no product, and no explanation. Evidence of a PPC page, a resale listing, or a demand letter corroborates the bad-faith inference. The complainant files promptly after discovering the registration — which preserves the evidentiary freshness of the parking screenshots and reduces the registrant's ability to construct a post-hoc narrative of legitimate use.

Complaints that fail often share a different profile. The complainant relies on trademark rights that either postdate the domain registration or are established only in a jurisdiction remote from the registrant's apparent location. The registrant files a credible response documenting a genuine technology project — a GitHub repository, a product development timeline, domain-consistent correspondence — that maps to the suffix's ordinary meaning. Or the complainant uses the UDRP as a pricing lever rather than a dispute mechanism, and the panel detects it, declining to find bad faith and instead noting that a genuine trademark dispute is not the same thing as cybersquatting.

The rarest but most consequential outcome is a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). An RDNH finding means the panel concluded the complaint was brought in bad faith — typically because the complainant knew or should have known the three elements could not be established. RDNH carries no monetary penalty, but it is a public record. We defend respondents in RDNH scenarios as part of our practice, and we counsel complainants before filing to make sure the record does not support that inference.

How does the .tech zone compare to .com and ccTLD routes?

The right forum and procedure depend on where the infringing registration sits and what remedy you need.

A .tech domain is a new gTLD and is governed by the UDRP, exactly as a .com would be. The test, the procedure, and the remedies are identical. If the same registrant holds both a .com and a .tech version of your brand, a single UDRP complaint may cover both — provided the registrant of record is the same. A multi-domain complaint eliminates parallel proceedings and usually reduces total cost.

If the infringing registration is a national ccTLD — say .de or .uk or .eu — the UDRP does not apply. A .de registration has no UDRP coverage; that dispute requires German court proceedings, potentially with a DENIC DISPUTE entry to block transfer while the claim proceeds. A .uk registration is handled through Nominet's DRS, which includes a mandatory mediation stage and applies a distinct "abusive registration" test reading "registered or used" abusively — a lower cumulative bar than the UDRP's conjunctive standard. A .eu registration falls under the EURid ADR procedure, administered through the Czech Arbitration Court's ADR.eu platform, with its own eligibility requirements for EU/EEA complainants.

If the registrant is located in the United States and the conduct is sufficiently egregious, a US anticybersquatting action in court is an alternative or supplement to the UDRP — and the only route that reaches monetary damages. That path is substantially more expensive and time-intensive, and we coordinate it with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction when the facts support it.

For most .tech cases where the complainant holds a registered trademark and the conduct is straightforwardly abusive, the UDRP at WIPO is the fastest and most cost-effective route. Where the registrant appears well-funded, litigious, or strategically positioned — or where a second zone compounds the problem — we map the full multi-route picture before filing.

What does it cost to recover a .tech domain through the UDRP?

Cost is the first practical question most brand owners ask. The answer has two components: the forum filing fee and the legal fee, which are separate and independently variable.

The forum filing fee at WIPO for a single-member panel on one to five domains is USD 1,500. A three-member panel at WIPO costs USD 4,000, with the parties generally splitting the difference if the respondent requests three members. The Forum's entry fee starts at around USD 1,300 for one to two domains. The CAC begins around USD 500–800. These are published rates under the relevant provider's schedule.

Legal fees for a UDRP complaint on a single, straightforward .tech domain typically fall in the USD 3,000–7,000 range in the current market, separate from the forum filing fee. Complexity — multiple domains, a sophisticated registrant, a contested response requiring a reply — moves the number upward. A default (no response) case is generally at the lower end of that range because the evidentiary record is built by one side only.

COGNOMEN publishes fee transparency as a firm principle. We do not obscure our pricing behind a "price on request" screen for standard proceedings. Our assessment of a .tech complaint — including a read of whether the three elements are satisfied on your current evidence — is the starting point of that conversation.

If the complaint succeeds, WIPO issues a partial refund of roughly USD 1,000 from a USD 1,500 filing fee if the proceeding is withdrawn or terminated before panel appointment. That refund structure can be relevant when a registrant settles shortly after filing.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP domain recovery services — the full scope of complainant-side representation at WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC
• Case study: recovering a domain through passive-holding bad faith — strategy and outcome
• Guide: UDRP versus national dispute procedures — choosing the right route when zones overlap

Author: Cordelia Roe — UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery; domain transactions and brand protection. 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.