How to recover a .global domain after a failed buy-back negotiation

The registrant quoted five figures. You countered. They stopped responding. Now the .global domain that matches your brand sits parked, pointing at a pay-per-click page or a blank holding screen, and the buy-back window has closed. What comes next?

To recover a .global domain after a failed buy-back negotiation, the standard route is a UDRP complaint filed with WIPO or another accredited provider. The .global registry uses the UDRP, so all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) must be met: confusing similarity to your trademark, no legitimate interest on the registrant's side, and registration and use in bad faith. A standard case resolves in roughly two months, with a WIPO filing fee starting at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel. The only remedies are transfer or cancellation – no damages, no costs.

This page covers the UDRP test as it applies in .global, the evidence that decides outcomes, the choice of forum, the cost structure, and the realistic next step when a buy-back has already failed.

Why a failed buy-back negotiation strengthens your UDRP case

A demand for an above-cost price is itself evidence of bad faith under Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP – specifically, the circumstance of registering a domain primarily to sell it to the mark owner for valuable consideration exceeding out-of-pocket costs. The registrant's conduct during your negotiation may have created exactly the record you need.

Consider what the exchange produced. A written demand for a five-figure sum, a counteroffer that was rejected, or a silence after your final offer – all of it is documentary evidence. Panels regularly treat an opening demand well above cost as the clearest possible signal of bad-faith purpose, particularly where no genuine business use of the domain ever appeared. In our practice, we routinely find that brand owners who have attempted a buy-back enter the UDRP process better evidenced than those who file immediately.

That said, a failed negotiation does not by itself guarantee a transfer. The complainant still carries the burden on all three elements. And the registrant will have 20 days to file a response once the case commences. A weak trademark registration or an ambiguous domain name can still trip a well-evidenced complaint.

For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met in your situation, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the UDRP apply to .global domains?

The .global registry operates under the UDRP, the same policy ICANN mandates for accredited registrars across most generic top-level domains. That means WIPO, the Forum, the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), and the ADNDRC are all available as providers – and the three-element test, the response window, and the transfer/cancellation remedies all apply without modification.

Several features of .global as a new gTLD are worth noting. First, .global was delegated in the current expansion of the DNS root, meaning disputes can also be brought under the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure. The URS suspends a domain for its registration term rather than transferring it, applies a higher "clear and convincing" standard, and carries lower fees. If your goal is ownership – not mere suspension – the UDRP is the correct route. Second, because .global carries a generic descriptive quality, panels may scrutinize whether the domain was registered with your specific brand in mind or simply to exploit the desirable keyword. Your trademark evidence should address that question directly.

Third, the URS option means you are not without a rapid interim step if the domain is being actively used to harm your brand now. URS and a later UDRP are not mutually exclusive in all factual settings; the strategic sequencing depends on the urgency and the evidence in hand.

What are the three UDRP elements you must prove?

Every UDRP complaint – regardless of provider or zone – must establish all three elements of Paragraph 4(a). Missing any single one means the complaint fails and the domain stays with the registrant.

Element 1: Confusing similarity. The domain must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which you hold rights. For .global, panels compare the second-level label (the part before ".global") to your mark. A registered trademark is the strongest foundation. An unregistered mark can qualify, but requires evidence of acquired distinctiveness. Where your brand is well-known globally, that recognition speaks to similarity and bad faith simultaneously.

Element 2: No legitimate interest. You must show the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests. In practice, this means demonstrating the registrant is not commonly known by the domain, made no bona fide offering before notice of the dispute, and is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use. A parking page monetizing traffic generated by confusion with your brand is the archetype of no legitimate interest. A registrant who simply sat on the domain and demanded payment has done even less to establish one.

Element 3: Registered and used in bad faith. The UDRP requires both registration and use in bad faith – this is a cumulative standard. The Paragraph 4(b) non-exhaustive list of bad-faith circumstances is where your negotiation record becomes directly relevant. A written demand for an above-cost sum at registration or shortly after is a textbook Paragraph 4(b)(i) circumstance. A parking page generating click revenue from your brand's traffic is a Paragraph 4(b)(iv) circumstance. Both can apply simultaneously.

Panels have consistently held that passive holding – doing nothing with a domain – can also constitute bad faith use where the mark is well known and no plausible good-faith use exists. If the registrant has gone silent since negotiations failed, that passivity works in your favor.

What evidence do you actually need to win?

Evidence drives UDRP outcomes more than legal argument. The following categories are essential for a .global recovery after a buy-back failure.

Trademark documentation. Registration certificates are the baseline. Include the filing date relative to the domain's registration date – if your mark predates the domain, that sequence supports inference that the registrant knew of your rights. Registrations in multiple jurisdictions strengthen the inference further.

The buy-back correspondence itself. Every email, every platform message, every SMS thread where a price was quoted. Preserve the metadata – timestamps, sender addresses, and any username or account identifier connected to the registrant. Panels treat these records as direct evidence of intent.

Screenshots of the domain's current and historical use. The RDDS (WHOIS) record, the live page, and archived versions from web archiving services showing what the domain displayed at various points. If it has cycled through parking, redirection to a competitor, or an "under construction" screen, each state is separately probative.

Evidence of your brand's market presence. Revenue figures are not required. Press coverage, advertising spend, or social media following all establish that the brand has commercial significance in the .global zone the registrant was likely targeting.

In a recent matter – a .global cybersquatting complaint, spring 2025 – we assembled a complaint combining buy-back demand emails, a parking page archive, and a trademark registration predating the domain by four years. The registrant did not respond. The panel ordered transfer in under seven weeks. Nothing in that file was invented; every piece of evidence was a document the brand owner already held.

Which forum should you choose for a .global UDRP complaint?

WIPO and the Forum together handle roughly 97% of all UDRP proceedings. For a .global case, both are appropriate choices, and the decision turns on cost, timeline, and your preferences.

WIPO charges USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains. A three-member panel at WIPO costs USD 4,000. Where the registrant demands a three-member panel, the parties generally split the higher fee. WIPO also offers an expedited option delivering a decision within about one month for single-panel cases covering up to five domains – a meaningful option if the buy-back negotiation has already consumed weeks of delay.

The Forum's filing fee begins around USD 1,300 for one to two domains on a single-member panel. The CAC begins around USD 500–800, the lowest entry point of the four providers, though it is the least used. The ADNDRC begins around USD 1,300.

The strategic question for .global is whether a single-member or three-member panel fits the risk profile. Single-member panels are faster and cheaper. Three-member panels are conventionally sought by respondents who want to dilute the risk of an adverse decision, or by complainants who anticipate a complex factual record and want the weight of a three-expert finding. Where the buy-back demand was explicit and the trademark is registered, a single-member panel is ordinarily sufficient.

If you want damages as well as transfer – and the registrant is based in the United States – a court action under US anticybersquatting legislation is the only path that reaches money. The UDRP produces no monetary award. That route is substantially more expensive and takes far longer, but it may be the right complement to a UDRP filing in a high-value dispute. We work with local litigation counsel for cross-border court matters.

What happens after you file the UDRP complaint?

Once the complaint is filed and accepted, the provider formally commences the proceeding and notifies the registrant. The respondent then has 20 days from commencement to file a response. If no response is filed – common where the registrant knows the demand was abusive – the panel proceeds on the complaint alone. A default does not guarantee a transfer; the complainant must still satisfy all three elements on the evidence presented.

After the response period closes, the provider appoints the panel. Deliberation follows, typically within two to three weeks of appointment. The panel issues a written decision stating whether the complaint is granted, denied, or – in cases brought abusively – whether the complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. If the complaint is granted, the registrar implements the transfer after a short waiting period during which the registrant may seek a court stay.

The total elapsed time from filing to registrar implementation is normally within two months for a straightforward single-panel case. A three-member panel adds some time. A supplemental filing or a court stay application extends the window further.

What about the risk of losing? A panel that denies the complaint returns the domain to the status quo – no transfer, no injunction, no damages – and the registrant retains possession. An RDNH finding is possible if the complaint was clearly abusive, though panels apply that finding narrowly. Where a buy-back has already failed and the registrant's demand is documented, the risk of an RDNH finding against a legitimate brand owner is very low. But it is not zero, which is why the quality of the trademark evidence matters.

To assess the three UDRP elements against your evidence before filing, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

How does the .global UDRP compare with other recovery routes?

The right route depends on zone, remedy, and resources. For a .global domain where you want ownership, the UDRP at WIPO or the Forum is the fastest path, with a filing fee starting at USD 1,500 and a two-month timeline. If you need only a rapid suspension and the evidence meets the higher URS standard, the URS is faster and cheaper, but it does not transfer the domain and expires at the end of the registration term.

If the same registrant holds a corresponding .com and a .global simultaneously – which is common where a squatter builds out a small portfolio – a single UDRP complaint can cover multiple domains provided the registrant is the same holder. That consolidation reduces cost per domain and produces a single coordinated decision. We regularly advise brand owners to audit the full portfolio of a suspected cybersquatter before filing, precisely to capture multi-domain consolidation where it is available.

For ccTLD equivalents – say, a national zone version of the same brand – a separate procedure governed by that registry's rules applies. Nominet's DRS governs .uk; the CAC's ADR.eu governs .eu; .de disputes proceed through the German courts with a DENIC DISPUTE entry to block transfer. None of those procedures are interchangeable with a UDRP, and each has its own eligibility rules, timeline, and cost structure.

A comparison, briefly: if your brand is being squatted across a .global and a .uk simultaneously, the UDRP handles the .global in roughly two months; the Nominet DRS handles the .uk in roughly eight to twelve weeks through a distinct process that includes a mandatory free mediation stage. The two proceedings run in parallel but under separate rules, and both can result in transfer orders if the respective tests are met.

The myth worth addressing here: some brand owners believe that because a buy-back negotiation failed, their UDRP case is somehow weakened – that an attempted purchase is an admission the other party has some legitimate claim. That is incorrect. Panels are well aware that brand owners attempt buy-backs as a practical first step to avoid litigation costs, and the attempt does not estop a subsequent UDRP filing or undermine trademark rights. The failed negotiation is evidence, not a waiver.

See our guide on handling serial cybersquatters across multiple zones for the full treatment of multi-domain portfolio strategies, and our service page on responding within the UDRP deadline for the registrant-side perspective on why that 20-day window is absolute.

How much does it cost to recover a .global domain through the UDRP?

Costs split into two categories: the forum's official filing fee and legal fees. They are entirely separate, and you should understand both before deciding to proceed.

Forum filing fees are fixed and published. WIPO charges USD 1,500 for one to five domains on a single-member panel, or USD 4,000 for a three-member panel. If the matter settles before panel appointment, WIPO commonly refunds approximately USD 1,000 of the USD 1,500 fee – a partial refund that many brand owners find useful if negotiations resume after filing. The Forum starts around USD 1,300 for one to two domains on a single-member panel. The CAC is the lowest-cost provider for straightforward matters, beginning around USD 500–800.

Legal fees for a UDRP complaint on a single domain in a straightforward matter typically run in the USD 3,000–7,000 range as a flat fee, separate from the forum fee. Complex multi-domain cases or those involving contested trademark evidence will run higher. Those are market ranges; the specific scope of work in your matter determines the actual fee. We provide transparent pricing before any work begins – no hidden hourly accrual after a fixed-fee engagement is agreed.

Is the cost justified? The answer depends on what the .global domain is worth to your business. A buy-back demand that already reached five figures tells you the registrant has their own valuation. A UDRP complaint, if the three elements are met, produces a transfer order at a fraction of that demand. The cost of doing nothing is the continued loss of traffic, brand association, and the risk that the domain is pointed at something more harmful than a parking page.

Our UDRP domain recovery service page sets out the full cost structure and process for gTLD cases, including .global.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP Domain Recovery – full service overview for gTLD cases including .global
• Guide to serial cybersquatters across multiple domain zones
• Respondent defense: responding within the UDRP 20-day deadline

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.