How to recover a .global domain through a UDRP complaint

How to recover a .global domain through a UDRP complaint. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .global. Email the firm to assess your case.

Your brand trades globally. Someone else registered the matching .global domain, and now it redirects to a competitor's site – or sits parked behind a five-figure buy-back demand. You need it back. The question is whether a UDRP complaint is the fastest path there, and what the process actually requires.

The .global top-level domain is subject to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, meaning you can file a UDRP complaint at WIPO or another accredited provider to recover a .global domain through a UDRP complaint. To succeed, you must prove all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity to a mark you hold, the registrant's lack of a legitimate interest, and registration and use in bad faith. A standard WIPO case resolves in approximately two months; the filing fee starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel over one to five domains.

This page sets out the legal test, the evidence that decides close cases, the cost structure, and the realistic next step for a brand owner ready to act.

Does the UDRP apply to .global domains?

Yes. The .global registry has adopted the UDRP as its mandatory dispute-resolution mechanism, making WIPO, the Forum, CAC, and ADNDRC available as providers for any complaint against a .global registrant. The Policy binds registrants through the registration agreement, so the complainant does not need to litigate jurisdiction before filing. That is a meaningful advantage: a brand owner with a registered trademark can initiate proceedings without first locating the registrant or identifying the country whose courts would apply.

Among the providers, WIPO and the Forum together handle the overwhelming majority of UDRP filings across all gTLDs, and in our practice the same holds for new gTLD disputes including .global. WIPO publishes its decisions openly, which gives complainants a searchable record of how panels have assessed similar evidence. That transparency informs both the forum selection and the drafting strategy.

One practical note: the UDRP applies to .global as it does to .com. There is no separate "new gTLD addendum" that changes the substantive test. Panels adjudicating .global disputes apply the same three-element framework under Paragraph 4(a), the same bad-faith catalogue in Paragraph 4(b), and the same safe harbors in Paragraph 4(c). The zone prefix does not soften or raise the burden of proof.

What are the three UDRP elements you must prove?

A UDRP complaint succeeds only when the complainant proves all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) simultaneously – satisfying two out of three is not enough. Each element has its own evidentiary logic, and each is a distinct place where a poorly prepared complaint can fail.

Element 1: Confusing similarity. The disputed .global domain must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. Panels compare the dominant part of the domain to the mark. The gTLD suffix (".global") is generally disregarded in this comparison, as it is a required technical component. A domain that incorporates the entire mark – with or without a generic word, hyphen, or misspelling – will ordinarily satisfy Element 1. What the complainant must establish first is that it actually holds rights in the mark: a registered trademark is the clearest form of evidence, but common-law rights based on demonstrated use can also suffice.

Element 2: No rights or legitimate interests. The complainant must show that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Because the complainant usually lacks access to the registrant's internal documents, panels have accepted that a prima facie case shifts the burden of production: once the complainant demonstrates the registrant is not commonly known by the domain, has received no authorization, and is not making a bona fide offering, the registrant must produce evidence of a legitimate interest. The three safe harbors in Paragraph 4(c) – a bona fide offering before notice of the dispute, a common-name identity, or legitimate noncommercial fair use – define what a credible response looks like.

Element 3: Registration and use in bad faith. This is the cumulative requirement that distinguishes the UDRP from a straightforward trademark claim. Both conditions must be met: the domain must have been registered in bad faith and must be used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) provides four illustrative bad-faith circumstances – an offer to sell at a price exceeding documented out-of-pocket costs; a pattern of abusive registrations; disruption of a competitor's business; and attracting users for commercial gain through likely confusion. Passive holding – letting the domain sit inactive after registration – can also constitute bad-faith use where the surrounding circumstances make innocent use implausible.

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

How does the UDRP complaint process actually work, step by step?

Filing a UDRP complaint to recover a .global domain moves through five defined stages, and the 20-day response window for the registrant means the clock starts running from the moment the case commences.

1. Complaint drafting and filing. The complainant prepares the complaint, attaches all evidence, pays the filing fee, and submits to the chosen provider. WIPO conducts an administrative compliance review to confirm the complaint satisfies formal requirements – correct form, the right number of annexes, payment confirmed. This stage typically takes several days.
2. Commencement and notification. Once the provider confirms compliance, it notifies the registrant and the registrar. The 20-day response period begins. The registrar places a lock on the domain, preventing transfer while the proceeding is open.
3. Response (or default). The registrant may file a response within 20 days. A registrant who does not respond is in default – the panel proceeds on the complaint alone. Default does not automatically produce a transfer; the complainant must still establish all three elements.
4. Panel appointment. If neither party has requested a three-member panel, the provider appoints a single panelist. If the complainant elected a single panel but the respondent requests three members, the parties generally share the higher three-member fee.
5. Decision and implementation. The panel issues a written decision. Where the complaint succeeds, the registrar transfers the domain to the complainant after a brief waiting period, unless the registrant seeks a court stay. Where it fails, the domain remains with the registrant.

In a recent matter – a .global typosquat, spring 2025 – we filed, the case commenced within days, the registrant defaulted, and the transfer order was implemented roughly eight weeks after filing. That pace is consistent with a standard WIPO single-panel proceeding.

What evidence actually decides the outcome of a .global UDRP complaint?

Evidence quality is the variable that separates complaints that transfer the domain from those that are denied or, worse, result in a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

On confusing similarity, the core documents are the trademark registration certificate and, where common-law rights are claimed, consistent commercial use evidence: sales figures, advertising spend, press coverage, and years of use. Panels treat registered marks as sufficient without additional proof of fame or acquired distinctiveness.

On the respondent's lack of legitimate interests, the most useful exhibits are: WHOIS or RDDS registration data showing the registrant is not commonly known by the domain; the domain's historical web content (via public archive captures); and evidence that the complainant never licensed or authorized the registrant. Where the domain resolves to a pay-per-click parking page, panels regularly note that the ads displayed track the complainant's industry – a detail that also feeds Element 3.

On bad faith, the character of the registration is the crux. Panels look at: whether the mark was distinctive and well-known at registration; whether the registrant communicated a price far exceeding registration costs; patterns of similar registrations across other zones; and the timing of registration relative to product launches or trademark filings. Contemporaneous screen captures of the domain's use – not just the current state – are critical, because registrants sometimes change content after receiving a cease-and-desist.

What cannot substitute for evidence is reliance on the ".global" zone alone. The fact that the registrant chose a gTLD associated with international reach does not by itself establish bad faith. The complainant must connect the registration to the mark.

How do WIPO, the Forum, and CAC compare for a .global complaint?

The choice of provider does not change the legal test, but it affects cost, timeline, and the depth of publicly available precedent to draw on when crafting arguments.

WIPO is the most used provider for .global disputes, as it is for gTLD disputes generally. The filing fee for a single-member panel covering one to five domains is USD 1,500; a three-member panel costs USD 4,000 for the same domain count. WIPO decisions are published openly and indexed, which supports consistent, citation-ready arguments. WIPO also offers an expedited option for single-panel cases of up to five domains, delivering a decision in approximately one month.

The Forum begins its filing fee at around USD 1,300 for one to two domains, single-member panel. Its proceedings are procedurally similar to WIPO's. Some complainants prefer the Forum for its familiarity in US-centric brand-protection programs.

CAC offers the lowest entry point – filing fees beginning around USD 500 to USD 800 – but sees far fewer filings and has a smaller public decision database. It may be a consideration where cost is the primary constraint and the case is factually clear-cut.

The decision matrix for a .global complaint typically runs as follows. Where the brand has global recognition, supporting precedents are useful, and the complainant wants the most recognized venue: file at WIPO, single-member panel, with the standard USD 1,500 fee. Where the registrant is likely to respond and the complainant wants a deliberative three-member panel: file at WIPO, three-member, at USD 4,000 – the cost is justified by the reputational weight of a three-panel decision. Where the domain is one of several new-gTLD registrations to be addressed simultaneously and the goal is speed at lower cost per domain: compare CAC and the Forum side by side. If the .global domain is part of a broader pattern that also touches new gTLDs eligible for the URS, the URS suspension route may be filed in parallel – it does not preclude a subsequent UDRP for transfer.

In our practice, we regularly advise brand owners who hold multiple new-gTLD registrations that parallel UDRP and URS filings serve different objectives. The URS suspends; the UDRP transfers. For a name the brand owner wants to hold permanently, the UDRP is the right remedy.

To weigh UDRP against a court action for your .global case, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

What are the realistic costs to recover a .global domain?

Domain dispute costs have two completely separate components: the forum filing fee and the legal fee. Treating them as one leads to surprises. The filing fee goes to the provider; the legal fee goes to counsel. Neither covers the other.

The WIPO filing fee for a single .global domain on a single-member panel is USD 1,500. That is the official, published rate. If the registrant requests a three-member panel, the cost rises to USD 4,000, with the parties generally sharing the increment above the single-panel fee. If you withdraw before panel appointment, WIPO typically refunds a portion of the filing fee – commonly around USD 1,000 of the original USD 1,500.

Legal fees for a UDRP complaint on a single domain with a straightforward fact pattern typically fall in the USD 3,000 to USD 7,000 range in the market, separate from the filing fee. Complex cases – where bad faith is contested, supplemental filings are needed, or the matter involves multiple domains across several zones – will exceed that range. In our practice, we discuss fee structure at the outset, because transparency on cost is one of the ways we differentiate our work from firms that bury the number.

A realistic all-in budget for a single .global UDRP at WIPO, single panel, straightforward bad faith: the USD 1,500 WIPO fee plus legal fees in the market range described. Compare that against the value of the domain to your business. For a domain that carries your primary brand identity, the economics almost always favor filing. For a remote typosquat, the calculation is different – and we will tell you so.

What if the registrant has a credible defense – or files a bad-faith complaint against you?

Not every .global registrant is a cybersquatter. Some hold legitimate interests: a business commonly known by the domain name before the complainant's mark was established, or a domain acquired for a genuine business purpose unconnected to the complainant's brand. If the registrant presents credible evidence of one of the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors, panels will deny the complaint – even where the names are similar.

The reverse scenario is also real. A complainant with thin trademark rights, or one that files against a domain acquired in good faith years before the mark was even registered, risks an RDNH finding. RDNH – Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – is a panel's conclusion that the complaint was filed in bad faith to deprive a legitimate registrant of their domain. The finding carries no monetary penalty, but it is published and noted. We see RDNH findings most often where the complainant has a recently registered mark and the domain predates it, or where the complainant fundamentally misrepresents the registration timeline.

In a recent matter – a .global domain, autumn 2024 – we were engaged by a registrant who had operated under the disputed name for several years. The complainant filed after a failed acquisition attempt at a fraction of the domain's market value. We built the legitimate-interest record, documented the registration date, and prepared a response establishing the chronology. The panel denied the complaint and found RDNH.

Whether you are the complainant or the registrant, the strength of your case depends on evidence that exists before the filing. That is why early assessment matters.

Related at COGNOMEN

• UDRP domain recovery – the complete service across gTLDs and ccTLDs
• Recovering a .me typosquat domain through a UDRP complaint
• Suspending an abusive .xyz domain through the URS procedure

About COGNOMEN

COGNOMEN is an independent boutique focused exclusively on domain-name disputes. We recover, defend, and transact internet domains across generic and country-code zones, before WIPO, the Forum, CAC, ADNDRC, and national procedures, and in court where arbitration cannot reach. We act for brand owners, domain investors, and registrants – including respondent-side defense and reverse domain name hijacking. Our practice covers new gTLDs including .global, alongside ccTLD procedures before Nominet, EURid, and other national registries. To discuss a domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

By Cordelia Roe – UDRP complainant practice, gTLD domain recovery.

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

Disclaimer: This article is general information about domain-name dispute procedures and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, the zone, and panel or court discretion. For advice on your domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Speak with Cognomen Law

For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter

Related

• Udrp Recovery
• Recover Typosquat Me
• Suspend Domain Urs Xyz

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.