How to recover a .eu domain held passively in bad faith
A registrant holds your brand as a .eu domain. The site resolves to a blank page, a generic parking template, or nothing at all. No product. No service. No apparent purpose. That silence is not neutrality — under the governing .eu dispute rules, passive holding can satisfy the bad-faith element of the complaint, provided the surrounding evidence builds the right picture.
To recover a .eu domain held passively in bad faith, a complainant files through the ADR.eu procedure administered by the Czech Arbitration Court. The test mirrors all three UDRP elements under Paragraph 4(a): the domain must be confusingly similar to a mark you hold, the registrant must lack rights or legitimate interests, and the domain must have been registered and used in bad faith. A standard case runs approximately two months. The only remedies are transfer to an eligible EU/EEA holder or revocation.
This page sets out how the ADR.eu process works, what evidence carries the passive-holding argument, how to choose between ADR.eu and a national court, and what the realistic next step looks like.
What governs .eu domain disputes — and why passive holding matters
The .eu dispute procedure operates under the ADR Rules administered by the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) on behalf of EURid, the .eu registry. Those rules draw heavily on the UDRP framework. The three-element test is functionally the same. What distinguishes .eu from a .com dispute is that the remedy of transfer is conditional on EU/EEA eligibility — a complainant seeking to take the domain must demonstrate an EU or EEA nexus at the point of transfer. If that nexus is absent, the panel may revoke the domain rather than transfer it.
Passive holding sits inside the third element: bad-faith use. The UDRP and the ADR.eu rules do not require a registrant to post infringing content to be found in bad faith. Panels under both sets of rules have consistently held that deliberate non-use of a domain — parking it, pointing it nowhere, sitting on it — can constitute use in bad faith when the totality of circumstances points to an abusive motive. The logic is clean: a registrant who has no plausible legitimate reason to hold a mark-identical domain in a dormant state has few defenses once the trademark owner can demonstrate knowledge of the mark.
What circumstances count? Registration shortly after a complainant's mark became well known. The registrant's inability to articulate any credible business purpose for the domain. A pattern of registering brand-corresponding names across multiple zones. Prior correspondence offering to sell the domain at a price exceeding documented registration costs. Any one of these factors in isolation may be thin; in combination, they have routinely produced transfer and revocation orders. In our practice, the strongest passive-holding cases arrive with at least two of these facts already documented before a complaint is filed.
The three-element test for .eu domain recovery
A complaint under ADR.eu must satisfy all three Paragraph 4(a) elements simultaneously — failure on any one is fatal to the complaint.
Element one: confusing similarity. The panel compares the domain string to the complainant's trademark. Identical matches are straightforward. Adding a generic term — "buy," "shop," "online" — rarely saves a registrant because panels strip the TLD and generic suffixes and compare the dominant element. Where a complainant holds both a registered EU trademark and a .eu domain in another form, that combination reinforces the similarity argument without adding a new element.
Element two: no rights or legitimate interests. This element shifts the burden once the complainant establishes a prima facie case. A registrant who has made no use of the domain, offered no goods or services under the name, and is not commonly known by the disputed string has almost no path to invoking the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors. Bona fide use before notice of the dispute requires actual, demonstrable use — a dormant domain registration does not qualify.
Element three: registered and used in bad faith. Passive holding addresses the use limb of this element. Panels assess the totality of circumstances: the distinctiveness of the mark at registration, the registrant's apparent awareness of the mark, the absence of any plausible good-faith use, and any conduct pointing toward opportunistic motive. For marks that are well known or highly distinctive, even minimal supporting evidence of bad faith can be decisive because the implausibility of innocent registration is itself a factor.
One structural point is worth addressing directly. The UDRP element reads "registered and used" in bad faith — both limbs must be satisfied. For passive holding, the use limb is met not by affirmative infringing conduct but by the ongoing abusive registration, evaluated against all surrounding circumstances. That is the consensus view under the Policy, and the ADR.eu panels have applied the same reasoning.
For an assessment of whether the three elements are met for your .eu domain, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.
How does the ADR.eu process work from filing to decision?
A standard ADR.eu case follows five stages: complaint submission, formal compliance review, commencement and notification to the registrant, the response window, panel appointment, decision, and EURid implementation. That sequence normally completes in approximately two months for a straightforward single-domain case.
After the complainant submits the complaint and pays the filing fee, the CAC reviews it for formal compliance. Once accepted, the case is commenced and the registrant is notified. The registrant then has 20 days to file a response. If no response arrives — a common outcome in passive-holding cases where the registrant registered speculatively and has no defense to offer — the panel proceeds on the complaint alone. A default does not mean automatic success; the panel still examines whether the complaint satisfies all three elements on its merits. But an unanswered complaint removes the respondent's opportunity to invoke any Paragraph 4(c) legitimate-interest defense.
After the response window closes, a single-member panel is appointed (the parties may request three members, at higher cost). The panel issues a written decision. If the decision orders transfer or revocation, EURid implements the remedy — transfer to the complainant if EU/EEA eligibility is confirmed, or revocation if it is not. There is no monetary award, no costs order, and no injunction at the panel level.
In a recent matter — a .eu passive-holding case, early 2025 — we filed on behalf of a European consumer goods company whose brand had sat dormant as a .eu registration for nearly three years. The registrant filed no response. The panel found all three elements satisfied, noting the registrant's failure to identify any business purpose and the mark's pre-existing reputation across the EU market. A transfer order issued roughly eight weeks after our filing date.
What evidence decides a passive-holding .eu complaint?
Evidence determines the outcome more than the legal test does. A passive-holding argument is only as strong as the facts assembled to support it, and panels read the complaint record for internal consistency.
The core evidence set for a passive-holding complaint covers five areas. First, proof of trademark rights: a registered EU trademark, an International Registration designating the EU, or common-law rights demonstrable through market presence. A registered mark is significantly stronger here because it provides a concrete registration date against which the domain registration can be measured. Second, the domain WHOIS or RDDS record: the current registration data, the registration date, the registrant identity, and any history of prior ownership. Third, screenshots and archival evidence of the domain's passive state — no active website, parking pages if any, archive.org captures showing persistent non-use. Fourth, any communication from the registrant, particularly offers to sell or demands for payment. Fifth, evidence of the mark's distinctiveness and reputation in the EU market at or before the registration date — press coverage, sales data in accessible form, trademark registration certificates.
Panels scrutinize the timeline closely. A domain registered days after a complainant's product launch or trademark publication carries a near-irresistible inference of bad faith. A domain registered years before the mark existed raises an entirely different problem — and that scenario warrants a separate conversation about whether a complaint is viable at all. We regularly advise clients against filing where the timeline undermines rather than supports the bad-faith argument, because a failed complaint risks an RDNH finding that carries its own reputational cost.
ADR.eu versus a national court: which route fits your .eu dispute?
The choice between ADR.eu and national court litigation for a .eu domain turns on three variables: the remedy you need, the timeline you can accept, and the evidence already in hand.
ADR.eu is the faster, lower-cost route when the dispute falls cleanly within the three-element test and the complainant needs transfer or revocation without monetary relief. The filing fee at the CAC begins at approximately USD 500–800 for a single-domain case — the lowest entry point among the recognized UDRP-model providers — and the legal fees for a straightforward case are in a range comparable to other arbitration filings. The process is document-based, with no witness testimony and no oral hearing. For a passive-holding case where the registrant is unlikely to mount a substantive defense, ADR.eu is usually the right starting point.
National court litigation applies where the complainant also needs damages, where the registrant is conducting active fraud or phishing under the domain and an injunction is needed faster than an arbitration timeline allows, or where the dispute involves competing contractual claims that fall outside the panel's jurisdiction. Court routes vary by member state; we work with local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction for any court action required alongside or instead of ADR.eu.
One further consideration: the UDRP at WIPO or the Forum does not cover .eu. Those forums handle gTLDs (.com, .net, .org) and ccTLDs that have specifically adopted the UDRP. The .eu procedure is EURid's own ADR, not a UDRP proceeding, though the substantive test is closely aligned. If the same registrant holds both a .com and a .eu version of your brand, the two disputes run in separate forums — a combined strategy, not a single filing.
How does that play out in practice? Situation A: a brand owner finds its .com typosquatted and its exact brand as a .eu both held dormantly by the same registrant. The .com goes to WIPO on a UDRP complaint — USD 1,500 filing fee, standard single-member panel — while the .eu goes to ADR.eu concurrently. Both cases develop the same evidence record, but each runs its own timeline and procedure. Situation B: the .eu domain is actively used for phishing, and the brand owner needs an immediate injunction rather than a transfer. That is a national court matter from the outset, with ADR.eu potentially following once the injunction is secured. Situation C: the domain is a .eu used by a former distributor who claims a continuing contractual right. That contract dispute is outside the ADR.eu panel's jurisdiction entirely; national court is the only route.
To weigh ADR.eu against a court action for your .eu domain, email info@cognomenlaw.com.
Can EU/EEA eligibility block a transfer order?
EURid's eligibility rules require .eu registrants to have an EU or EEA presence — a registered establishment, a habitual residence, or a registered trademark or similar right in the EU/EEA. A complainant seeking transfer must satisfy those requirements at the moment the domain is transferred. This is a .eu-specific constraint with no equivalent in the standard UDRP.
For most brand owners with EU trademark registrations or EU-registered operations, eligibility is not an obstacle. The trademark registration itself satisfies the requirement. Where a complainant lacks EU eligibility — for example, a US brand owner with a US trademark but no EU registration — the panel may find all three elements satisfied but order revocation of the domain rather than transfer. The domain goes back into the pool; the complainant does not acquire it.
That outcome is still valuable. Revocation removes the registrant's ability to use the domain against the complainant, clears it for a future registration if the complainant subsequently obtains EU eligibility, and eliminates the ongoing consumer confusion risk. But it is not the same as receiving the domain. We assess EU eligibility at the intake stage so clients understand the realistic remedy before committing to a filing.
What is the risk of a failed complaint — and what is RDNH?
A failed complaint at ADR.eu carries two distinct risks. The first is that the registrant retains the domain. The second, more serious risk, is a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
RDNH is a finding that the complaint was brought in bad faith, primarily to deprive a legitimate registrant of a domain they had genuine rights to hold. Under the UDRP framework — and under the equivalent ADR.eu provisions — RDNH is a reputational sanction. There is no monetary penalty, but the decision becomes part of the public record. For corporate complainants, an RDNH finding signals to future panels that a prior complaint was abusive, and it tends to embolden well-represented respondents.
When does the RDNH risk arise? Primarily when: the complainant filed knowing the third element could not be met; the trademark postdated the domain registration by a significant margin; or the complaint was plainly a pressure tactic to force a below-market sale. We do not file complaints where the RDNH risk outweighs the recovery prospect. That is not a cautious posture — it is what responsible practice requires, and it protects the client from a worse outcome than a failed transfer.
In a recent matter (a .eu complaint assessed in spring 2025), we declined to file on behalf of a client whose mark had been registered after the disputed domain was already live for over two years. The client initially wanted to proceed. We explained the RDNH exposure. The client pursued a direct acquisition instead, which completed within six weeks at a figure well below the initial asking price once the registrant understood the claim had merit limitations. Not every domain dispute ends at a panel.
Related at COGNOMEN
Frequently asked questions
When should I recover a .eu domain held passively in bad faith?
File as soon as you have documented the three elements: your trademark rights, the registrant's lack of any plausible legitimate interest, and the passive or dormant state of the domain combined with surrounding bad-faith indicia. Delay weakens the timeline argument — each month the domain sits unused, the registrant can argue that a serious complainant would have acted sooner. Critically, assess EU/EEA eligibility before filing, so you know whether the remedy will be transfer or revocation.
What happens if the other side ignores the case?
If the registrant files no response within the 20-day window, the panel proceeds on the complaint record alone. Default does not guarantee a transfer order — the panel still applies the three-element test. But the absence of any Paragraph 4(c) defense leaves the complainant's evidence essentially uncontested. In passive-holding cases, where the registrant registered speculatively and has no substantive defense to offer, default is common and often produces the transfer or revocation the complainant seeks.
How is ADR.eu different from a national court for .eu?
ADR.eu is an administrative arbitration procedure: document-based, no oral hearing, limited remedies (transfer or revocation, no damages or costs orders), and a timeline of approximately two months. A national court can award damages, issue injunctions, and address contract claims, but at substantially higher cost and over a longer period. For a clean passive-holding dispute where the complainant holds clear trademark rights and needs only the domain, ADR.eu is almost always the faster and more proportionate route. For disputes involving fraud, injunctions, or competing contractual claims, national court is necessary.
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
This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.