Domain name disputes in the Netherlands

A domain name is often a company’s most valuable digital asset, and the most easily lost. Someone registers your brand as a .nl domain before you enter the Dutch market; a former distributor keeps the name; the agency that built your site is the registered holder. This article explains when a domain name infringes your rights under Dutch law, and how to choose between the SIDN dispute procedure and the court.

How .nl domain names are registered

The .nl domain is operated by SIDN, which maintains the register and the .nl zone but does not deal with the public directly. Registrations are placed by registrars — hosting providers, IT suppliers and domain managers under contract with SIDN. Two features cause most disputes.

• First come, first served. SIDN processes applications in the order received and does not check whether a name matches someone else’s trade mark, trade name or company name. Registration is an administrative act, not a grant of rights.
• The registrant is whoever is recorded as registrant. Only that party can move the domain to another registrar, transfer it, or bring it out of quarantine. If your agency put itself in that field, your company controls nothing.

A contractual right, not property in the classical sense

Registration creates no intellectual property right. What you acquire is a contractual position: a registration agreement with SIDN, accepted through your registrar and governed by its general terms and conditions for .nl registrants — renewed and transferable, but rooted in that contract.

That does not make a domain name worthless as an asset. Dutch courts accept that a registration can be a vermogensrecht within art. 3:6 BW, because it is transferable and capable of yielding material benefit (Gerechtshof ‘s-Hertogenbosch 17 January 2007, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2007:AZ6522). A domain can be sold and seized — but the entitlement runs against SIDN under a contract, and is secured through contract and enforcement, not a claim in rem.

When someone else’s domain name infringes your rights

Dutch law has no separate domain name statute. Disputes are decided under trade mark law, trade name law, or the rule on unlawful acts.

Trade mark infringement

For Benelux marks the scope of protection is set out in art. 2.20 BVIE; EU trade marks are protected on equivalent terms. You must show that the sign is identical or similar to your mark and used for identical or similar goods or services with a likelihood of confusion, or — for marks with a reputation — that use takes unfair advantage of, or harms, its distinctiveness or repute.

The key qualification is that trade mark law bites on use in the course of trade. A registration that resolves to nothing is not automatically infringement; an active site, a redirect to a competitor, parking pages or e-mail use generally is. The Hoge Raad has confirmed that a holder can be ordered to transfer a domain name only where legally obliged to do so, which may follow from contract or from unlawful conduct such as infringement (HR 30 November 2018, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:2221, on dungs.nl).

Trade name infringement under the Handelsnaamwet

If you trade in the Netherlands under a name, that name is protected without registration. Art. 5 Hnw prohibits a trade name identical to, or differing only slightly from, one lawfully used earlier by another, where confusion between the businesses is to be feared given their nature and locations. Art. 5a Hnw prohibits a trade name incorporating another party’s trade mark where confusion is likely.

A domain name can amount to use of a trade name where the business is actually conducted under it, not merely where the name appears in the address bar. On descriptive names, the Hoge Raad held in DOC/Dairy Partners that art. 5 Hnw imposes no extra requirement of additional circumstances: limited distinctiveness is weighed within the confusion assessment (HR 19 February 2021, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:269). Art. 6 Hnw offers a cheaper route — a petition to the kantonrechter to have the name changed.

The unlawful act route: art. 6:162 BW

Where you have no trade mark and no earlier trade name, the residual route is art. 6:162 BW, which is narrower than clients expect. In Artiestenverloningen the Hoge Raad held that using a purely descriptive domain name is in principle permitted even if it causes confusion, and becomes unlawful only where sufficiently serious additional circumstances exist (HR 11 December 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3554). The provision works best against conduct rather than a name: systematically registering competitors’ names, intercepting traffic, impersonating a business, or misleading customers about a connection.

Cybersquatting, typosquatting and hijacking

Commercial labels, not Dutch legal categories:

• Cybersquatting — registering a name matching someone else’s brand to resell or block it. The classic case for the SIDN procedure: bad faith is often evident from a sale offer well above cost, or a portfolio of similar names.
• Typosquatting — registering predictable misspellings or swapped extensions. Confusing similarity is usually straightforward, and typosquatting is often paired with phishing or fake web shops, strengthening both bad faith and urgency.
• Hijacking — taking control of a name already yours, through a compromised registrar account, a forged transfer instruction, or a supplier who refuses to hand it back. This is contractual, and sometimes criminal, rather than a rights dispute; the route is the registrar plus the court.

The SIDN dispute resolution procedure for .nl domain names

SIDN operates a dispute resolution procedure under the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names, administered for it by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. The current version took effect on 1 September 2024, adding protected geographical indications to the protected names and confirming that the registrant cannot be changed while a dispute runs.

Who can use it, and what must be proved

The complainant must hold a protected name: a trade mark, trade name or geographical indication protected under Dutch law, a personal name in the municipal personal records database, or the name of a Dutch public body, association or foundation. You need not be established in the Netherlands, and an EU trade mark qualifies. Three conditions must be proved cumulatively:

• the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the protected name relied on;
• the registrant has no rights to, or legitimate interests in, the domain name; and
• the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

The third condition is most often missed. Under the .nl Regulations, bad faith at registration or in use suffices; under the UDRP both are required. That makes the .nl procedure easier where a name was registered innocently years ago and is now exploited against you.

Procedure, timing and cost

The complaint is filed with the WIPO Center by e-mail. WIPO checks it for compliance and notifies SIDN, which blocks any change of registrant. The registrant then has twenty calendar days to respond. If it responds, SIDN offers free mediation of up to thirty days. If that fails or the registrant defaults, the complainant pays the fee, a single panelist is appointed, and the decision follows within fourteen days of the close of the written phase. No average duration is laid down anywhere, but in practice a .nl case runs forty-five to sixty days from filing to decision.

The WIPO fee for a .nl dispute over one to five domain names, decided by a single panelist, is EUR 1,500; where a three-member panel decides, it is between EUR 3,000 and EUR 4,500. The complainant pays, and does not recover it even on winning, although a reduced fee applies on early termination — typically where the registrant transfers the name voluntarily before the panel is appointed, in which case part of the fee is refunded.

What you get, and what you do not

A successful complaint produces one remedy: a change of registrant. There is no cancellation, no damages, no injunction against wider use of the sign, and no costs order. SIDN implements the decision ten working days after notification, unless within that window the registrant proves it has started Dutch court proceedings. Either party remains free to go to court before, during or after.

The UDRP for generic top-level domains

For .com, .net, .org and hundreds of other generic extensions, the equivalent is ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. The differences matter:

• Rights basis. A trade mark is required; a trade name as such is not enough, though unregistered marks with acquired distinctiveness can qualify.
• Bad faith. The domain must have been registered and be used in bad faith.
• Remedies. Cancellation or transfer — the .nl procedure offers transfer only. Again, no damages.
• Panel and cost. Either party may opt for a three-member panel. WIPO’s schedule for a complaint covering one to five names is USD 1,500 for a single panelist and USD 4,000 for three, rising to USD 2,000 and USD 5,000 for six to ten names. A priority service takes a single-panel case of up to five names from commencement to decision within a month, at USD 4,000 payable by the complainant; a respondent may buy the same acceleration after filing its response for USD 2,500. Where the matter settles, the Center retains USD 100 if the complaint is withdrawn before it is notified to the respondent, and USD 500 if it is withdrawn after commencement but before the panel is appointed.
• Abusive complaints. The UDRP Rules allow a panel to declare reverse domain name hijacking.

Interim relief before the Dutch civil court

The alternative is summary proceedings before the voorzieningenrechter under art. 254 Rv. A kort geding can be heard within days or weeks where urgency is genuine, and the court can do what a panelist cannot: enjoin use of the sign generally rather than only in the domain; impose penalty payments; award an advance on damages; order recovery of legal costs, since intellectual property proceedings fall under art. 1019h Rv; and permit a conservatory seizure under art. 700 Rv, including one aimed at delivery. It is also the forum where the dispute is contractual — a supplier or ex-employee who agreed to hold the name — which falls outside the SIDN procedure.

Evidence: what a complainant needs

Both routes turn on documents. Assemble, before filing:

• proof of the right relied on — trade mark certificates covering the Netherlands or the EU, or, for a trade name, dated evidence of use: invoices, advertising, Chamber of Commerce extracts;
• the WHOIS record and the registration date;
• dated screenshots of every page, redirect or parking page it resolves to, or of the empty result;
• the correspondence: any offer to sell, and your cease-and-desist letter with proof of delivery;
• evidence of actual confusion, such as misdirected e-mails, often decisive under art. 6:162 BW;
• for hijacking, the audit trail: registrar logs, transfer notifications, and the contract naming the holder.

Defending a complaint as a legitimate holder

Receiving a complaint does not mean you have done anything wrong. The Regulations recognise that a registrant may have rights or a legitimate interest, and give examples: use of the domain, or demonstrable preparations to use it, for a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute; being commonly known by the name; or legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent to mislead. Also worth testing: the name is descriptive and used descriptively; you registered it before the complainant’s right arose; or the parties operate in unrelated sectors. Silence is fatal — a default effectively concedes the second and third conditions.

One asymmetry matters. Under the UDRP a panel can declare reverse domain name hijacking where a complaint was brought in bad faith to deprive a legitimate holder of its domain. The .nl Regulations contain no such provision, and panels have said so expressly (WIPO Case No. DNL2016-0042, nhnieuws.nl, 13 October 2016). A .nl registrant facing an abusive complaint must go to court for a declaration or costs.

Expired and hijacked domain names

If a .nl domain is cancelled or not renewed it enters quarantine for forty days. During that period nobody else can register it and only the former registrant can have it reinstated, at whatever the registrar charges. Afterwards the name is released, and because release times are randomised, drop-catchers often take valuable names within seconds. Act inside the quarantine window; after it, you are back to buying the name or bringing a claim.

For a hijacked name, move on several fronts at once: have the registrar freeze the record and preserve logs; notify SIDN; secure the underlying e-mail account and credentials; consider a criminal complaint; and prepare a kort geding, if necessary with a seizure aimed at delivery.

Prevention in practice

• Register defensively, but proportionately. Take the .nl of your core brand before you launch, with the obvious typo variants and the extensions your customers use.
• Own the registration. The registrant field must contain the legal entity — not an employee, not the agency, not the founder personally. It is the most common defect we see.
• Lock and monitor. SIDN’s .nl Control service blocks any change without the registrant’s explicit consent. Combine it with renewal monitoring on a company calendar rather than a personal inbox, and watch services for registrations and marks resembling your brand. SIDN markets its own trade mark and domain watch service for .nl under the name SIDN Brand Monitor.
• Register the trade mark. Without one the UDRP is closed to you, and the .nl procedure depends on proving a Dutch trade name.

Contracts with a web agency or a departing employee

Most Dutch domain name losses are contractual failures, not squatting. Any agreement with a web agency, developer or IT supplier should state that the client is and remains the registrant of all domain names; that the supplier acts only as administrative or technical contact; that it will cooperate immediately and free of charge in any transfer or move to another registrar, on pain of a penalty; that credentials, DNS records and the authorisation token are handed over on termination; and that it acquires no right of retention. For employees who register names in the course of their duties, the contract should confirm that the names belong to the company and require transfer on departure.