Domain name lawyer in Paris: recovering a domain registered by a third party.

Recovery depends first on the extension. For a .fr, Article L. 45-6 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code allows anyone who can show standing to act to ask the registry to transfer or delete the domain. For a .com or another generic extension, the out-of-court route is the UDRP procedure, conducted before an approved provider such as the one run by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization).

The conditions differ. For a .fr, there must be an infringement of an intellectual property right or a personality right, which the holder can neutralise only by showing a legitimate interest and good faith (Article L. 45-2). Under the UDRP, three cumulative conditions apply: possible confusion with a trademark, no right or legitimate interest on the part of the holder, and registration and use in bad faith. The judicial courts remain available where you also seek an injunction, a daily penalty or damages, which out-of-court procedures do not award. The Paris judicial court thus ordered the transfer of two domains registered by a person who knew the company and had no legitimate reason to register them in their own name (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 2nd sect., 26 April 2024, No. 22/05792).

Before taking any step, have the website recorded and keep the Whois history. The firm then checks which right to rely on, which extension is concerned and which procedure produces the intended effect in time.

Syreli and PARL Expert are the two Afnic Syreli and PARL Expert procedures. They cover the extensions managed by Afnic, including the .fr, and apply the cases set out in Article L. 45-2. Syreli decisions are given by an Afnic panel; PARL Expert decisions, by experts selected by Afnic and WIPO. Mediation offered by Afnic may be attempted before the procedure.

The UDRP procedure applies to generic extensions such as .com, .net or .org. Its policy, published by ICANN, imposes three cumulative conditions: a domain identical or confusingly similar to a trademark of the complainant, no right or legitimate interest on the part of the holder, and registration and use in bad faith.

Two practical differences matter. The Afnic procedure also protects personality rights and the names of public bodies, whereas the UDRP rests on a trademark. Neither allows compensation to be obtained: the UDRP panel can order only cancellation or transfer of the domain. The firm chooses the route according to the extension, the right relied on and the objective pursued.

Article R. 20-44-46 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code gives examples, without a closed list. Indications of bad faith include in particular a registration obtained mainly to sell, rent or transfer the name to the holder of a right, rather than to use it, a registration intended to harm the reputation of the holder of a right, or one that aims to profit from its renown by creating confusion.

The same article cites, conversely, indications of legitimate interest: use of the name in a genuine offer of goods or services, or demonstrable preparations for it, being known by that name, or non-commercial use without intent to mislead or harm. Article L. 45-2 provides that the holder must demonstrate their legitimate interest and good faith.

In a dispute over the domain onelife.fr, the Paris judicial court rejected the holder's legitimate interest, for lack of any element linking them personally or professionally to the name, and found that they had never used the domain themselves (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 1st sect., 1 October 2026, No. 24/10411). The firm therefore gathers resale offers, dates and website content rather than mere assertions.

Yes. Article L. 45-6 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code provides that decisions of the registry may be challenged before the judicial courts. Both the unsuccessful applicant and the holder ordered to transfer the domain may therefore bring the dispute before the court.

The court does not act as an appeal court over Afnic decisions. The Paris judicial court holds that “the judgment of the judicial court is not intended to annul the Afnic decision, which does not have the force of res judicata, but only to take its place” (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 1st sect., 1 October 2026, No. 24/10411) (our translation). In that case, Afnic had rejected the request to transfer the domain onelife.fr; the court rejected the claims seeking to confirm or annul that decision, then itself ordered the transfer, once the judgment had become final. It prohibited the holder from using the domain until the transfer, under a daily penalty limited to six months from service of the judgment.

The court compared the trademark and the domain without regard to the extension, holding that “the domain name extension performs a purely technical function in the eyes of the consumer” (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 1st sect., 1 October 2026, No. 24/10411) (our translation). A challenge therefore allows all the evidence to be argued afresh. The firm checks what the registry's decision accepted or set aside, then completes the file on the points that were missing.

Yes. Paragraph 4(k) of the ICANN UDRP policy provides that the administrative procedure does not prevent the parties from submitting the dispute to a competent court, before it begins or after it ends. Where the panel orders cancellation or transfer, the registrar waits ten business days, counted at the place of its seat, after being informed of the decision by the provider.

If the registrar receives within that period official proof of an action brought by the holder before a court to whose jurisdiction the complainant has submitted, it does not implement the decision. It resumes implementation only on the basis of an agreement between the parties, the dismissal or withdrawal of the action, or a court decision refusing the holder the right to continue using the domain. This short period means the challenge must be prepared even before the decision is issued, where the case is contested.

The court then decides the dispute independently, as the same paragraph provides. The two routes can also coexist: after a WIPO decision had ordered the transfer of a first domain, the Paris court of appeal ruled on other domains, without the first one being before it, and upheld the rejection of the bank's claims (CA Paris, pole 5 ch. 2, 20 February 2026, No. 24/17961). Before choosing the UDRP, the firm therefore assesses whether the dispute is likely to continue before a court.

Not as a protective measure or a measure to restore the previous situation, even where the infringement is manifest. The Court of Cassation struck out of a judgment the provision that had ordered, in urgent proceedings, the transfer of a .com domain, on the ground that this transfer “was neither a protective measure nor a measure to restore the previous situation” (Cass. com., 2 September 2026, No. 25-14.271) (our translation). The judgment, given under Article 873 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (code de procédure civile) applicable before the commercial court, carries no mention of publication in the Bulletin in Judilibre as at 1 November 2026.

The Paris urgent applications judge applies the same solution under Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judge found a manifestly unlawful disturbance in respect of an unused .fr, then held that “The request for transfer of the domain name, however, exceeds the jurisdiction of the urgent applications judge” (TJ Paris, urgent applications, 24 April 2026, No. 25/57296) (our translation). The claimant therefore did not obtain the transfer by this route.

Urgent proceedings remain useful for other measures: prohibiting the continuation of acts alleged to infringe a trademark, if need be under a daily penalty, on the basis of Article L. 716-4-6 of the French Intellectual Property Code, or ordering a pre-trial investigative measure under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The transfer itself is in principle obtained before the registry, the UDRP panel or the court hearing the merits. The decisions cited do not decide the distinct case of an obligation to return the domain that is not seriously contestable, which Article 835, paragraph 2, allows to be enforced in urgent proceedings, for example against a service provider.

Not necessarily. The date of registration is not enough to establish a priority that can be asserted. The Paris urgent applications judge holds that “the priority of a domain name is assessed not by reference to the date of its registration alone but taking into account its actual use” (TJ Paris, urgent applications, 24 April 2026, No. 25/57296) (our translation). In that case, the domain had been acquired in 2009, before the trademark was filed in 2021, but its holder could not show actual use at the date of filing.

Article L. 713-6, II, of the French Intellectual Property Code protects only the earlier use of a domain name of local scope, within the limits of the territory where it is recognised. Conversely, a domain name whose scope is not merely local constitutes an earlier right that can be asserted against a later trademark, where there is a risk of confusion (Article L. 711-3, I, 4°, of the French Intellectual Property Code). The Court of Cassation quashed a judgment that had not answered the submissions relying on an earlier company name and domain name against a trademark (Cass. com., 18 February 2026, No. 24-18.928).

That last decision penalises a failure to answer submissions; it does not decide the value of the domain as a prior right. For each party, the firm therefore checks the evidence of use at the relevant date rather than the registration date alone.

Article L. 713-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code prohibits, without authorisation, the use in the course of trade of a sign identical or similar to the trademark for identical or similar goods or services, with a risk of confusion in the second case. Article L. 713-3 extends the protection of well-known trademarks beyond their goods and services.

Use must therefore take place in the course of trade, in relation to goods or services. It does not always require an offer displayed on the website: an email system configured on the domain may be enough to create a link with the trademark, as the typosquatting case discussed below shows. The Paris judicial court found infringement by imitation of a medical-sector trademark, noting in respect of a teleconsultation website that “the domain name giving access to and enabling the operation of this service, this is therefore use as a trademark” (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 1st sect., 15 May 2025, No. 23/14736) (our translation).

This requirement also works against the trademark holder. The Paris court of appeal upheld the rejection of a bank's claims against domains reproducing its name for criticism websites with no commercial offer, recalling that “infringement of a well-known trademark concerns the use in the course of trade of goods or services not authorised by the trademark proprietor” (CA Paris, pole 5 ch. 2, 20 February 2026, No. 24/17961) (our translation). The firm therefore examines the actual content of the website before choosing the trademark as the basis.

Yes, on other grounds. Article L. 45-2 covers intellectual property rights and personality rights, which makes it possible to rely before Afnic on a company name, a trade name or a surname. Before the court, an action for unfair competition rests on Article 1240 of the French Civil Code.

The Court of Cassation distinguishes the nature of these rights: “The purpose of a trade name and a domain name is, for the former, to identify a business and, for the latter, to allow access to a website” (Cass. com., 26 March 2025, No. 23-13.589) (our translation). It accepts that a single material act can found both an infringement action and an unfair competition action, where it infringes rights of a different nature, without double compensation for the same loss.

The UDRP procedure, by contrast, requires a trademark. If your only right is a company name, a disputed .com will call for court action instead. Jurisdiction also varies: the Court of Cassation holds that an unfair competition action for misappropriation of a company name, with no trademark involved, does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the designated judicial courts (Cass. com., 2 September 2026, No. 25-12.118). The firm checks these points before filing a trademark urgently or issuing a writ of summons.

Typosquatting consists in registering variants of a trademark's name one letter away, to capture internet users who make a mistake when typing the address. These domains are sometimes used to send emails that appear to come from the company. Speed matters, because misleading messages can be sent as soon as the domain's email system is configured.

The Paris judicial court examined several dozen .fr domains registered on the same day, active and configured to receive emails. It found that their holder “attempts without legitimate reason and in bad faith to capture internet users' traffic” and ordered their transfer to the company holding the trademarks, with damages for infringement of their renown (TJ Paris, 3rd ch. 3rd sect., 9 October 2024, No. 23/15973) (our translation).

The file is stronger when it lists all the variants, their common registration date and the technical configuration observed, and when the messages received by customers have been recorded. Depending on the extension, the firm starts a Syreli procedure, a UDRP complaint or a trademark infringement action based on Article L. 713-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code where the trademark is well known. A criminal complaint calls for a separate analysis that this page does not develop.

The difficulty often comes from the contract. The provider registered the domain on behalf of its client, sometimes in its own name, then refuses the transfer at the end of the subscription. The first step is to reread the contract, the general terms and the invoices, then to check who appears as holder in the registry's database.

The Lille Métropole commercial court interpreted a clause that reserved to the provider a right to object to the transfer as long as the client remained in debt. It held that “ownership of the domain names belongs to the client once the client has terminated their subscription contract without owing any further sums”, then ordered the return of the domains under a daily penalty, while rejecting the claim for damages for lack of quantified loss (T. com. Lille Métropole, 17 June 2025, No. 2024011469) (our translation).

This solution depends on the terms of the contract in question and is not a general rule. The firm checks the expiry date of the domain, because a domain lost through failure to renew can be registered by a third party. It then sends a formal notice setting a deadline, and refers the matter to the competent court if the transfer remains blocked.

Nothing prohibits it, but paying under pressure carries risks. The holder may keep similar variants, and the sum paid rewards conduct that the law often allows to be penalised. Article R. 20-44-46 also lists registration intended mainly to sell the name to the holder of a right among the indications of bad faith.

The offer of sale then becomes an item in the file. In the dispute over the domain cba-assurance.fr, the holder had demanded a sum for the transfer; the urgent applications judge found a manifestly unlawful disturbance, for lack of demonstrated actual use, without however ordering the transfer, which exceeded the judge's powers (TJ Paris, urgent applications, 24 April 2026, No. 25/57296).

The decision to pay is therefore taken after examining the rights relied on, the actual use of the domain and the indications of bad faith gathered. Where these elements are solid, a request to the registry, a UDRP complaint or an action on the merits can obtain the transfer without paying the holder. The firm compares these routes with the proposal received before any reply to the holder.

Civil actions relating to trademarks, including where they also concern a related question of unfair competition, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of judicial courts designated by regulation, under Article L. 716-5, II, of the French Intellectual Property Code. The Court of Cassation applies this provision, recalling that such claims, “including where they also concern a related question of unfair competition, are brought exclusively before judicial courts” (Cass. com., 2 September 2026, No. 25-12.118) (our translation).

Where the claim rests only on a company name, with no trademark involved, this exclusive jurisdiction does not apply, as the same judgment held. The UDRP procedure takes place before an approved provider, and a challenge to an Afnic decision is brought before the judicial courts.

As to time limits, Article L. 716-4-2 of the French Intellectual Property Code sets the limitation period for an infringement action at five years from the day the holder knew or should have known of the last fact enabling them to bring it. Compensation is assessed according to the criteria of Article L. 716-4-10. Waiting remains risky, however, because the content of the website may change and the domain may be transferred. The firm therefore sets the timetable as soon as the matter is discovered.