Actions against unlawful domain name registrations and use in Hungary

Domain name disputes continue to rise alongside the growth of digital commerce, presenting complex challenges for IP right holders seeking swift and effective enforcement. In this article, Miklos Sévari and Dora Geyer-Hirt of Danubia explore Hungary’s ADR framework for “.hu” domain disputes, outlining the available procedures, key legal grounds, and practical insights drawn from recent case law.

“To summarize the benefits of ADR procedures in domain disputes, while civil litigation may last for years, a decision is typically delivered within one or two months.”

Unauthorized domain name registration and use are among the most prevalent intellectual property violations today, often arising in conjunction with acts that constitute trademark infringement, unfair competition, and/or other infringements of intellectual property rights or violations of personal rights.

The Hungarian dispute system regarding the country code top-level domains “.hu” (ccTLDs), managed by the alternative Dispute Resolution Forum (ADR Forum), provides expedited procedures for right holders to challenge registrations based on trademark or name infringement. Legal provisions regarding applications, registrations, maintenance, and termination of domain names, domain transfers, and the rules on domain disputes are set out in the regulations called the ‘Domain Registration Policy,’ which provides a uniform order of administration and proceedings concerning ccTLDs, and protects the rights of domain registrants and others, including IP right holders. The Domain Registration Policy and the related documents are available in Hungarian and English, and both versions are deemed authentic. However, in case of doubt or dispute, the Hungarian text shall prevail for legal interpretation purposes.

In disputes concerning domain applications and use of domains, the following procedures may be applied:

domain decision-maker procedure in disputes arising prior to the registration of the domain name;
registration decision-maker procedure in disputes relating to the withdrawal or transfer of a domain name from the registrant following registration;
hotline decision-making forum procedure, which is competent to deal with disputes arising from unlawful content published under registered domain names.

The detailed rules for these procedures are set out in the Dispute Settlement Procedural Rules.

Procedure of the domain decision-maker

A domain is put into conditional use by the applicant within one day of its application. At the same time, the registry publishes the domain on its public site. If no complaint against the delegation arrives within eight days of publication, the registry will delegate the domain to the applicant.

Anyone — in most cases an IP right holder — who has a legitimate interest in establishing that the registration of a conditionally registered domain is in breach of the Domain Registration Policy, or in the event of a negative decision by the registry on the application for a domain name, may initiate proceedings with the domain decision-maker by lodging a complaint.

Legal grounds

The application or use of the domain is against the deemed to be in breach of the Domain Registration Policy in particular if:

a. the domain name is, at the time of its application, identical or confusingly similar to a name protected for the benefit of the complainant by applicable Hungarian or European Union law; or

b. it is identical or confusingly similar to a name that the complainant is entitled to use under Hungarian or EU law; and

c. the complainee applied for the domain name without having any right or legitimate interest in the name or designation; or

d. the complainee has claimed or has been using the domain name in bad faith.

The procedure

The complainant must indicate its intention to lodge a complaint within eight days of the publication of the conditional registration of the contested domain name and must pay the initiation fee. Once the complainant has indicated this intention, they must submit the complaint, including the legal grounds and supporting documents, and pay the procedural fee within 14 days from the date of publication of the contested domain name. The complainant must also indicate whether they wish to claim the domain in addition to seeking revocation. If the deadlines are missed, the domain will be registered.

If the complaint is admissible, it will be sent to the complainee, who has eight days to submit a reply and pay the procedural fee. Failure by the complainee to respond does not prevent the domain decision-maker from issuing a decision. The decision is not subject to appeal but may be subject to court review.

The decision is binding on the parties, and the registry will act accordingly, i.e., either register the domain name for the applicant or cancel the conditional registration. If the domain is canceled following a successful complaint, only the complainant is entitled to submit a new claim for the domain name for a period of 30 days from the date of cancellation, provided that such intention was indicated in the complaint.

Procedure of the registration decision-maker

By lodging an application for the registration of a domain and maintaining that registration, the registrant submits to the decision of the ADR Forum acting as registration decision-maker. Once a domain has been delegated, a complaint may be initiated before the ADR Forum. The advantage of ADR proceedings is that they are much quicker than court proceedings, although they do not preclude the parties from going to court either instead of or following the ADR procedure.

After a domain name has been registered, a person who has a right to use the name may initiate a registration decision-maker procedure for the revocation or transfer of the domain name from the domain holder. The rules governing this procedure are set out in the Domain Registration Policy, the ADRF Rules of Procedure, and the Dispute Resolution Rules of Procedure.

The complaint must be based on the assertion that the application or use of the contested domain is in breach of the Domain Registration Policy. The applicable legal grounds are the same as those set out for the domain decision-maker procedure.

In the complaint, the complainant must prove their right to use the disputed domain name — most typically through a trademark, trade name, company name, business identifier, or copyright — and substantiate that the complainee’s use infringes the complainant’s rights or legitimate interests. The complainant must also demonstrate that the complainee does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the use of the domain is unlawful or in bad faith.

The ADR Forum shall notify the registry of the complaint, which will suspend the possibility of deletion or transfer of the domain name pending the outcome of the proceedings and any subsequent court action. The complainee has 30 days to file a counterstatement.

In its decision, the ADR Forum may reject the complaint or uphold it and revoke the domain from the complainee. In the latter case, the domain may be transferred to the complainant. Only the complainant is entitled to request delegation of the domain for a period of 60 days.

The decision of the ADR Forum is not subject to appeal, but the losing party may initiate court proceedings. If the complainee’s action is successful, the registry shall restore the status quo ante based on a final court judgment.

Case law

A recent case illustrates a dispute arising from a prior commercial relationship. The complainee acted as a non- exclusive distributor of the brand owner for thermostats marketed under the COMPUTHERM brand and registered the ccTLD in its own name without the brand owner’s consent. After the relationship ended, the brand owner requested that the distributor relinquish or transfer the domain name. Following unsuccessful attempts and cease-and-desist letters, the brand owner challenged the registration, arguing that the unauthorized use infringed its trademark rights and created a misleading impression of exclusivity or official affiliation.

The domain decision-maker focused on whether the distributor had received explicit written consent from the trademark owner to register the domain. In the absence of such authorization, registration is generally considered bad-faith exploitation of the trademark’s reputation (“free-riding”). The ADR Forum found that the complainee had no independent right to the name, upheld the complaint, and ordered transfer of the domain to the brand owner to prevent consumer confusion and protect trademark integrity.

In the Dunatár case, the legal basis of the complaint was the complainant’s registered corporate name. The complainant argued that the complainee had no prior rights and was using the website to publish misleading information, including false employee statistics and inadequate content, damaging the complainant’s professional reputation.

The registration decision-maker examined whether the respondent had any legitimate interest in the name. As the respondent failed to provide evidence of trademark rights, prior business use, or other legal grounds, and considering the misleading nature of the website content, it was established that the domain had been registered and used in bad faith. The decision-maker ruled in favor of the complainant, finding that the registration violated the complainant’s rights and was intended to deceive the public. The domain was subsequently transferred.

Regarding cease-and-desist letters, experience shows that clearly identifying the IP rights infringed by unauthorized domain registration and use, combined with a polite but firm letter, can be effective in a significant proportion of cases.

To summarize the benefits of ADR procedures in domain disputes, while civil litigation may last for years, a decision is typically delivered within one or two months. In addition to speed, expertise and cost-effectiveness are significant advantages. Decision-makers in domain ADR disputes are recognized specialists in IP and IT law. Procedural fees are fixed and significantly lower than litigation costs.

In case of any queries relating to domain name issues, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Résumés

Miklos Sovari, founding partner and member of the managing board at DANUBIA Patent and Law Office LLC, has substantial knowledge and experience in prosecuting and enforcing national and International patents, trademarks and designs, licensing and competition law matters, and in the field of industrial property rights litigation and
enforcement.

He is a regular speaker at industrial property rights conferences in Hungary and internationally and has published several articles in prestigious international scientific journals at home and abroad. He is the author of the Hungarian chapter of Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the EU Member States published in 2019.

Dora Geyer-Hirt is an attorney at law, member of the Budapest Bar Association. She specializes in trademark law, patent law, and domain name proceedings. Dora has several years of experience in Hungarian, EU, and international trademark registration, intellectual property protection, and domain name disputes. Dora graduated as a lawyer from Pazmany Péter Catholic University in 2021 and obtained a degree in biology from the University of Szeged in 2025.