A startup may spend years developing a brand, registering its trademark, acquiring customers and investing substantial amounts in digital marketing, only to discover that another person has registered a domain name containing the same or a confusingly similar trademark.

The problem may arise in many different forms.

For example:

• a third party registers the exact startup trademark as a .com.tr domain;
• a former employee registers the startup’s brand under .tr;
• a competitor registers a misspelled version of the trademark;
• someone registers the .com version of the startup’s Turkish trademark and offers to sell it back at an excessive price;
• a domain is used to redirect customers to a competing business;
• a fake website is created under a confusingly similar domain;
• or a cybersquatter simply holds the domain without developing a genuine business.

For technology companies, these disputes can be extremely serious.

A domain name is not merely a technical internet address. It can affect:

• customer trust,
• search engine traffic,
• email communications,
• cybersecurity,
• online sales,
• investor confidence,
• brand reputation,
• and the overall commercial value of the startup.

The most important question for founders is therefore:

If a third party registers a domain name that infringes a startup’s trademark, can the startup recover the domain name?

In many circumstances, yes.

However, the correct legal procedure depends heavily on the domain extension.

For .tr domain names, including structures such as .tr and .com.tr, Turkey operates a specific alternative dispute resolution system through TRABİS, the .tr Network Information System.

For generic top-level domains such as .com, .net and .org, trademark owners may often rely on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) administered by approved dispute-resolution providers such as the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

In addition, where use of the domain constitutes trademark infringement or another unlawful commercial practice, court proceedings under Turkish intellectual property law may also be available.

This article explains how a startup can recover a domain name that infringes its trademark in Turkey, including TRABİS complaints, UDRP proceedings, cybersquatting, bad-faith registration, trademark litigation, unfair competition, interim injunctions and the evidence required to obtain transfer of the disputed domain.

Why Are Domain Names So Important for Startups?

For a traditional business, the commercial identity of the company may historically have been connected primarily to:

• physical stores,
• company signage,
• telephone numbers,
• printed advertising,
• and trade names.

For a startup, the domain name can be considerably more important.

A SaaS company may conduct its entire business through one domain.

An e-commerce startup may receive almost all orders through its website.

A fintech company may send security notifications and customer communications through email addresses attached to its main domain.

A marketplace may spend millions building search-engine authority around a particular internet address.

Losing control of the correct domain can therefore create significant commercial damage.

For this reason, domain-name strategy should form part of the startup’s wider intellectual property strategy from the beginning.

Is a Domain Name the Same as a Trademark?

No.

A trademark and a domain name are legally different assets.

A trademark is an industrial property right used to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others.

A domain name is an internet addressing mechanism.

A business may therefore own:

STARTUPX as a registered trademark

while another person controls:

startupx.com

These two rights can conflict.

The question then becomes whether the domain registration or use violates the trademark owner’s legal rights or qualifies as abusive domain registration.

Turkish Trademark Law Specifically Recognises Domain Name Infringement

Turkish trademark law expressly addresses use of trademarks in domain names.

Article 7 of Industrial Property Code No. 6769 provides the registered trademark owner with exclusive rights within the statutory scope. Article 7(3)(d) specifically provides that where the user has no right or legitimate connection with the sign, use of an identical or similar sign in a manner creating commercial effect on the internet as a domain name, routing code, keyword or similar identifier may be prohibited where the requirements of trademark infringement are satisfied.

This provision is extremely important for startups.

It means that a domain-name dispute is not merely a contractual matter between the domain registrant and the registrar.

In appropriate circumstances, domain use can constitute infringement of a registered trademark.

Does Every Domain Containing a Trademark Constitute Infringement?

No.

Trademark ownership does not automatically give a business control over every domain containing the same word.

The circumstances must be analysed.

Relevant factors may include:

• whether the trademark and domain are identical or similar;
• the goods or services involved;
• likelihood of confusion;
• whether the trademark is highly distinctive;
• whether the domain registrant has its own legitimate rights;
• whether the term has a descriptive or generic meaning;
• whether the domain is being used commercially;
• whether the registrant is a competitor;
• whether users are being redirected;
• and whether the registration was made in bad faith.

For example, a startup called Orange cannot necessarily claim every domain containing the dictionary word “orange” regardless of context.

The legal position becomes much stronger where the disputed domain reproduces a distinctive registered startup brand and the domain owner has no plausible independent reason to use that sign.

What Is Cybersquatting?

Cybersquatting generally describes the practice of registering a domain associated with another person’s trademark, brand or identity, particularly with the intention of exploiting the legitimate rights holder.

Common examples include registering a domain:

• to sell it to the trademark owner for a large amount;
• to prevent the trademark owner from obtaining the domain;
• to redirect customers to a competing company;
• to generate advertising revenue from brand confusion;
• to impersonate the trademark owner;
• to conduct phishing;
• or to damage the trademark owner’s commercial operations.

Both Turkey’s .tr dispute resolution system and the international UDRP contain mechanisms directed at abusive or bad-faith domain registrations.

The First Question: Is the Domain a “.tr” Domain or a Generic Domain?

The appropriate legal strategy usually begins with the domain extension.

For “.tr” Domains

Examples include:

• brand.tr
• brand.com.tr
• brand.net.tr

Turkey’s specific domain dispute framework operates through TRABİS and authorised Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Hizmet Sağlayıcıları (UÇHS).

TRABİS is administered within the regulatory framework of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority, and the official TRABİS website identifies the Internet Domain Names Regulation and the Internet Domain Names Dispute Resolution Mechanism Communiqué as core parts of the applicable framework.

For Generic Domains

Examples include:

• brand.com
• brand.net
• brand.org

The UDRP will often be the principal administrative mechanism where the registration agreement is subject to that policy.

ICANN explains that the UDRP is used to address abusive trademark-based domain registrations and that ICANN-accredited registrars apply the policy to the relevant generic top-level domain registrations.

The legal tests are similar in many respects, but they are not identical.

How Can a Startup Recover a “.tr” Domain Through TRABİS?

Turkey’s Internet Domain Names Regulation establishes an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for .tr domain names.

Article 25 of the Regulation sets out three cumulative requirements for a successful complaint.

The complainant must establish that:

1. the disputed domain is identical or similar to a trademark, trade name, business name or another identifying sign owned or used in commerce by the complainant;
2. the domain registrant has no legal right or legitimate connection with the domain; and
3. the domain was registered or is being used in bad faith.

All three conditions must be established together.

This three-part test should form the structure of every well-prepared .tr domain complaint.

First Requirement: Identical or Similar Domain Name

The startup must first demonstrate that the disputed domain is identical or sufficiently similar to a protected or commercially used identifying sign.

The relevant earlier right does not have to be limited only to a registered trademark.

The Regulation refers to:

• trademarks,
• trade names,
• business names,
• and other identifying signs used in commerce.

A trademark registration is nevertheless particularly useful because it gives the startup a clear documentary basis for the complaint.

For example:

Registered trademark: LEXORA

Disputed domain: lexora.tr

The similarity is direct.

The same may be true for:

• lexora.com.tr,
• lexoraapp.tr,
• or certain deliberately misspelled variants,

depending on the circumstances.

What About Typographical Variations?

Cybersquatters frequently avoid registering the exact mark.

Instead, they register variations such as:

• missing letters;
• additional letters;
• hyphens;
• plural versions;
• common spelling mistakes;
• or words such as “official”, “app”, “Turkey”, “shop” or “support” added to the mark.

This practice is often called typosquatting.

The existence of additional descriptive wording does not necessarily remove confusing similarity.

The key issue is whether the protected identifying element remains recognisable and whether the domain creates an unlawful association with the startup.

Second Requirement: No Right or Legitimate Connection

The startup must also demonstrate that the domain holder has no legitimate right or connection to the disputed name.

This element is extremely important.

Suppose the startup owns the trademark NOVA.

Another company has legitimately operated for fifteen years under the trade name Nova Architecture.

The mere fact that the startup has a trademark containing NOVA may not automatically make the architecture company’s domain abusive.

By contrast, the complainant’s case becomes substantially stronger where:

• the registrant has never used the disputed name before;
• the registrant has no trademark;
• the registrant has no corresponding trade name;
• the registrant is not commonly known by the name;
• and the domain was registered only after the startup became commercially successful.

The existence of legitimate independent rights can therefore determine the outcome of the dispute.

Third Requirement: Bad-Faith Registration or Use

The third requirement is usually the most heavily contested.

The Internet Domain Names Dispute Resolution Mechanism Communiqué identifies several examples of bad-faith registration or use.

These include situations where the domain was obtained:

• primarily to sell or transfer it to the complainant or a competitor for an amount exceeding documented registration and investment costs;
• to prevent the owner of a trademark, trade name, business name or identifying sign from using that sign in a domain;
• primarily to damage the business or activities of a commercial competitor;
• or to create confusion with the complainant’s trademark or other identifying sign and redirect internet users for commercial gain.

The list is expressly non-exhaustive, meaning a panel may find bad faith in other factual circumstances as well.

Example: Domain Registered Only to Sell It Back to the Startup

Suppose Startup A owns the trademark:

PAYRIVO

A third party registers:

payrivo.tr

The registrant immediately sends an email saying:

“I know your company needs this domain. Pay me EUR 50,000 and I will transfer it.”

Evidence that the domain was registered primarily for resale to the trademark owner at an amount far beyond registration costs can strongly support bad faith under the Turkish .tr dispute rules.

The startup should preserve:

• emails,
• WhatsApp messages,
• screenshots,
• invoices,
• and any price proposals.

These documents may become central evidence.

Example: Competitor Redirects the Domain

Consider another scenario.

Startup A owns:

FOODORAQ

Competitor B registers:

foodoraq.tr

Visitors who enter the domain are automatically redirected to Competitor B’s competing platform.

This creates a strong factual pattern for arguments involving:

• confusing similarity;
• lack of legitimate connection;
• bad-faith commercial diversion;
• trademark infringement;
• and potentially additional commercial law remedies.

The use of confusion to redirect internet users for commercial gain is specifically identified as a potential bad-faith circumstance under the Turkish dispute framework.

Is It Enough That the Domain Is Inactive?

An inactive domain can still create a dispute.

A registrant may simply hold the domain without publishing a website.

Whether this is sufficient to establish bad faith depends on the entire factual context.

Relevant facts may include:

• distinctiveness of the trademark;
• date of the trademark;
• date of domain registration;
• previous communications between the parties;
• whether the registrant demanded money;
• whether the registrant has registered multiple third-party trademarks as domains;
• and whether any legitimate explanation exists for choosing the name.

Therefore, the absence of an active website does not automatically prevent recovery.

Where Is a TRABİS Complaint Filed?

The complaint is filed before an authorised Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Hizmet Sağlayıcısı, rather than directly asking the registrar to decide the trademark dispute.

As of 2026, the official TRABİS website identifies authorised dispute resolution providers including:

• Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İnternet Güvenliği Derneği;
• TOBBUYUM Arabuluculuk ve Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Merkezi;
• İstanbul Tahkim Merkezi (ISTAC).

TRABİS publishes the current provider list and contact information.

Because the authorised provider list may change, the current TRABİS list should always be checked before filing.

What Must the Complainant Submit?

Under the applicable communiqué, the complaint should identify the disputed domain and specify whether the complainant seeks cancellation or transfer.

The complainant must also provide supporting evidence and explain why the legal requirements for the complaint are satisfied.

Once the complaint is accepted, the disputed .tr domain is notified to TRABİS and the relevant registrar and is frozen during the dispute process.

The freezing mechanism is extremely important because it prevents the registrant from defeating the proceeding by transferring the domain to another person while the dispute is pending.

What Evidence Should a Startup Submit?

A strong domain complaint should normally include evidence concerning both the startup’s rights and the registrant’s conduct.

Possible documents include:

• trademark registration certificates;
• TÜRKPATENT records;
• trade registry documents;
• evidence of trade name use;
• website screenshots;
• historical website records;
• advertising materials;
• invoices;
• customer contracts;
• app-store records;
• domain WHOIS/TRABİS data;
• emails from the domain holder;
• offers to sell the domain;
• screenshots showing redirection;
• evidence of competing activity;
• social media posts;
• and records showing when the startup first used the brand.

The legal argument should then connect the evidence directly to all three elements under Article 25.

What Can the TRABİS Panel Decide?

Under the Internet Domain Names Regulation, the arbitrator or panel may:

• order cancellation of the disputed domain;
• order transfer of the domain to the complainant;
• or reject the complaint.

The decision is made based on the applicable legislation, evidence and the circumstances of the case.

For a startup seeking control of its brand domain, requesting transfer is usually more commercially useful than cancellation.

If the domain is merely cancelled, another person may potentially register it later.

Transfer directly places the domain under the successful complainant’s control.

When Is a TRABİS Transfer Decision Implemented?

The Dispute Resolution Mechanism Communiqué provides an important post-decision period.

If the relevant party does not notify the dispute provider of an interim judicial order within ten business days after the decision is served, the decision is implemented through TRABİS.

If a relevant interim injunction has been obtained and notified within the statutory framework, implementation is suspended while the court proceedings continue.

This means the alternative dispute process does not eliminate access to the courts.

A dissatisfied domain holder may seek judicial protection.

Is TRABİS Mandatory?

No.

The .tr dispute mechanism is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

The official TRABİS FAQ confirms that parties are not required to use the UÇM and may apply to judicial authorities.

This creates an important strategic choice.

The startup may consider:

• TRABİS only;
• court litigation only;
• or, depending on the circumstances, a coordinated strategy involving the dispute mechanism and judicial remedies.

The correct approach depends on what the startup needs.

When Might Court Proceedings Be Better?

TRABİS is primarily designed to resolve control over the domain.

Court proceedings may become more important where the startup also seeks:

• compensation;
• determination of trademark infringement;
• prohibition of broader trademark use;
• removal of confusing branding from other channels;
• claims concerning counterfeit goods;
• or comprehensive interim relief beyond the domain itself.

Under Article 149 of the Industrial Property Code, an industrial property rights holder may seek remedies including determination of infringement, prevention of threatened infringement, cessation of infringing acts, removal of infringement and compensation for material and moral damage.

A domain dispute may therefore form only one part of a wider trademark infringement case.

Example: Fake E-Commerce Website

Suppose a startup owns the registered trademark NEXMART.

A third party establishes:

nexmart-turkiye.com

The website uses:

• the startup’s logo;
• product photographs;
• copied corporate information;
• and a fake payment page.

The objective appears to be fraudulent customer payments.

A simple domain transfer may not be sufficient.

The startup may need urgent action involving:

• trademark infringement;
• hosting provider notifications;
• payment provider intervention;
• criminal-law analysis;
• cybersecurity response;
• evidence preservation;
• and interim judicial measures.

Domain recovery should therefore be treated as part of a broader enforcement strategy.

Trademark Infringement Through Domain Names Under Turkish Law

Article 7(3)(d) of the Industrial Property Code is directly relevant where a third party uses an identical or similar trademark in a domain name in a commercially effective manner without a right or legitimate connection.

Where the requirements of Article 7 are satisfied, the trademark owner may seek to prohibit that use.

This can be especially important where the domain is not .tr and therefore cannot be recovered through the Turkish TRABİS mechanism.

The startup may still have substantive trademark claims under Turkish law depending on jurisdiction and the territorial impact of the conduct.

Can Unfair Competition Rules Also Apply?

Domain-name conduct can also raise unfair competition issues in appropriate cases.

Article 54 of the Turkish Commercial Code provides that deceptive or otherwise dishonest conduct and commercial practices affecting relationships between competitors, suppliers and customers are unlawful unfair competition.

Article 55 specifically identifies conduct creating confusion with another person’s goods, business products, activities or commercial affairs among the principal examples of dishonest commercial behaviour.

Accordingly, a confusing domain used to impersonate a startup or divert customers may generate commercial-law issues in addition to industrial property claims.

The precise legal basis should nevertheless be assessed according to the specific rights and facts involved.

Recovering a “.com” Domain: What Is the UDRP?

When the disputed domain is a generic top-level domain such as .com, .net or .org, a trademark owner may often use the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

ICANN describes the UDRP as an administrative framework for resolving trademark-based disputes involving abusive domain registrations.

WIPO is one of the major approved providers administering these proceedings.

The UDRP is particularly useful for international startups because the registrant may be located in another country.

What Must a Startup Prove Under the UDRP?

The complainant must establish three elements:

1. the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
2. the domain registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain;
3. the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

All three elements must be established.

This test is conceptually very similar to the Turkish .tr framework, although the rules and case law should not be treated as completely interchangeable.

UDRP First Element: Trademark Rights

The complainant must show rights in a trademark or service mark.

A registered trademark generally provides a strong basis.

For example:

Trademark: CLOUDNOVA

Domain: cloudnova.com

The first element is usually straightforward.

Confusing similarity may also exist where the domain adds ordinary wording such as:

• cloudnovashop.com
• cloudnovaapp.com
• cloudnovaturkey.com

depending on the circumstances.

UDRP Second Element: No Rights or Legitimate Interests

The domain owner may defeat the complaint if it has legitimate rights or interests.

WIPO’s guidance identifies examples that may establish legitimate interests, including:

• bona fide use or demonstrable preparations to use the domain for genuine goods or services before notice of the dispute;
• being commonly known by the domain name;
• or legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent to misleadingly divert customers for commercial gain or tarnish the trademark.

This is why a UDRP complaint should not be filed simply because the trademark owner wants a domain that someone else legitimately owns.

UDRP Third Element: Bad Faith

Under the UDRP, the domain must generally have been registered and used in bad faith.

The policy identifies examples including circumstances showing that the registrant acquired the domain primarily to sell it to the trademark owner or a competitor for an amount exceeding direct registration-related costs.

Other recognised patterns may involve:

• blocking trademark owners;
• disrupting competitors;
• or using confusion to attract users for commercial gain.

The timeline is therefore extremely important.

What If the Domain Was Registered Before the Startup Trademark Existed?

This can create a major problem under the UDRP.

Suppose:

Domain registered: 2015.

Startup created: 2024.

Trademark registered: 2025.

It may be difficult to argue that the registrant registered the domain in 2015 in bad faith targeting a brand that did not yet exist.

This illustrates why startups should investigate domain availability before choosing the brand.

A startup should not build a business around a name and assume it can later force a legitimate earlier domain owner to surrender the domain.

What Remedies Can WIPO Award Under the UDRP?

A UDRP panel has three basic options:

• order transfer of the domain to the complainant;
• order cancellation of the domain;
• or deny the complaint.

WIPO panels cannot award damages or legal fees through the UDRP process.

This makes the UDRP highly useful where the principal objective is:

“Give us control of the domain.”

It is not a substitute for court litigation where the startup seeks substantial financial compensation.

How Long Does a WIPO UDRP Proceeding Take?

The UDRP is designed as an expedited administrative process.

Under WIPO’s current procedural guidance, the respondent generally has 20 days from commencement to submit a response, with an automatic four-day extension available upon request.

After the panel is appointed, the UDRP Rules generally contemplate delivery of the decision within 14 days absent exceptional circumstances.

This can be considerably faster than conventional cross-border trademark litigation.

What Happens After a Successful UDRP Decision?

The registrar implements the panel’s decision.

WIPO explains that the registrar generally implements a transfer or cancellation decision ten business days after receiving notification unless the respondent provides proper documentation within that period showing that it has commenced a court challenge in the relevant jurisdiction.

Therefore, like the TRABİS system, the UDRP does not entirely eliminate judicial proceedings.

Can a Startup File a UDRP Complaint Without a Lawyer?

WIPO does not require a complainant to use a lawyer.

However, domain disputes can involve complex legal and evidentiary issues, particularly regarding:

• legitimate interests;
• trademark ownership;
• historical domain ownership;
• bad faith;
• corporate relationships;
• descriptive terms;
• and previous correspondence.

WIPO also recognises reverse domain name hijacking, where the UDRP is used in bad faith to attempt to deprive a legitimate registrant of its domain.

Accordingly, startups should analyse the merits carefully before filing.

What Is Reverse Domain Name Hijacking?

Reverse domain name hijacking occurs where a complainant abuses the domain dispute procedure in bad faith in an attempt to take a domain from a legitimate registrant.

For example:

Startup A registers a trademark in 2026.

A completely unrelated company has legitimately owned the corresponding .com domain since 2002.

Startup A files a UDRP complaint despite knowing that the domain owner registered the domain decades before the startup existed.

A panel may consider whether the complaint constitutes an abuse of the UDRP process.

Trademark ownership does not automatically entitle a company to take an earlier legitimate domain from its owner.

Should the Startup Buy the Domain Instead of Filing a Complaint?

Sometimes commercial negotiation is the most efficient solution.

Suppose a person legitimately registered the domain ten years before the startup existed.

There is no bad faith.

There is no trademark infringement.

The owner asks EUR 15,000 for the domain.

The startup may have no strong legal basis for compulsory transfer.

Purchasing the domain may therefore be commercially sensible.

The key distinction is between:

a legitimate domain sale

and

cybersquatting intended to exploit the trademark owner.

Before threatening legal action, the startup should determine which situation actually exists.

Be Careful When Contacting the Domain Owner

Communications with the registrant may later become evidence.

A startup should therefore think strategically before sending messages.

For example, an impulsive founder might send:

“We desperately need this domain. What price do you want?”

The response may later affect negotiations or legal analysis.

In other circumstances, asking the owner for the sale price can generate valuable evidence if the owner demands an obviously excessive amount while demonstrating knowledge of the trademark owner.

The communication strategy should therefore be deliberate.

Should a Cease-and-Desist Letter Be Sent First?

Not always.

A formal notice may be useful where the startup wants to:

• demand transfer;
• demand cessation of trademark use;
• stop redirection;
• preserve evidence;
• or attempt settlement.

However, advance warning can sometimes give the domain holder time to:

• change website content;
• delete evidence;
• alter redirections;
• move infrastructure;
• or create an artificial explanation for the registration.

Evidence should generally be preserved before sending a demand letter.

What Evidence Should Be Preserved Immediately?

A startup discovering an infringing domain should preserve:

• full-page screenshots;
• domain registration information;
• registration date;
• registrar information;
• historical website content;
• redirection evidence;
• source page data where relevant;
• email headers;
• offers to sell;
• WhatsApp messages;
• advertisements;
• Google search results;
• social media links;
• customer complaints;
• phishing messages;
• and evidence showing brand recognition.

If the website changes later, these materials may be crucial.

What If the Domain Is Being Used for Phishing?

Phishing cases require faster action than an ordinary trademark dispute.

Suppose the legitimate startup operates:

novapay.com

An attacker registers:

novapay-support.com

and sends customers emails requesting their passwords.

The startup should not simply wait for a routine domain proceeding.

Depending on the circumstances, it may need immediate action involving:

• registrar abuse channels;
• hosting providers;
• email providers;
• browser security reporting;
• financial institutions;
• payment processors;
• cybersecurity teams;
• criminal authorities;
• and interim judicial protection.

Trademark enforcement should be integrated into incident response.

Domain Name Disputes and Startup Investment Due Diligence

Investors increasingly review domains as part of startup intellectual property due diligence.

They may ask:

• Who owns the main domain?
• Is it registered in the company name?
• Does a founder personally own it?
• When does it expire?
• Does the startup control all important extensions?
• Are any disputes pending?
• Does a cybersquatter own the .com?
• Does another company have prior trademark rights?

A startup whose main domain is controlled personally by a founder may create unnecessary due diligence concerns.

The core domain should ordinarily be transferred to the company if the company is intended to own the brand infrastructure.

Domain Name Disputes During Startup Acquisitions

The problem can become even more serious during an exit.

Imagine a buyer offering EUR 50 million for a startup whose platform operates entirely through one domain.

During due diligence, the buyer discovers:

• the domain is registered in the former CTO’s personal name;
• the company has no written assignment;
• the former CTO has left the startup;
• and a dispute has already begun.

The buyer may question whether the startup can legally and technically continue operating after acquisition.

Domain ownership should therefore be cleaned up long before an exit process begins.

Preventing Domain Name Disputes Before They Occur

The most efficient domain dispute is the one that never arises.

When choosing a startup brand, founders should ideally check:

• trademark availability;
• .com availability;
• .tr availability;
• .com.tr availability;
• obvious misspellings;
• major country-code domains;
• social media usernames;
• and app-store naming conflicts.

Important domains should be registered early.

The cost of maintaining defensive registrations is usually insignificant compared with the cost of later domain litigation.

Defensive Domain Registration

A startup does not need to register thousands of domains.

However, commercially significant brands may justify securing:

• the exact .com;
• the exact .tr;
• the exact .com.tr;
• common spelling variants;
• common hyphenated versions;
• and important international country domains.

For example, a startup called Nexivo might consider:

• nexivo.com
• nexivo.tr
• nexivo.com.tr

before publicly launching the brand.

Once the startup becomes successful, these domains may become far more expensive or attractive to cybersquatters.

Renew Domains Automatically

Domain disputes can also arise because a startup accidentally allows its own domain to expire.

This is one of the easiest risks to prevent.

The company should:

• use automatic renewal;
• maintain valid payment information;
• use company-controlled registrar accounts;
• enable multi-factor authentication;
• ensure more than one authorised employee has access;
• and maintain an internal domain register.

A startup should never lose a multimillion-euro digital asset because a former employee’s credit card expired.

Domain Ownership Checklist for Startups

A startup should periodically review the following:

1. Who legally owns the main domain?
2. Is the registrant the company or a founder?
3. Which registrar is used?
4. Who controls the registrar account?
5. Is multi-factor authentication enabled?
6. Is automatic renewal active?
7. Which email receives expiry notices?
8. Does the company own the .com?
9. Does the company own the .tr?
10. Does the company own the .com.tr?
11. Are important misspellings protected?
12. Are international domains required?
13. Is the trademark registered?
14. Are confusing third-party domains monitored?
15. Is WHOIS/TRABİS information preserved?
16. Are employees prohibited from personally registering company domains?
17. Are founder-owned domains transferred to the startup?
18. Are domain rights included in IP assignment agreements?
19. Is there a process for cybersecurity incidents involving fake domains?
20. Is there a strategy for TRABİS or UDRP complaints?

These questions should be answered before a dispute begins.

Frequently Asked Questions About Recovering an Infringing Domain Name

Can a startup recover a .tr domain registered by someone else?

Potentially yes. Under Article 25 of the Internet Domain Names Regulation, the complainant must establish similarity or identity with an earlier trademark or other identifying sign, absence of a legitimate right or connection on the registrant’s side, and bad-faith registration or use.

Where is a .tr domain complaint filed?

It is filed through an authorised Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Hizmet Sağlayıcısı operating within the TRABİS framework. The current authorised provider list is published by TRABİS.

Can the .tr domain be transferred directly to the startup?

Yes. The arbitrator may order transfer of the disputed domain where the legal requirements are established and transfer is requested.

Can a startup recover a .com domain?

Potentially. The UDRP may apply where the domain is identical or confusingly similar to the startup’s trademark, the registrant lacks rights or legitimate interests, and the domain was registered and used in bad faith.

Can WIPO award damages?

No. Under the UDRP, the panel can order transfer, cancellation or deny the complaint, but it cannot award monetary damages or legal costs.

Can domain-name use constitute trademark infringement in Turkey?

Yes. Industrial Property Code Article 7(3)(d) expressly contemplates commercially effective use of an identical or similar sign as a domain name where the user lacks a right or legitimate connection, subject to the statutory infringement conditions.

Is offering the domain for sale automatically bad faith?

Not necessarily. Domain names may legitimately be bought and sold. However, registration primarily intended to sell a domain associated with another person’s protected sign back to the rights holder for an amount substantially exceeding registration-related costs is specifically recognised as a potential bad-faith circumstance under both Turkish .tr rules and the UDRP framework.

Can a startup go directly to court?

Yes. TRABİS describes the .tr dispute mechanism as an alternative mechanism and confirms that judicial authorities remain available. Trademark litigation may also provide broader remedies where infringement is established.

Conclusion: How Can a Startup Recover a Domain Name That Infringes Its Trademark?

A startup whose trademark has been incorporated into another person’s domain name may have several legal options.

The correct strategy depends first on the domain extension.

For .tr domain names, Turkey operates a specific alternative dispute resolution mechanism under the Internet Domain Names Regulation and the Internet Domain Names Dispute Resolution Mechanism Communiqué.

The startup must generally establish three elements:

1. the domain is identical or similar to the startup’s trademark, trade name, business name or another qualifying identifying sign;
2. the domain registrant has no legal right or legitimate connection to the domain;
3. the domain was registered or is being used in bad faith.

All three requirements must be established.

Where those conditions are satisfied, an authorised dispute-resolution provider may issue a decision transferring the domain to the complainant or cancelling it.

Bad faith may be particularly clear where a domain has been registered:

• to sell it back to the startup for an excessive amount;
• to prevent the startup from using its own commercial sign;
• to disrupt a competing business;
• or to divert customers through confusion for commercial gain.

For generic domains such as .com, .net and .org, the UDRP can provide a fast international administrative mechanism.

Under the UDRP, the complainant must prove:

• identical or confusing similarity;
• absence of rights or legitimate interests;
• and bad-faith registration and use.

A successful UDRP proceeding can result in transfer or cancellation of the domain, although monetary damages are not available through that procedure.

Court proceedings may be more appropriate where the startup needs broader protection.

Turkish trademark law specifically recognises commercially effective domain-name use as potentially prohibited where an identical or similar trademark is used without a right or legitimate connection and the statutory requirements are satisfied.

Where trademark infringement is established, the rights holder may seek remedies including:

• determination of infringement;
• prevention;
• cessation;
• removal of the infringement;
• and compensation for damage.

The most important practical lesson, however, is preventive.

A startup should not wait until it raises millions of euros, becomes well known and attracts cybersquatters before securing its digital identity.

At the branding stage, founders should coordinate:

• trademark registration;
• corporate trade name;
• .com registration;
• .tr registration;
• .com.tr registration;
• major international domains;
• social media usernames;
• and internal ownership of digital assets.

The main domains should be registered in the startup company’s name, not left permanently under a founder, employee, developer or advertising agency.

Where a suspicious domain appears, evidence should be preserved immediately.

The startup should document:

• the domain registration information;
• website content;
• redirections;
• offers to sell;
• competitor links;
• customer confusion;
• trademark rights;
• and the chronology of the brand’s use.

The legal argument should then move beyond a general complaint such as:

“They took our domain.”

A strong claim should instead demonstrate:

“We hold these earlier trademark or commercial rights; the domain is identical or confusingly similar; the registrant has no legitimate connection to the name; and these facts demonstrate bad-faith registration or use.”

That distinction is crucial.

A trademark does not give a startup an automatic right to every desirable internet address.

But where another person registers or uses a domain specifically to exploit the startup’s brand, confuse its customers or obstruct its legitimate commercial activity, Turkish law and international domain dispute mechanisms can provide powerful tools for recovery.

For startups whose businesses depend on their online identity, domain-name protection should therefore be treated as part of the company’s core intellectual property infrastructure—not as a technical issue to be addressed only after a dispute occurs.