If someone else’s web address is trading on your brand, you know the feeling: the name is yours, but the domain is not. As of 4 June 2026, getting it back in Serbia works differently. The new Rulebook on the procedure for the resolution of disputes concerning the registration of national internet domain names (“Rulebook“) came into force, retiring a framework that had governed .rs and .срб disputes since 2011 with barely a facelift along the way.
Same test, sharper procedure
Disputes remain in the jurisdiction of the Commission for the resolution of disputes concerning the registration of national internet domain names (“Commission“), a specialised standing body at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce. The substantive test will also look familiar to anyone who has handled a UDRP complaint. To be successful in the proceedings, the complainant must demonstrate three things (cumulatively): a) that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to its applicable right; b) that the registrant has no right or legitimate interest in it; and c) that the registrant registered or used it in bad faith. Each of the three limbs needs its own evidence. Your registration certificate covers the first; for the second and third, the offending website itself is usually your best exhibit. Therefore, capture it before the registrant cleans it up, along with any correspondence, especially an offer to sell the domain, which is textbook bad faith.
Geographical indications join in
Until now, the mechanism served trademark holders. The Rulebook expressly opens the procedure to holders of protected geographical indications. A domain that trades on the reputation of a protected designation can now be challenged through the same fast track. The three-part test applies equally. For a country with a growing portfolio of protected food and wine designations, this is a logical and welcome step.
One expert, sixty days, no paper
The headline procedural novelty is that disputes are now decided by a sole expert by default. A three-member panel is available only where a party expressly requests it and bears the additional cost. For a typical cybersquatting case, this should translate into faster and cheaper outcomes.
Decisions now come from a “sole expert” rather than an “arbitrator” and the relabelling matters: this is not arbitration, so the Commission’s decision, while final on its own track, does not preclude either party from taking the matter to court/arbitration. The domain stays frozen in the meantime. Importantly, proceedings should, as a rule, conclude within 60 days of the appointment of the expert. The procedure is also now fully electronic. Complaints are filed electronically, and hearings, where held at all, can run by video conference.
Before you file
A few procedural points deserve attention. The procedure is conducted in Serbian, and a party’s authorised representative must be a Serbian citizen residing in Serbia, so foreign brand owners will need someone on the ground. The Commission can only transfer or cancel the domain; damages, injunctions and the removal of website content remain matters for the courts/arbitration. Finally, if proceedings end without a decision, for instance because the parties settle or a court judgment intervenes, the fees paid are not refunded and the same claim cannot be brought before the Commission again. In other words: preparation pays – have your evidence in order before you file, because there is no second bite.
What this means once you file
Fifteen years of quiet practice, now with a sharper edge and open to more rights holders than before. For brand owners, that is good news. For opportunistic registrants, rather less so. Ready or not, the new rules.rs apply.
This article is general information, not legal advice. For an assessment of your specific matter, contact the Refine Legal team.