Is a domain name an asset that can be seized by the creditors of the domain name holder?

If a party cannot pay its debts, or simply refuses to pay, its creditors will look for assets that can be seized and sold to the highest bidder. The proceeds of the auction will be used to reimburse the debt.

One of the types of assets that the creditor may be interested in, are the domain names of the debtor. According to Wix.com, some domain names have sold for astonishing amounts, reflecting their brand power and market demand. Leading the list is Cars.com at $872 million, followed by Business.com at $345 million and LasVegas.com at $90 million. Other high-value sales include CarInsurance.com ($49.7 million), Insurance.com ($35.6 million) and VacationRentals.com ($35 million).

During the last two years, the Belgian courts have been the forum in which various proceedings concerning the seizure of domain names have been heard. The disputes regarded .eu domain names, which are managed by the registry of the .eu domain names, the Belgian company EURid. EURid is the not for profit organisation established in Belgium that manages the .eu top-level domain pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/517. Because EURid has its registered offices near Brussels, Belgium, the Belgian courts had jurisdiction to resolve disputes about the seizure of .eu domain names.

The facts behind the pending cases are basically the same. The domain name holders are Maltese gambling companies, which were ordered by the Austrian courts to reimburse gambling losses to Austrian players. The Austrian courts ruled that the Maltese gambling companies had unlawfully offered their gambling services to the Austrian public and ordered them to reimburse the players’ losses. Even though these decisions were confirmed by the highest courts in Austria, the Maltese gambling companies did not comply with the court orders and refused to make any payment to the players. The gambling companies were able to rely in part on the fact that assets held in Malta are well protected against the claims of frustrated players.

Therefore, the players looked for assets outside Malta, and they found the .eu domain names of the Maltese Gambling companies that are in Belgium, registered with the .eu registry EURid.

The first question submitted to the courts was whether a domain name is an asset that can be seized and sold to satisfy an outstanding debt. The Brussels Court of Appeal rendered two decisions, and it concluded that domain names are intangible assets that can be seized and sold to the highest bidder (decisions of 17 December 2024 and 18 February 2025). According to the Court of Appeal, domain names represent an economic value and can be transferred easily. The seizure of a domain name is not excluded by law and domain names are not registered on the basis of intuitu personae agreements. Domain names are comparable to intellectual property rights, such as trademarks and patents, which can also be seized and sold if their owner does not pay their debts.

The second question that arose was where and how a domain name should be seized. Since the domain names were seized in Brussels, Belgium, where the .eu registry is established, the jurisdiction of the Brussels courts to decide on the validity of seizure was not disputed.

How the domain names can be seized was heavily debated. In one case, the players seized the domain names directly from the .eu registry in Belgium and informed the domain name holders in Malta of the seizure. In another case, the players undertook a third-party seizure or a garnishment, whereby the creditors enforce their debt via a third-party who is indebted to the main debtor (much like a third party debt order). Rather than paying the debtor (in this case, the Maltese gambling companies), the third-party must pay the creditor (in this case, the players who made losses). Typically this would involve the debtor’s bank blocking the funds seized and releasing the relevant amount to the creditor under the terms of the garnishment.

The Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that only a ‘third-party seizure’ or garnishment is allowed in Belgium to seize domain names. The Court of Appeal held that the domain name registry is a third-party who holds an asset of the debtor and if a creditor wants to seize that asset, he must do so by undertaking a third-party seizure or garnishment with the registry.

In the case where the players had seized the domain names directly from the registry, the seizure was declared invalid and was reversed (decision of 18 February 2025). In the case where the players had pursued a third-party seizure or garnishment, the seizure was declared valid (decision of 17 December 2024).

In the latter case, the gambling companies have filed an appeal with the Belgian Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation / Hof van Cassatie). They argue that their domain names are not assets that can be seized and that, even if domain names can be seized, the right way to do so is not by way of third-party seizure or garnishment, but rather a standard seizure in the hands of the gambling companies, such that it would need to be conducted in Malta, where the gambling companies may be better protected than in Belgium.

The Belgian Supreme Court’s decision is expected in the second half of 2026.