Can a creditor seize your domain name?

In our digital economy, a domain name is often one of a company's most valuable assets. But what happens if that company is in debt? Can a creditor simply seize your .be or .eu domain name?

Yes, you can. In a ruling of 18 February 2025, the Brussels Court of Appeal definitively confirmed that domain names are subject to seizure. They are considered intangible property with a clear economic value. However, the procedure a creditor must follow to do so is crucial, and a technical error is fatal, as this case showed.

The bottom line: the MR GREEN case

The case concerned a creditor who, based on Austrian judgments, sought to seize six .eu domain names (including mrgreen.eu) from the company MR GREEN Ltd . The creditor did this through a “third-party executable movable seizure", specifically at EURid, the administrator of .eu domain names.

The seizure judge had already lifted the seizure in the first instance. TThe judge ruled that seizure was indeed possible, but that the creditor had used the wrong procedure. Both parties appealed:

• The Debtor (MR GREEN) appealed because it disagreed with the reasoning. MR GREEN wanted to hear from the court that domain names are fundamentally unseizable.
• The creditor (M.S.). appealed to have the seizure still declared valid.

Appeals court's opinion

The court of appeal tied the knot in a very lucid argument.

Question 1: Is a domain name subject to seizure?

Yes. The court is categorical and rejects MR GREEN's position.

The court's reasoning is as follows:

• Economic value: The seized domain names are goods that have a clear economic value.
• Intangible good: They can be regarded as intangible goods that can be the subject of commercial transactions.
• Transferable: Domain names are transferable and have a resale value .
• No ownership, but right of use: The fact that the holder does not have a full-fledged ‘property right,’ but an ‘exclusive right of use’ (of EURid), does not preclude seziure. This right of use is precisely what represents the value.
• Seizability is the rule: The seizure of domain names is not excluded by law and is therefore the rule.

The court therefore rules that domain names are perfectly seizable. MR GREEN's appeal on this point is unfounded.

Question 2: What procedure should the creditor follow?

This is the most crucial point of the ruling. The court confirms that there is ambiguity and a loophole in the law about the procedure to be followed. The Belgian Judicial Code has no specific procedure for the seizure of intangible property that are not claims.

The court analyzes the two ‘classic’ procedures:

1. The wrong procedure: executable movable seizure (art. 1499 et seq. Jud.C.). The court states that this procedure, which the creditor used here, is expressly intended for physical (tangible) goods. A domain name is intangible. Thus, this was the wrong choice.
2. The correct procedure: Executive seizure among third parties (art. 1539 et seq. Jud.C). The court rules, as did the first judge, that this is the only appropriate course of action. This type of seizure affects ‘amounts or things’ owed by a third party (here: EURid) to the debtor (here: MR GREEN). By interpreting the terms ‘things’ and ‘debt’ broadly, one can attach EURid's obligation to grant the valuable right of use to MR GREEN.

Because the creditor had chosen the wrong legal basis (‘executive movable seizure’), the seizure was irregular. The court therefore upheld the lifting of the seizure, as the first court had already ruled. The creditor's (incidental) appeal was therefore dismissed.

Not an isolated case: a confirmation of previous case law

This principled ruling by the Court of Appeal does not come out of the blue. It confirms a trend that had already begun in the first instance.

As we discussed in our earlier blog post on the POKERSTARS verdict, the Brussels seizure judge already came to exactly the same conclusion in a similar case on 9 July 2024. Also in that case, a seizure of domain names (.pokerstars.eu) was lifted because the creditor had used the wrong procedure of ‘movable seizure,’ while the judge ruled that ‘seizure among third parties’ was the only correct route.

The ruling of the Court of Appeal now gives this legal opinion much more weight and provides the necessary legal certainty.

What does this mean for you?

This ruling sets an important precedent for anyone dealing with digital assets.

• For creditors: This is good news. You can now address your debtor's assets through their valuable domain names. The road is open. However, it is absolutely crucial that you follow the correct seizure procedure and place the seizure with the correct party (the registry or administrator, such as DNS Belgium for .be names or EURid for .eu names).
• For domain name holders (debtors): Your domain name is no longer ‘safe’ from creditors. It is legally recognized as a valuable part of your assets. However, this also means that you can defend against a seizure. If a creditor uses the wrong procedure, as in this ruling, you can successfully claim the release of the seizure.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

What is a domain name legally in Belgium?
Case law and legal doctrine define it as an intangible asset or a sui generis property right (a right of its own unique kind). It is essentially the exclusive, transferable right to use a particular name.

To whom should the seizure of a domain name be made?
The seizure must be made through the ‘seizure among third-party’ procedure in the hands of the third party that manages and grants the right of use. This is the registry (the central administrator), such as EURid for .eu domain names or DNS Belgium for .be domain names.

Does this ruling also apply to .be or .com domain names?
This ruling dealt specifically with .eu domain names . However, the underlying principles - that a domain name is an intangible asset with economic value and that seizure among third parties is the most appropriate procedure in the absence of a specific law - are perfectly applicable to other domain extensions, such as .be.

Conclusion

Belgian case law has opened the door to the seizure of domain names in Belgium. They can be seized, but the procedure to be followed is of capital importance. A wrong procedural choice leads to the seizure being lifted.