+44 (0) 1908 200022
+1 703 574 5313 
The “Reveal Day” for ICANN’s new round of top-level domain (TLD) applications occurred on 7 October 2026. This marked the first official glimpse of the more than 1,600 applications for new online namespaces.
Reveal Day also sets the scene for the inevitable battles over certain TLDs. Applicants for the same TLD string will be “in contention” and should therefore switch to a back-up string or engage in an ICANN auction. Contentions sets are not the only battleground, as third parties can also object to applications.
It is crucial for brand owners to consult the list of TLDs unveiled on Reveal Day. This is regardless of whether they have applied for a dotBrand TLD. ICANN does not filter out TLDs that may infringe on IP rights. That responsibility falls on the brand owners themselves. ICANN has, however, ensured that there is recourse for brand owners if they are concerned about an applied-for string.
Do brands have to be applicants in order to file objections?
There is a misconception that recourse is only open to brand owners who have applied for a TLD.
This is not the case: ICANN has retained the legal rights objection (LRO) process from the 2012 round, again administered by WIPO. The LRO process allows brand owners to object to a new TLD application regardless of whether the rights holder is involved in the application round itself.
An LRO can be filed after “String Confirmation Day”, currently scheduled for 17 November 2026. This is the date on which applicants commit to their TLD after having the opportunity to switch to a back-up string. There is a 104-day window for brand owners to submit an LRO.
How was the LRO process used previously?
There were 69 LRO cases in the 2012 round of new TLDs. Most resulted in the objection being denied, with only four upheld rulings. All four of these cases, however, involved trademark holders successfully enforcing their rights against applicants.
In the Del Monte case (WIPO case LRO2013-0001) the owner of the DEL MONTE trademark successfully stopped a South African licensee from owning the ‘.delmonte’ TLD. The WIPO panel found that the licensee’s actions, including its acquisition of South African trademarks, violated the terms of its licensing agreement with the rights holder. Nonetheless, one member of the panel dissented, pointing out that the objector had allowed the licensee to own and operate many non-geographically limited DEL MONTE domain names.
The DirecTV case (WIPO case LRO2013-0005) involved the ‘.direct’ string. The applicant argued that it applied because of the value of the string as a generic term. The issue, however, was that the applicant was a competitor of the objector, who operated under the DIRECTV mark. Crucially, the objector also used DIRECT-formative trademarks, meaning the ‘.direct’ string, operated by a competitor, would likely cause confusion with the objector’s branding.
However, some brand owners were less successful in cases involving marks that match a generic term. A notable example is the Coach case (WIPO case LRO2013-0002). Here, the respondent admitted to having knowledge of the objector’s famous Coach brand, but it intended to use its TLD for the dictionary meaning of the word ‘coach’. It also pledged to implement measures against domain registrations which could infringe on the COACH mark. The panel found that it was “not clear…whether confusion will be likely, let alone whether any such likelihood of confusion would be impermissible”. It is worth noting that applicants must explain their proposed use or purpose of the new TLD in their application.
How would a brand owner initiate an LRO?
The LRO process has similarities to the UDRP. An objector can file electronically using the model complaint supplied on WIPO’s website. A one-person panel shall decide the case unless both parties agree to a three-member panel. Unlike the UDRP, the parties can choose to use WIPO’s mediation services during LRO proceedings. It is also far more expensive, costing US$10,000 for a single panellist decision. The timeframes for an LRO are also longer than the UDRP – for example, a panel has 45 days in which to make its decision. For illustration, the Coach case was filed in March 2013, with its decision rendered in August 2013.
There are three overarching grounds against which an objection is evaluated:
• taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the objector’s mark;
• unjustifiably impairing the distinctive character or reputation of the objector’s mark; and
• otherwise creating an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for TLD and the objector’s mark.
These grounds are non-conjunctive, meaning an objector need only show one is present to succeed. There are eight non-exhaustive factors that a panel will take into account when making its decision, including: the similarity between the mark and TLD, whether the applicant itself has IP rights in the TLD’s string, and whether the relevant sector of the public would associate the TLD with the applicant or a third party.
As well as initiating an LRO, dotBrand applicants may wish to familiarise themselves with the LRO process from the defensive standpoint. The LRO represents another venue where coexisting trademarks may clash. An owner of an identical trademark in different classes may object to your dotBrand, potentially adding months of delay and additional legal costs.
Key takeaways
The 2026 round of new TLDs is now underway, and with it comes another expansion of the online namespace. Brand owners are likely already aware of sunrise periods and the need for further defensive domain registrations. However, the brand protection process may begin before delegation for some rights holders, as the LRO process offers them an opportunity to object to TLD applications. As the previous round shows, succeeding in an LRO can be a difficult task, but one that is worth considering if concerns over an application arises.
