Why Trademark Professionals Should Be Preparing for the Next Round of New TLDs

The New gTLD Program introduced over 800 commercially available new domain extensions to the web from 2012, expanding online real estate and creating unprecedented opportunities for web users and organizations worldwide.

For brands however, the program was also fraught with new threats to intellectual property and increased fraud, imitation and abuse. The unknown landscape presented many new challenges and forced brands and regulators to find new avenues for protection and security.

With applications for the next round of new gTLDs projected to open in April 2026, the internet could see new extensions introduced as early as 2027. So what should brand owners be aware of this time around and what new or evolved protections exist to defend IP and trademarks? 

Rights Protection Mechanisms: Did They Work Last Time? 

Prior to the release of the first round of new TLDs, the IP community strongly advocated for stronger rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) to defend valuable brand assets and give brands some reassurance of protection in unchartered online territory. 

The key RPMs introduced were: 

• Sunrise registration periods: an exclusive access period specifically for brands, before domains in a new extension were released to the public 

• Trademark Claims service: a period during which trademark holders were notified if a domain matching their registered trademark was registered 

• Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS): a ‘streamlined’ alternative to a UDRP complaint, designed to quickly shut down domains that were clearly infringing on a registered trademark 

Access to these RPMs required brands to pay an annual fee to become registered with the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH), a centralized database of verified trademarks and protected terms. 

In practice, many brands felt these measures fell short of the protection they hoped to achieve. There were several criticisms: 

• Brands had to pay an annual fee to be part of the TMCH 

• Sunrise fees were variable and in many cases, expensive 

• The TMCH was criticized for providing protection to trademarks that weren’t legitimate 

• Identical marks (such as Acronyms) were forced to auction between competing claimants, forcing brands to compete for their own brand assets 

• Notifications provided to trademark holders didn’t provide sufficient details to act on 

• The measures were still more reactive and put the onus on brands to enforce their own protections  

These new domain extensions weren’t just creating alternatives to a cluttered .com market, they were creating new risk vectors for bad actors and needing brands to seekaffordable, scalable protection before this became an exponential problem. 

Take a moment to visualise (or remember) the thought process inside a large company.  

Dedide the terms you want to protect (i.e. your brand and product names), evaluate your current portfolio, your new (hopefully available) budget and the various RPMs  and desire to acquire in Sunrise or wait to access defensive domain registrations – and then multiply all that by over 800 namespaces that are not launching at the same time.  

Sure, a single brand mark might be manageable, but for most multinational corporations it wasn’t this simple. Sub-brands, products and other assets also need protection – and many brands found the costs bordered on the exponential and even extortionary. 

While ICANN has recognized some of these challenges and adopted several recommendations to update aspects of the RPMs before the next round, many core aspects remain unchanged. Fundamentally, RPMs are still reactive and whilst they can give priority access or awareness, they require brands to monitor for potential infringement and spend significant amounts of money. 

How Can Brands Be Better Prepared? 

History is a good teacher and a little clarity on the likely impacts of the next round of new TLDs can help brand owners better position themselves against brand infringement for the 2026 application window. Are we about to see another tidal wave of brand infringement? The short answer is most likely yes, but it can be managed more effectively with some strategic foresight and utilisation of tools that were not available from the 2012 round.  

With costs set to be a prohibitive factor again and more clutter creating more opportunity for distraction and missed risks, the truth is many brands will be forced once again to assess what they can afford to protect. 

This means affordable, proactive measures against abuse will be more important than ever. 

Those brands with the resources to do so may apply to operate their own .brand TLD, joining the likes of .microsoft, .google and .nike to create their own exclusive, branded corner of the internet and establish a secure digital ecosystem for their brand. However, with application fees approaching $250,000 for each label, this will be beyond the reach of many organizations. 

In today’s already cluttered marketplace, domain blocking is proving to be revolutionary for brands in reducing costs, saving operational hassles and even reducing reliance on traditional RPMs. 

GlobalBlock’s unique approach is designed to protect against even the unforeseen threats – growing in coverage over time while existing customers receive that additional protection free of charge.  

At the Brand Safety Alliance, domain name Registries regularly tell us of the benefits of joining GlobalBlock for reducing abuse in their namespaces and building a healthier reputation as a result. We will be actively working with new gTLD applicants in the next round to allow them all to have a healthy start and establish better protections for brands from the outset. It is arguably in their interests too – as trends indicate brands are turning away from large Sunrise period investments.  

We intend to build partnerships with as many new gTLD Registries as possible and grow GlobalBlock’s coverage as a one-stop-shop for widespread protection at scale. 

Our mission is to work with the domain name community to create a safer internet for consumers and brands alike – but the next round is something brand owners still need to watch closely and consider their proactive strategy now.