.brand popular for new gTLDs in more ways than one

Late yesterday, ICANN published the list of applications received for the latest round of the New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) program.

Whilst, unsurprisingly, strings such as “.agent”, “.robot” and “.bit” have proved popular this round, what stands out for me is that ten parties have applied for the gTLD “.brand”. The potential of this new gTLD from a brand protection perspective is significant and I will certainly be following its progress closely to see who ultimately secures the string and how it is used.

Brands are increasingly exploring new ways to help consumers safely navigate a digital landscape that is becoming ever more crowded with scams, phishing attempts and counterfeit activity. In that context, I can see potential for .brand becoming a further trust signal, enabling consumers to identify genuine brand websites and communications. Much will depend, however, on the registration policies adopted by the successful applicant. Will applicants for .brand domain names be required to demonstrate ownership of corresponding trade mark rights? How will applications from trade mark squatters be handled? If robust eligibility requirements are not put in place, trade mark owners should certainly do what they can to take advantage of any sunrise period to secure their .brand domain names at the earliest opportunity.

Some brand owners are taking things a step further. The latest application round includes 333 so-called “.brand” applications (not to be confused with the .brand new gTLD discussed above). The list of “.brand” applications this round ranges from .adidas through to .zarahome. Given the substantial costs associated with both applying for and operating a gTLD registry, it is unlikely that these applications have been made lightly.

Experience from the 2012 round provides some insight into the reasons why brands may have chosen to apply for their own gTLDs. From that round we know that those reasons included enhancing consumer trust, reducing fraud and enforcement costs, strengthening control over their online presence and securing strategic digital assets for the future. Defensive considerations also played a role, with some applicants keen to ensure that no third party obtained their .brand gTLD over them.

Yet the experience of the first round also offers a note of caution. Despite the excitement surrounding .brand gTLDs in 2012, relatively few have seen widespread public adoption. Consumer familiarity with traditional domains such as .com has proven difficult to overcome, and many businesses have continued to rely on established web addresses for their primary online presence.

Whether the latest wave of applications will change that remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that brand owners continue to view the domain name system as an important part of their broader brand protection and digital strategy, and should follow the progress of the latest gTLD applications closely to spot opportunities and potential risks.