IP: The winding road of new gTLDs continues
When the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) held its big reveal June 13, it may have appeared to have mapped out the general contours of its proposed Internet of the futureone with potentially unlimited generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
September 04, 2012 at 08:17 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) held its “big reveal” June 13, it may have appeared to have mapped out the general contours of its proposed Internet of the future—one with potentially unlimited generic top-level domains (gTLDs). In the first round of its New gTLDs Program, it received more than 1,900 applications and almost $360 million in application fees. ICANN also faced mounting pushback and criticism from industry insiders, government stakeholders, interested parties and observers, not to mention a long and still somewhat unclear process ahead of it to evaluate those applications, sift through the comments and objections, resolve the contention issues over which applicants will own the contested domains and, eventually, delegate new domains into the Internet. And now, more than two months after the big reveal, ICANN has “fishtailed” all over the road, predicted significant traffic jams ahead and is, by its own account, already at least six months behind schedule.
While the map remains somewhat unclear, one thing is certain: this is not the time to set your calendar for next May (when ICANN says it might have completed the initial evaluations) and put your company on autopilot. Even if your company decided against applying for a TLD (or a gTLD) some of your competitors or other industry participants may have. Even if you think you and your company are just casual observers or uninvested bystanders, ICANN's gTLD program may have a significant impact on your business and your bottom line. You can't wait until the map of the Internet of the future is already drawn, or your company may be left with little room to maneuver. Regardless of whether your company is a stakeholder or an observer, you can and should stay informed on the process and consider whether and how you might want to influence the outcome.
What we know
Beneath the now-familiar statistics from the big reveal are some truly enlightening and crucial themes. Here are two:
Previously, registries have typically contracted to operate one or two gTLDS, but the new program experienced applicants applying for large portfolios of gTLDs ranging from a dozen to more than 300. In fact, 43 percent of applications come from large portfolio players. Four of the top six applicants are companies (new or already established) that intend to secure dozens of gTLDs each.
Two of these, Donuts Inc. and Demand Media LLC, together account for 333 applications, 107 of which they share they share. Demand Media, Inc. is a U.S. content and social media company that operates online brands such as eHow and Cracked, and also owns eNom, the world's second-largest domain registrar. Donuts Inc., while a start-up company, is owned and operated by a team of experienced internet industry players and raised $100 million in venture capital in advance of its applications for 307 generic top-level domains. In addition, Famous Four Media, Top Level Domain Holdings and Uniregistry are among the largest portfolio applicants and Internet industry giants Amazon and Google, with 101 and 76 top level domain names respectively, rounded out the top six applicants.
Not surprisingly, 40 percent of the applications were from big brands like Volkswagen, State Farm, American Express, Nike and Macy's, among others. Before the big reveal, industry commentators expected consumer brands merely to secure brand-related terms. For example, Travelers Insurance applied for .redumbrella and Nationwide applied for .onyourside. Many applicants with well established brands also applied for multiple generic TLDs, some within and some outside their existing business areas. In fact, these applicants looked to acquire generic words such as .lol, .talk, .mom, .dad and .cloud, the ownership of which could provide economic value beyond their brand. Clearly these companies see opportunities to profit from control over generic spaces both related and unrelated to their current businesses. Some applications are already drawing negative commentary from competitors and the public, such as that the applications are anti-competitive and give the applicants an unfair business advantage.
Why it matters
The key objectives of ICANN's program were to expand consumer choice, encourage innovation and increase competition, yet many applications for non-trademarked terms propose controlling, and in some cases restricting, high-value generic terms only for the use of the owner.
One of the most criticized aspects of the new gTLD plan is the option for applicants to run closed registries—registries restricting second-level domains (the names to the left of the dot) —for generic terms, effectively closing off a generic dot space to competitors. In the application, ICANN requires applicants to describe the mission and purpose of the applied-for gTLDs, and some of the most popular domains, such as .app (13 applications), .home (11 applications), .book (9 applications) and .shop (9 applications), appear to have at least one applicant that intends to run a closed registry. While this is potentially an expensive gamble for those applicants, given the program's key objectives and the number of competing applications for these TLDs, it is one that could have a huge pay-off for those applicants—and huge impact on other companies with an interest in the closing off of these high-value terms.
What to do
At minimum, all companies should become informed about the applications for both brand and generic terms that might affect their business areas, paying close attention to whether applicants are seeking to turn generic terms relevant to their business into closed registries. Business also need to be vigilant, staying up to date on the application process (whether they've applied for gTLDs or not), monitoring the public comments and considering weighing in with comments of their own, given the extended deadline of Sept. 26, or even filing formal objections. Over the next few months, we will provide you with a series of articles that will analyze the key aspects of the gTLD program, provide updates on the process and keep you informed about the issues important to protecting your business or brand as ICANN moves through the evaluation process.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Understanding the HEMS Standard in Trusts
- 2Mergers Are About People, Not Paperwork: Here’s Why
- 3Wachtell Partner Leaves to Chair Latham's Liability Management Practice
- 4Morris Nichols Partners to Be Involved With PLI Program
- 5How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Cultivating a Culture of Mutual Trust Is Essential,' Says Gina Piazza of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250