Three new gTLD objections rejected

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Three new gTLD objections rejected

WIPO has published the first three decisions on legal rights objections to new gTLDs, and in each case the objection has been rejected

The strings concerned were .vip, .express and .home.

Legal rights objections can be brought based on IP rights where a complainant believes that an applied-for gTLD takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of its trade mark, unjustifiably impairs its reputation or otherwise creates a likelihood of confusion.

In the .vip case, German company I-REGISTRY has a pending German application for VIP and its parent company owns a CTM for VIP. But the gTLD applicant, Vipspace Enterprises of Texas, USA and Munich, Germany owns a CTM for DOTVIP.

Panellist Tony Willoughby said he was satisfied that the applicant intended to use the gTLD “first and foremost as a descriptive term describing the purpose and characteristics of the domain (i.e. a domain for Very Important Persons)” and that therefore confusion was unlikely.

The .express dispute pitted a clothing store called Express against Sea Sunset, a subsidiary of Donuts (which has applied for more than 300 new gTLDs). Panellist Frederick M Abbott found that there were “so many common usages of the term ‘express’ that it is not reasonable to foreclose its use by Respondent as a gTLD”.

The decision is analysed by Kevin Murphy on his Domain Incite blog. He suggests it may be bad news for owners of dictionary-word brands: “The ruling could have a big impact on future rounds of the new gTLD program, possibly giving rise to an influx of defensive, generic-word dot-brand applications.”

The .home case pitted Defender Security Company, which owns a CTM word and design mark for .HOME, against Charleston Road Registry (a Google company), which had applied for the .home gTLD.

Panellist M Scott Donahey found that the objector “had not met its burden to show that it is a rightsholder for purposes of this proceeding” and that, even if it had met that burden, the objection should be rejected.

The same company has eight other complaints pending against applicants for .home.

More than 70 legal rights objections to new gTLD applications were filed. The full list is available on the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center website.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
Gift this article