.xxx blocking process revealed

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

.xxx blocking process revealed

Brand owners will be able to protect use of their marks in the .xxx domain this September using an innovative blocking process that will be included as part of the sunrise period.

IPRota, the company responsible for implementing the pre-launch rights protection mechanism for .xxx, published a white paper yesterday explaining how the process will work and estimating the cost at between $200 and $300 for each brand.

“Although this costs money, it does provide some value in protecting brands,” said Jonathan Robinson, Director of IPRota. 


ICANN approved ICM Registry’s application for the .xxx domain in March this year after a seven-year battle. The sunrise period will begin in early September and will last for 30 days. This has been split into two parts. Sunrise A is for members of the sponsored community (the adult industry) with trademark rights or who operate an existing domain name in good faith.

Sunrise B is for trademark owners who want to block use of their names.


Fees will be set by the registrars and have not yet been fixed. If an application to block is successful the corresponding domain name will resolve to a standard page indicating that the domain is not available.


A service to enable brand owners to block the use of brands that are launched after September 2011 will be introduced in 2012, but the white paper says that it is “unlikely to be as cost effective as the options offered during sunrise.” More information is available at www.xxxempt.com.      

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Firm says appointment of Nick McDonald will boost its expertise in cross-border disputes, including at the Unified Patent Court
In the final episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the IP Inclusive Charter and the senior leaders’ pledge
Gift this article