.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

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article