Avoiding mistakes in the Trademark Clearinghouse

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

Cookies Settings

Avoiding mistakes in the Trademark Clearinghouse

The impending rollout of new gTLDs has concerned rights owners, but yesterday's panel at INTA's Annual Meeting, New gTLDs: Brand Strategies in Cyberspace, gave tips on how to use the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system to help protect marks online.

The TMCH is a central database that allows brand owners to register their marks. Once ownership of the mark is verified, the TMCH will alert the brand owner when someone is registering a matching domain name. The party applying for that domain name is also notified that its application corresponds with a verified mark in the TMCH database.

The TMCH is just one layer of protection for brand owners. "The Clearinghouse is meant to support what's now the mandatory sunrise period," explained Amy Stathos of ICANN. The sunrise period gives trademark owners an advance opportunity to register domain names matching their marks ahead of the general public.

While the system is a useful tool for brand owners, some have had difficulties navigating the new system. Vicky Folens from Deloitte explained some of the common mistakes users are making. (Deloitte is the verification services provider for the TMCH.)

The most common error comes when users are creating their account, explained Folens. New users must register as either a trademark agent or a trademark owner. She noted that many trademark holders are accidentally registering as an agent, which requires a US$15,000 deposit.

Another common mistake is leaving out non-standard characters, such as accents on letters and the German double S, from their marks. Folens noted that this is likely because previous sunrise periods allowed for omission of these marks, while the TMCH requires their inclusion.

She also pointed out that when registering marks in the TMCH, brand owners are not filling in the field for a description of the goods and services, and instead stating "see trademark certificate." The problem with this, Folens explained, is that when a notice is sent to the party applying for a domain that triggers the TMCH alert, it will then not receive the required descriptive information.

Finally, she clarified that only registered marks and common law marks subjected to a court decision may be registered with the TMCH. Pending registrations, as well as common law marks that have not been subject to litigation, may not be registered in the Clearinghouse.

Panelist John Berryhill of Pennsylvania had one humorous bit of advice for rights owners: If you have a common law trademark that hasn't been subject to a court case, go sue someone now.

For clear-cut cases

Brand owners can also take advantage of the new URS system for gTLD disputes, which is designed to complement the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP).

The URS system is based on the UDRP, though it is designed to be faster and less expensive, explained Kristine Dorrain of the National Arbitration Forum. A decision can be made in as few as 20 days, and most will be handled within 30. Fees can also be as low as US$375. The system will allow for appeals, handled within the URS or to the UDRP.

In order to maintain the speed and low costs, Dorrain said that the system is only intended for "clear-cut cases of cybersquatting." The complainant is limited to listing its claims via check-boxes, and must limit its written statement to 500 words.

So if a brand owner has to submit substantial evidence and argument, the URS might not be the best tool for that claim, said Dorrain.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
The chief technology officer remit, which has been created as the firm is building its litigation team, will include expanding the use of AI in patent and legal work and automating manual processes
Former Hoyng Rokh Moneiger partner Laura Alonso, who brought her team to ECIJA in March, discusses plans to expand further and why ECIJA’s ‘IP DNA’ is helping broaden her work
Amita Haylock discusses building an integrated Asia practice as clients increasingly demand that firms combine IP, technology and data expertise
François Pochart, Grégoire Desrousseaux and Lionel Martin, long-standing figures in the firm’s patent litigation team, are set to help launch a Paris-based litigation offering
The Unitary Patent has passed 100,000 registrations, but new data raises the question of whether 30% uptake is a ceiling or a staging post for further growth, say Michael Nielsen and Darren Smyth of EIP and Andrew Samm at Patently
The new generation of in-house IP leaders want commercial judgment, accessibility and flexibility, with AI raising expectations around both fees and delivery
The firm launched a San Diego office earlier this month, but California investment and expansion is far from complete
The industry’s response to AI requires an unfamiliar ingredient as firms battle to shape their futures
Gift this article