.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

Howard Hogan, IP partner at Gibson Dunn, says AI deepfakes are driving lawyers to rethink how IP protects creativity and innovation
Vivien Chan joins us for our ‘Women in IP’ series to discuss gender bias in the legal profession and why the business model followed by law firms leaves little room for women leaders
Partner Jeremy Hertzog explains how his team worked through a huge amount of disclosure from Adidas and what victory means for the firm
Evarist Kameja and Hadija Juma at Bowmans explain why a new law in Tanzania marks a significant shift in IP enforcement
In the wake of controversy surrounding Banksy’s recent London mural, AJ Park’s Thomas Huthwaite and Eloise Calder delve into the challenges street artists face in protecting their works and rights
Alex Levkin, founder of IPNote, discusses reshaping the filing industry through legal tech, and why practitioners’ advice should stretch beyond immediate legal needs
Cohausz & Florack, together with Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben, has taken action against Amazon on behalf of three VIA LA licensors
In the fourth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss unconscious bias in the IP workplace and how to address it
Greg Munt, who has moved from Griffith Hack to James & Wells after four decades, hails his new firm’s approach to client service
Practitioners warn that closing the Denver regional office could trigger a domino effect, threatening local innovation and access to IP resources
Gift this article