What do ICANN’s agreed principles on application conflicts mean for Round 2 applicants?

In early September, the ICANN board met in Los Angeles to discuss a number of items, one of which was the thorny and controversial topic of how contention sets would be resolved in the forthcoming second application round. ICANN defines a contention set as two or more applications for an identical string, “confusingly similar” strings (as determined by ICANN or through a formal objection process), or the singular and plural versions of a string (e.g. .BRIDGE and .BRIDGES).

In the first application round in 2012, 234 TLD strings were subject to contention, with over 700 applicants involved in the process to determine who would have the right to manage the TLD in question. Unsurprisingly, strings such as .APP, .BOOK, .ART and .SHOP received the most conflicting applications (.APP had 13 different applicants), whilst the likes of .GOO, .PHD and .YUN were contended between just two different applicants.

Since there can be only one instance of a given TLD, these contention sets needed settling to identify a single applicant that would be awarded operation of the TLD. In the 2012 round, contention sets were resolved through various means including bilateral negotiations, private and public auctions. In the private auction model adopted, the price paid by the winning bidder would be split between the “losers” of the auction. In the public auction model, the price paid by the winning bidder would go to ICANN.

In reviewing the 2012 round, it was recognised that some applicants used the private auction mechanism to gain a return on their investment, without ever having a bona fide intent to operate some or all of the TLDs they applied for. To try and prevent this in the future, ICANN has recently stated in a letter to the GNSO that for the second application round there will be no private resolution of contention sets, with the ICANN public auction mechanism (an ascending clock second-price auction) being the only auction method available. This means that unsuccessful bidders will not share in any of the proceeds of the final winning bid, as was the case with private auctions in the first round. Not only are private auctions outlawed but any backroom deals will be banned too, although this could be hard to police as the process stands today.

To try and bring some comfort to applicants that apply for TLDs where there is likely to be competition and contention, ICANN will allow applicants to select one or more alternative strings at the time of application. Should their primary string be in contention, ICANN will switch to their alternative string to avoid contention. For some applicants this could prove to be beneficial but for more popular strings it is hard to see how this will bring satisfaction to the applicants. If someone wants .BRIDGE, they are unlikely to apply for .BRIDGES as an alternative as it risks falling foul of the singular/plural restrictions, but there are few other strings that have the same meaning, sentiment, or subjectivity.

For dotBrand applications, it is unlikely that there will be many cases where two different brand owners end up in contention, although it could happen where brands co-exist in different marketplaces or fields of activity. In the first round the most notable exception was .MERCK, where three applications were made from two different applicants, both made by trademark holders of the Merck name. The future of the TLD was finally settled in September 2024 when Merck Registry Holdings, Inc and Merck KgaA agreed to set up an entity and share the usage and management of the TLD. Other contentions did happen between brand owners and applicants for the same term as a common dictionary term, for example .COACH, originally applied for by both the luxury leathergoods brand and portfolio applicant Donuts, to whom it was delegated, and .PING, secured at auction by the golfing brand against portfolio applicant Radix.

However, there are numerous examples of organisations around the world today who share an identical company name, or a brand that may lead to contention in round two. Eos is a Volkswagen brand, as well as a line of cameras produced by Canon; Puma is a global sportwear brand and a fuel distribution company, whilst Dove is a cosmetics brand owned by Unilever, Dove a confectionary brand in the US that is owned by Mars. All of these examples are also generic names and words too, meaning that there could be applications made for open TLDs as well. How those contentions would be dealt with is yet to be fully decided upon.

It is highly unlikely a dotBrand applicant would want to apply for an alternative string if they cannot secure their brand or trademark. Whilst some could add additional keywords as their alternative strings, such as ‘eoscameras’ or ‘pumaenergy,’ ‘dovechocolate’ it dilutes the impact of the application and is unlikely to gain the return on investment that many dotBrand applicants may be seeking.

Whilst for many potential dotBrand applicants ICANN’s new contention set principles will have little impact on what string(s) they choose to apply for come April 2026, being forewarned is forearmed. Time taken now to plan ahead – undertaking a feasibility study for instance – could highlight potential conflicting applications, as well as identifying any risk of ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) raising public policy concerns. Understanding these risks in advance will give you time to try and mitigate them so that you are fully prepared when the next application round opens.