Why Companies with Dictionary Term Names Can’t Ignore the dotBrand Opportunity in 2026

Any organisation that shares their company or key brand names with popular dictionary terms faces a compelling event in the coming months when the next gTLD application round opens in April 2026. Whether to apply for a dotBrand TLD, or take a risk that there will not be any third-party applicants who may apply to own and operate a TLD themselves.

At the end of their Annual General Meeting in Dublin at the end of October, the ICANN board adopted the Applicant Guidebook (AGB).  For many organisations who have already devoted time and resources to their dotBrand TLD planning process, this is highly anticipated news, knowing that the chance to apply for their brand name is too good an opportunity to miss, especially as there are no further application opportunities currently on the horizon.

With a complex application process to consider, budgets to secure, and an internal stakeholder team to corral, time is a precious resource so preparation undertaken now will pay off once April arrives.

The risk of inaction

Being forewarned is forearmed. Understanding any potential issues to an application is essential, so many brand holders are undertaking feasibility and landscape studies to highlight any risks that may need mitigating now.

However, for many organisations the risk of not applying is more heightened, especially those whose brand name also has a separate dictionary meaning. These companies are constantly vulnerable to domain confusion, impersonation, brand dilution, and long-term digital insecurity thanks to the coexistence of their brand name with another, generic, meaning. Dictionary terms are magnets for cybersquatters.

Brand trust and reputation online depends on clarity and confidence. When every search yields hundreds of similar domain options, customers become uncertain which names and websites are authentic. Which is why the opportunity to apply for a dotBrand TLD is a vital consideration for generic-matched organisations.

The legitimacy of third-party applications 

The Applicant Guidebook lays down the application criteria for any entity looking at applying to own and operate a Top-Level Domain, whether that is an open, dotBrand, Geo or Community TLD.

To qualify as a dotBrand TLD you must have a registered, matching trademark. This provides the exemption to have to operate the TLD in an open fashion, offering registrations to the wider internet community. However, just because an organisation owns a trademark does not stop another party applying for the same TLD. One of the big risks for companies whose brand is also a generic word is that another entity applies to operate the same TLD themselves as an open registry.

Legal Rights Objection

When it comes to the TLD application process, there are challenge and objection mechanisms, including a Legal Rights Objection process that allows for an objection to be filed by a trademark holder against a third-party applicant for an identical or confusingly similar string. For many trademark holders, however, such an objection will not provide the certainty of being able to block an application, even for an exact match string.

In trademark laws, challenge and enforcement against an exact match registration is possible based on principles of taking unfair advantage or damaging the distinctive character and repute of the trademark, or otherwise creating a likelihood of confusion. Similar concepts of unfair advantage, damage and likelihood of confusion are incorporated into the test for the Legal Rights Objection, with the key being whether the TLD applicant’s potential use of the string will have one of those impacts.

There has to be clear evidence that the TLD is planned to be used in a confusingly similar way or likely to cause damage to intellectual property. This is, in practice, very difficult for a brand owner to prove at a time when the TLD has not even been allocated to the applicant, let alone used by them, and where they are highly unlikely to have made statements of ill-intent in their application.

Further, one of the specific non-exhaustive factors identified in the AGB that the panel should consider is “whether the applicant’s intended use of a common dictionary term that is also a trademark is intended to take advantage of such common meaning or targets a trademark.”  A brand owner whose trademark has a common dictionary meaning has an impossibly high hurdle to clear, as their Legal Rights Objection is unlikely to succeed, as we saw from outcome of such objections in the 2012 Round.

Generally it is highly unlikely a third party would look to apply for a TLD also in order to deliberately-target a well-known global brand name. The cost of a TLD application is high, with significant annual fees to operate the registry. But if the TLD is also a common dictionary word with the potential for selling a high volume of domains it could be attractive to open TLD applicants.

In the 2012 application round, there was no exemption for any dotBrand applicants – the amendment to the standard ICANN Registry Agreement (Specification 13) was not introduced until 2014. That did not stop brands such as Sky, Fox, Seat and Man applying and subsequently applying for Spec 13 exemption. Fortunately, only a small number, aside from the brand holders, applied for matching TLDs, but will similar companies be so lucky in 2026?

The growth in generic-matching brand names

The last decade has seen a surge in new companies entering high growth market segments such as FinTech, Software and Technology. Many of these organisations have become household names, partly because they have gone to market with short, memorable, dictionary words as their key brands.

For those organisations whose brand name also has a separate generic meaning and do not own the key domains (such as the exact match .com, .net or even a .app), a dotBrand TLD application may prove a more cost-effective branding option. Due to the scarcity of 4/5 character domain names in popular extensions, resale values for generic names are often in the millions of dollars, such as Fuse.com ($2m+) and Icon.com ($1m+) in recent years. Compare those costs to an application for a dotBrand and the additional benefits it can bring related to ownership, security, and stability.

Until ICANN announce the TLDs that have been applied for on “Reveal Day” at some point in the summer of 2026, nobody will know for sure what TLDs have been applied for and by whom. At that point it is too late for a brand holder to do much to stop the application going ahead. There is no opportunity to file a competing application or successfully object unless the third-party’s own application provides any evidence that they will operate the TLD in direct conflict of the brand holder’s existing business.

Owning and operating a dotBrand TLD means only the brand organisation can create domains in the TLD, eradicating cybersquatting in the TLD and consolidating their digital identity in a single, trusted namespace. On the other hand, if a third-party is operating the TLD as an open registry, there will be a potential risk of infringing registrations which will increase the need for domain monitoring and the costs of enforcement action.

Benefits of owning and operating a dotBrand TLD

As digital threats are due to multiply in the coming years with the further expansion of the domain space, dotBrand TLDs provide instant recognition and reassurance, helping customers confidently engage, enhance revenues, and protect reputation.

DotBrand TLDs are more than defensive assets. They unlock potential new customer journeys, memorable campaign URLs, and actionable analytics. Organisations without them will have to rely on potentially cumbersome, forgettable URLs and scattered tracking, undermining marketing agility, and measurement. Consumers gravitate to simplicity and authenticity, which a dotBrand delivers at every touchpoint.

For a generic word dotBrand TLD the relevancy in terms of search will allow a brand to be more competitive and get greater returns on investment in the highly competitive search environment.

Conclusion

For organisations with brands that also correspond to generic words, passing on the dotBrand 2026 opportunity could be more than just a missed upgrade. It brings critical risks. Impersonation, brand dilution, security breaches, and competitive disadvantage will escalate, while customer trust and digital control erode. By not taking the opportunity to secure your own digital namespace in the forthcoming ICANN application round, you risk letting others define your brand’s future online.

As web ecosystems change, the value of owning your brand name at the root level of the Internet will be measured not only in financial terms, but in resilience, reputation, and relevance for decades to come.

The final takeaway? Act now, assess the potential risks and if the decision is not to apply for your own TLD, understand what mechanisms you can if a third-party applies for your brand name.