The ‘.adult’, ‘.porn’ and ‘.sucks’ gTLDs are likely to pose particular challenges to brand owners, not least uncertainty over the likely success of Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) actions against registrations in these strings. So, what’s a brand to do?

This part of the website has now moved to the subscriber area. To read more, please pick an option below.

Register to access two articles per month

Subscribe for unlimited access to articles, in-depth analysis and research from the World Trademark Review experts

Already registered? Log in

What our customers are saying

World Trademark Review is a fantastic tool for IP professionals to keep current with the latest case law, innovations and trends in intellectual property.  Even though my workload is time consuming, I always make time to read and digest the World Trademark Review articles and updates. The information provided is not only timely and relevant, but thoughtfully written to engage even those who might not specialise in intellectual property.

Lauren A Dienes-Middlen
Senior vice president, assistant general counsel – intellectual property, business and legal affairs
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc


Subscribe to World Trademark Review to receive access to the full range of trademark intelligence, insight, and case law, as well as our guides, rankings and daily market insight delivered to your inbox.

Why subscribe?


Please log in or register to leave a comment.

ICANN's defensive registration proposition = Racket.

Hi Trevor:

New Generic TLDS are 100% (1)Racketeering; and the TMCH is an elegantly stated & packaged Bribe.

Any business entity with a "Mark" or "Trade Name" using the ".COM" Global Top Level Domain, enjoys protection from Infringement & Dilution in Cyberspace.

Cyberspace is everywhere online {US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8} accessible to the United States Consumer, who's protected from "Harm" by the Federal Trade Commission, which means that any enterprise in the world, with a ".COM" is subject to litigation in the United States, should they "harm" a consumer, as defined by the FTC, or Infringe / Dilute an existing ".COM" Enterprise.

This fact is stated within United States Law, at Section 15 U.S. Code § 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden, at subsection (d) Cyberpiracy prevention.

The mentioned New generic TLDs are all in Cyberspyce, so ownership and use of ".COM" equals and addresses the traditional United States Common & Trademark Law's, protecting "Marks" & "Trade Names" under ".COM" as the Global Top Level Domain, as "First in Use" in Cyberspace.

Brand owners seeking protection, need to have their Lawyer do the following:

Send a formal letter, with signature required on receipt, to ICANN, with a duplicate to Jones Day, in Los Angeles, California that proves the Brand's "Mark" or "Trade Name" is registered for Use {Ownership} with VeriSign Inc, in Alexandria, Eastern District of Virginia, and illustrate the ".COM" is "in use" online; and for good measure, identify the Classification / Type of Business being conducted using the USPTO's Table.

With this done, it will become incumbent on ICANN and it's Ilk to secure ~ written permission ~ from the ".COM" Owner, before a "Mark" or "Trade Name" is sold into a "New TLD" as requested by some nefarious third party, for identical Goods, Services or Products to be trafficked to vulnerable consumers.

With ICANN in California, getting revenue from all New TLD Registration's, it makes them a "Contributory" factor in the process; and a subject of Infringement Litigation, at a Contributory level, should or when an Induced Infringer arise.

It's worth noting too, that ".COM" under ICANN's stewardship with IANA, Network Solutions and VeriSign Inc has been discreetly eroded from "Global" to "Generic" a language edit designed to confuse and isolate the Jurisdiction & Venue of ".COM" from the United States to elsewhere, under the UDRP, where Intellectual Property fights are costly; and no "Relief" is available to the Infringed.

As a result of the ".COM" erosion; and "Harms" that I've endured, the United States Supreme Court is being asked to investigate ICANN Et Al, under Rule 20, with this Mandamus:

Enforce Antitrust Law on ICANN Et Al.

Permissible by Congress, per Dept. of Commerce Docket # 980212036-8146-02.


FTC Statutes of Consumer Protection, Competition, Online Advertising and Marketing.


Reinstate .COM as Global from revised Generic TLD.

In due course, Brand owners will no longer be vulnerable profit targets, by ICANN's R{r}registries & R{r}registrars; and the ".COM" will become the Global Commercial Mark & Trade Name Channel, with an equivalence to the current World Marks of the Madrid System.

That's my view, I look forward to a considered reply.

Cheers, Graham.


“racketeering activity” means (A) … bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter …

Leads to 18 U.S. Code § 2320 - Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services.

(a) Offenses.— Whoever intentionally—

(1) traffics in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services,

(2) traffics in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive,

Graham Schreiber, Landcruise Ltd on 25 Mar 2015 @ 14:01

Share this article