Brand-savvy decision-makers have always been at the very least moderately concerned that the companies they represent would risk losing out on many fronts due to an improper defensive domain registration strategy. For example, what if an entity with malicious intentions would own a misspelled version of their domain and use it for a phishing website, resulting in significant losses in terms of credibility?

The same way, even in less dire situations, there are traffic loss considerations which range from “classics” such as the average person being notoriously prone to typing errors to more recent ones that involve pronunciation errors/particularities in a Siri/Alexa-driven voice search paradigm. Or, of course, just the deeply entrenched desire to protect a trademark properly, the list of reasons could go on and on.

gTLD History 101

As complex as the equation might have seemed and in some cases was, it was at the very least relatively easy to stay on top of things in terms of gTLDs a decade or two ago. Up until the early 2000s, there were only a few gTLDs (generic Top-Level Domains) out there, extensions that had been launched all the way back in the 1980s: .com, .net and .org on the one hand (gTLDs that anyone could use) and purpose-specific gTLDs on the other, more specifically .edu, .gov, .mil and .int.

As such, defensive registration strategies were straightforward, affordable and easy to manage. In many cases, they revolved exclusively around securing the exact match domain along with the most popular variations in the big three gTLDs, with action not being required when it came to the other four in light of the fact that the special conditions associated with them made it unlikely for actors with bad intentions to take (malicious) action.

Fast-forward to the very beginning of the 21st century and the landscape became a bit more complicated in light of the fact that additional gTLDs were created. More specifically:

  • Three gTLDs were activated in 2001: dot biz, .info and .museum
  • Four gTLDs were activated in 2002: .name, .coop, .aero and .pro
  • From 2003 to 2004, six gTLD applications were approved: .asia, .cat, .jobs, .mobi, .tel and .travel
  • In 2011, we had the approval of .xxx and in 2012, the introduction of .post

In the spirit of keeping things easy to understand, we will call all of the extensions above gTLDs. ICANN used to refer to extensions such as .asia as sTLDs (Sponsored Top-Level Domains) because they represented a certain group/community but as of 2012, the terminology in question ended up being abandoned.

Did the introduction of these gTLDs lead to additional headaches in terms of defensive domain registrations?

Yes, but only marginally so, for the main reason that at the end of the day, we were only talking about a handful of gTLDs which deserved attention. As a question that illustrates this point rather nicely: for how many brands did it make sense to take action when it came to potentially problematic .museum registrations? More likely than not, for the overwhelming majority of brands, these new introductions only added a handful of gTLDs that deserved their attention.

The “New gTLD” Game-Changer

Fast-forward to 2013 (the 15th of July, to be more precise) and the first four so-called “new gTLDs” were delegated: .شبكة (which stands for “web” in Arabic), .онлайнfor (which stands for “online” in Russian), .сайт (which stands for “site” in Russian) and .游戏 (which stands for “game” in Chinese). For the most part, outside domain industry experts, few entities bothered to research new gTLDs all that much and even fewer would have imagined just how significant of a game-changer in terms of sheer volume they would eventually represent.

One year later, over 300 new gTLDs had been delegated and by 2015, the number almost doubled and new extensions kept being added, with over 1,200 existing at this point in time. Have there been winners involved who were more than thrilled that ICANN decided to embrace an ultra-aggressive approach? Definitely, from the various domain registration companies that benefitted from the more than tempting margins new gTLDs put on the table compared to legacy gTLDs to the mini-ecosystem created around them: sales specialists, support specialists, attorneys and the list could go on and on.

Needless to say, however, not everyone was thrilled.

The Association of National Advertisers ended up forming the so-called Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight, in an effort to make it clear that in their view (with other trade associations following suit), ICANN had made a reckless move that inevitably results in anything from consumer confusion (with examples such as the fact that .law, .legal, .esq, .attorney, .attorneys, .lawyer and .lawyers exist and risk confusing internet users, with similar situations occurring when it comes to other industries) to increased costs for brand owners.

What Now?

Despite raised eyebrows and various forms of protest as well as legal action, the fact remains that a low four-figure number of new gTLDs are now out there, which raises the elephant in the room in terms of questions for entities interested in protecting their brand: just how far does it make sense to go financially so as to protect your interests? In other words: what now?

Right off the bat, it should come as no surprise that the idea of securing even the exact match domain in over 1,200 new gTLDs and renewing all of the digital assets in question year after year isn’t even feasible for the most well-funded of companies, let alone the average business. Let us not even talk about misspellings and various other defensive registrations.

To add insult to injury, the “fine print” can vary from new gTLD to new gTLD. While some extensions come with renewal costs that are similar to those one has to pay for legacy gTLDs such as .com, the fees in question are multiple orders of magnitude higher in many instances, even venturing into three and four-figure territory… per domain!

Furthermore, realistically speaking, some new gTLDs such as .sucks have essentially been created (from a business perspective, what the company in question claims for PR reasons represents an entirely different matter) with the main purpose of extracting as much money as possible from as many brand owners as possible. In other words, while the intended purpose is presented in a manner that seems benign enough (for .sucks, enabling consumers to voice complaints), the initiative as a whole is primarily a proverbial money grab in many cases.

Types of New gTLDs and Defensive Registration Implications

In light of how complex the defensive registration equation has become, deploying highly selective risk/reward assessment frameworks with respect to new gTLDs is a must because while excessive generosity in this direction risks transforming the endeavor into a financially debilitating bottomless pit, certain registrations can be considered crucial from the perspective of brand protection.

In the spirit of achieving the right balance between brand protection and cost considerations, it makes sense to understand that new gTLDs can be placed in a wide range of categories. From the perspective of brand protection, the following represent the most important ones to keep in mind when tackling the Shakespearean “to register, or not to register?” question:

  • Broad and (reasonably) successful new gTLDs, with it making sense to at least secure the exact match domain in extensions such as .site and .online given their broad appear and comparatively higher (compared to other new gTLDs, that is) use, with over one million domain names in existence in each case
  • (Reasonably) successful industry/purpose-specific new gTLDs, with it making sense to perhaps secure the exact match .shop domain name if you run an online store, since we are dealing with a new gTLD that is both relevant to your line of business and relatively widely-used (approximately 800,000 domain names at the moment of writing)
  • New gTLDs that are confusingly similar to the gTLD of your main business, because internet users do not just type in the term itself incorrectly, mistakes are also made when typing in the TLD. For example, if you own ProductA.net, it might not be the worst idea in the world to also secure ProductA.bet in light of the fact that on standard QWERTY keyboards, the letter “b” is right next to the letter “n”
  • Yes, even extensions one can consider targeted toward defensive registrations by excellence such as .sucks are worth taking into consideration but only for businesses that are prone to consumer retaliation, primarily larger companies as opposed to small businesses
  • There are also entities that have launched their main brand on a new gTLD domain and in such cases, special attention needs to be paid to confusingly similar new gTLDs. For example, if NewYorkCity.Accountant has been chosen as the main brand for a certain project, also registering the confusingly similar plural version (NewYorkCity.Accountants) is a must
  • Finally, it is worth noting that there are alternatives to “one at a time” defensive domain name registrations, with the most noteworthy option being represented by so-called blocking services, with for example Donuts Inc. enabling entities that have trademarks which have been registered in the trademark clearinghouse putting a product on the table that makes it possible to block the term(s) in question across 243 new gTLDs

Moving Beyond New gTLDs: The Big Picture

It goes without saying that new gTLDs have dramatically altered the defensive domain registration landscape but it is essential to also take a step back, look at the big picture and understand that yes, new gTLDs are arguably the most important variable at this point in time but there is more to the manner in which the defensive domain registration game should be played than this dimension.

As such, the following broad(er) final tips deserve adequate attention:

  • “One size fits all” approaches make little sense, with defensive domain registration budgets for the most part needing to be directly proportional to the size of a certain company
  • Prioritization is a must because even misspellings come in all shapes and sizes. Especially when budget constraints are involved, it makes sense to start with the most obvious candidates in that respect and work your way down
  • It is vital to keep in mind that defensive domain registrations are not one-off events and on the contrary, will lead to recurring expenses that have to be factored in (more specifically renewal fees)
  • Availability monitoring (keeping an eye on potentially problematic domain names instead of registering them, and taking action whenever one entity or another registers such a domain) rather than pulling the proverbial trigger can be a more cost-friendly approach, but the enforceability dimension should be kept in mind. More specifically, should a competitor or another market participant with more or less malicious intentions register one of the domain names on your proverbial radar, what are the options you have at your disposal (from strongly worded letters sent by an attorney to registry-specific resolution mechanisms and ultimately legal action) and how expensive does the endeavor risk getting?
  • Is your in-house team experienced enough with the inner workings of the domain industry to put together a coherent defensive domain registration strategy or should you outsource the “mission” to entities that specialize in this field? Alternatively, a middle-road solution could also be represented by occasional consulting as opposed to delegating the defensive registration management process itself

All in all, this much is certain: the defensive domain registration landscape has changed dramatically since 2013 and for reasons pertaining primarily (even if not exclusively) to new gTLDs, what used to be a fairly straightforward and easy to manage endeavor has turned into a potential logistical nightmare. In light of how easy it can be for both one-off and recurring defensive domain registration costs to add up in a manner conducive to cash flow and ultimately even budget constraints, “balance” is the operative word because words cannot begin to describe how important strategic planning is in a framework where traps for brand holders abound and uncertainty (still) runs rampant. Unfortunately, brand holders essentially have no choice but to become more familiar with the domain name industry or outsource to experts who can take this burden off their shoulders, with an important silver lining being represented by the fact that reasonably priced options most definitely exist.