Joining the Dots – Part 3: Contention sets and objections
Contention Sets and Objections
As discussed in previous Law-Nows in the ‘Joining the Dots’ series, in April 2026, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), the non-profit organisation responsible for co-ordinating the global domain name system (“DNS”), will invite applications to become the registry for a new round of generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”).
Inevitably, any application process like this gives rise to the potential for conflict. In particular:
- As seen in the 2012 new gTLD program, there are circumstances where more than one party may apply for the same, or for similar, strings; and
- It is possible that third parties may object to the registration and/or ownership of a particular string.
ICANN has anticipated this, and has provided a detailed process for addressing such conflicts. In this Law-Now, we explore these mechanisms.
How Contention Sets Arise
Once the window for applications closes in August 2026, ICANN will create ‘contention sets’ where applied-for strings are identical, variants of each other, or are found to be similar (visually, aurally, or in meaning). Such contention sets will be published on ‘Reveal Day’: the day when all applied-for strings will be disclosed to the public (approximately nine weeks after the end of the application window). The Applicant Guidebook highlights that strings can end up as part of the same contention set when they are in direct contention, but also, where they are indirect contention to each other (e.g. strings A and C may end up in the same contention set if they are both similar to string B, even if strings A and C are not directly similar to each other).
ICANN is hoping that many contentions will be dealt with by the applicants opting to change their application to a designated replacement string (i.e. an alternative string identified in the application form, which is not itself subject to any contention). Applicants will be given a 14-day window after Reveal Day in which to pivot to any such replacement string.
How is contention resolved
Thereafter, if contention remains, ICANN has set out a detailed process for resolution.
Notably, in contrast to the approach taken in 2012, applicants are strictly prohibited from participating in any private auction or side deal to resolve contentions. Indeed, applicants are banned from engaging in communications with any other applicant in the same contention set. Anyone who disobeys these rules faces potential sanctions including disqualification from the new gTLD application process and forfeiture of fees paid to ICANN.
This is intended to avoid some of the speculative behaviour that took place in 2012, where some applicants applied for popular strings, not with any intention of operating the relevant registry, but rather in the hope that another applicant would pay them handsomely to withdraw their competing bid. ICANN is keen to ensure that the only applicants this time round are those with a bona fide intention to operate the gTLD.
Instead, once contention sets are finalised, ICANN will administer two resolution methods: Community Priority Evaluation (“CPE”) for eligible Community Applications (new gTLDs that the applicant designates to be operated for the benefit of a clearly delineated community, rather than for the general public), and, where a CPE is irrelevant or if contention remains, via an ICANN New gTLD Auction.
The auctions will follow an “ascending-clock, second-price model”. Effectively, the price will ratchet up in scheduled intervals. Applicants will have the opportunity to exit if the price gets too high, until such time as only one applicant remains. The winner will then pay the price of the second highest bid.
Third Party Objections
There is also scope for third parties to object to any string that has been applied for. There are a variety of bases and reasons for doing so. In particular, any party with standing may file an objection on one of four grounds:
- String Confusion – as described above, a third party considers that an applied-for string is visually, aurally or conceptually similar to another string applied for or an earlier gTLD.
- Legal Rights – where a third party considers a string to be too close to a sign in which it holds legal rights (e.g. a registered trade mark).
- Limited Public Interest – where an applied-for string might offend accepted legal norms of morality and public order.
- Community – Such objections require a well-substantiated opposition from a significant portion of a clearly delineated community to which the string may be targeted.
Who decides objections and when to file
ICANN has appointed two Dispute Resolution Service Providers (DRSPs) to deal with objections: WIPO for String Confusion and Legal Rights objections, and the ICC for Limited Public Interest and Community objections. Any objections must be filed within 104 days of ‘String Confirmation Day’ (being the day on which the final list of strings is published (approximately 14 days after Reveal Day)).
How objection proceedings run
Objections are filed in English with the appropriate DRSP, limited to 5,000 words plus evidence, and must demonstrate standing and the basis for the claim. DRSPs conduct an administrative check and then appoint an independent panel (one or three experts), which first performs a Quick Look Review to filter manifestly unfounded or abusive cases. If the case proceeds, parties may submit evidence, and the panel may consider mediation.
If not otherwise resolved, then, in a process akin to a UDRP complaint, the appointed panel will issue a reasoned Panel Determination which will be binding on the parties (subject to some limited grounds of appeal). In contrast to a UDRP complaint, both parties will pay the relevant fees to the DRSP, with the ‘winning’ party receiving a refund of such sums. In the case of Legal Rights objections, the Panel will seek to assess whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied‑for string would: (1) take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the objector’s trade mark; (2) unjustifiably impair that distinctive character or reputation; or (3) otherwise create an impermissible likelihood of confusion with the objector’s mark.
It remains to be seen how many new gTLDs will be applied for, and how much actual conflict arises. Nonetheless, new applicants, existing gTLD and country-code TLD operators and third party brand owners would be advised to diarise Reveal Day and String Confirmation Day in order to review the list of new gTLDs applied for and consider any potential objections.
Missed Part 1 or 2 of our “Joining the Dots” series? Find them here:
Joining the Dots – Part 1: Introduction to the new gTLD program
