Legal Rights Objections in the new gTLD round

On 30 April 2026, ICANN opened the application window for the next new-gTLD round. It closed on 12 August 2026. More than 1,600 primary applications were received, with over 1,100 secondary applications for replacement strings. Brand owners now face the most consequential naming-system expansion in over a decade – and one specific legal mechanism separates those who protect their marks at the application stage from those who wait and react later.

A Legal Rights Objection (LRO) is the formal procedure by which a trademark holder can challenge a new-gTLD application string on the ground that it conflicts with their rights. LROs are filed through WIPO within a window that runs from String Confirmation Day – a date set by ICANN's schedule, which as of September 1, 2026, has not yet been announced. The mechanism exists alongside the URS and UDRP but operates at a fundamentally different stage: before a zone is ever delegated, not after a domain inside it is registered.

This page explains what an LRO is, who can file one, how the filing window works, and what happens if you miss it.

What changed in the 2026 new-gTLD round, and when?

The application window opened on 30 April 2026 and formally closed on 12 August 2026. ICANN announced on 13 August 2026 that it had received more than 1,600 primary applications plus more than 1,100 secondary applications for replacement strings; the final total was to be confirmed after evaluation fees were paid. First delegations are not expected before 2028. Everything between now and delegation – including String Confirmation Day, Reveal Day, and the LRO window – follows a schedule that ICANN controls and that applicants and rights holders should monitor directly on ICANN's site.

The scale matters. Each delegated zone creates a new namespace in which domain names can be registered. A brand present in .com may find its mark – or something confusingly similar to it – appearing as a new TLD string itself. That is the LRO scenario. It is distinct from a third party registering yourbrand.newzone inside an already-delegated zone; that is a UDRP or URS scenario, and different rules apply.

What is a Legal Rights Objection, and what does it decide?

An LRO is a formal objection filed with WIPO arguing that a new-gTLD applicant's proposed string – the TLD itself, not a domain within it – conflicts with the objector's existing trademark rights. The objector is typically a brand owner. The respondent is the entity that applied to operate the new TLD. WIPO appoints an independent expert panel to decide the objection under a standard focused on whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the applied-for string and the objector's mark, and whether the applicant's use would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to those rights.

A successful LRO does not automatically kill the application; the outcome feeds into ICANN's evaluation process. It can, however, constitute a significant negative mark on an application and, in combination with other adverse determinations, lead to rejection. The LRO is therefore one defensive tool among several, including ICANN's own string similarity evaluations. It is not a guarantee of any outcome, and the specific evidentiary and procedural rules are set by WIPO for each round.

Who can file? Any person or entity that holds a trademark or service mark registered in a national registry has standing. The mark need not be identical to the applied-for string – confusing similarity is the test. Rights holders whose brands are well known or used across multiple classes will generally have stronger LRO positions, but the analysis is case-specific. We regularly advise brand owners at this stage to assess their position before the window opens, not after it closes.

For an assessment of your brand's exposure to the new-gTLD round – including whether an LRO or Trademark Clearinghouse recordal fits your situation – contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Why does the LRO window run from String Confirmation Day?

String Confirmation Day is the point in ICANN's evaluation process at which applied-for strings pass initial review and their existence is publicly confirmed. The LRO objection period runs from that date. ICANN sets the window; WIPO administers the filings. As of September 1, 2026, String Confirmation Day for the current round has not been announced. Do not file before ICANN confirms the window – but do not wait until the window opens to begin preparation. The evidentiary record for a credible LRO takes weeks to assemble, and WIPO's process is not forgiving of late submissions.

The practical consequence is this: brand owners who begin their rights assessment now – identifying marks that could be affected, gathering registration evidence, reviewing ICANN's published list of applied-for strings – will be in a position to file within days of the window opening. Those who learn about the window after the fact have no remedy through the LRO process. Downstream tools exist, but they operate later and at greater cost.

How does the LRO fit with the Trademark Clearinghouse and the URS?

The LRO challenges the string itself before delegation. The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system operate after delegation, at the level of individual domain registrations within the new zone. Understanding the sequence is essential to a complete brand-protection posture.

Under the TMCH, a mark recorded before a new zone launches entitles the holder to a Sunrise registration – the opportunity to register the corresponding domain in the new zone before the general public. A Sunrise period of at least 30 days precedes general availability. A Claims period of 90 days follows general availability: during that window, any registration matching a recorded mark triggers a notice to the registrant and a notification to the mark holder. TMCH recordal is priced per mark per year by the TMCH operator; confirm the current rate directly with the operator before filing.

The URS is a rapid-suspension procedure for new gTLDs only. Its remedy is suspension of the domain for the registration term – not transfer of ownership. This is a common point of confusion: the URS does not give you the domain. It takes the domain offline. If your goal is ownership, the UDRP remains the correct route – it carries the transfer remedy – but it operates under a higher standard of evidence and a longer timeline than the URS. A URS filing fee starts from around USD 375, lower than the WIPO UDRP filing fee of USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains.

The decision between these tools – LRO now, TMCH recordal before Sunrise, URS if a squatter registers first, UDRP if you want ownership – is not either/or. In our practice, brand owners protecting marks across categories typically use all of these in sequence, calibrated to the zone's launch schedule and the brand's commercial priority in that zone.

What happens if you miss the LRO window?

There is no appeal path and no late-filing mechanism once the LRO window closes. The applied-for string proceeds through evaluation without that objection on the record. That does not mean a brand owner is without recourse – ICANN may raise its own string similarity concerns, other objectors may have filed, and the applicant still faces the standard evaluation gauntlet. But the mark holder's own legal objection is gone.

Downstream, once the zone is delegated, the tools shift entirely to the registration level. A registrant who takes yourbrand.newzone can be challenged under the UDRP if you meet all three elements of Paragraph 4(a): confusing similarity to a mark you hold, no legitimate interest on the respondent's side, and registration and use in bad faith. A URS can suspend the same name faster and at lower cost, but it does not transfer it. Both routes are available, but neither undoes the public perception harm of operating years after the zone launched.

In a recent matter involving a new-gTLD application cycle, spring 2026, we advised a brand owner who had missed an objection window in a prior round. The result was a multi-year UDRP campaign against dozens of registrations across the delegated zone – a five-figure legal investment that a timely LRO might have made unnecessary.

To weigh your options across the LRO, TMCH, URS, and UDRP for the current round, email info@cognomenlaw.com.

What is the current status, and what should you verify?

As of September 1, 2026, the following is confirmed: the application window closed on 12 August 2026, and ICANN received more than 1,600 primary applications. String Confirmation Day, Reveal Day, and the LRO filing window have not yet been announced. First delegations are not expected before 2028. All milestone dates, objection windows, and fee schedules are set by ICANN and WIPO and should be verified on their respective official sites before acting. Nothing in this page constitutes a representation that any schedule or fee remains current after September 1, 2026.

Separately, note that the UDRP itself is under review. A final report was published on 2 December 2025 following the first comprehensive review of the Policy in its 25 years. Recommendations include procedural improvements and an optional appeals layer. None of those recommendations has been adopted as binding policy as of the date of this page; the UDRP's elements and remedies remain unchanged. For more on what that review did – and did not – recommend, see the linked analysis below.

About COGNOMEN

COGNOMEN is an independent boutique focused exclusively on domain-name disputes. We recover, defend, and transact internet domains across generic and country-code zones, before WIPO, the Forum, CAC, ADNDRC, and national procedures, and in court where arbitration cannot reach. We act for brand owners, domain investors, and registrants – including respondent-side defense and reverse domain name hijacking. Our practice covers the full new-gTLD lifecycle: LRO objections, TMCH recordal, URS filings, and UDRP complaints after delegation. To discuss your domain or brand-protection position in the current round, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

Related at COGNOMEN

• urs newgtld – how the URS suspension procedure works for new-gTLD zones
• What the UDRP review did not recommend, and why it matters – analysis of the December 2025 policy review report
• urs vs udrp shop – comparing URS suspension and UDRP transfer for your situation

Author: Cordelia Roe — UDRP complainant practice & gTLD recovery; domain transactions and brand protection. Meet the team.

Speak with Cognomen Law

For a scoped view of your domain matter, contact info@cognomenlaw.com. Discuss your matter

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.