How to protect a brand in a new .global gTLD launch

How to protect a brand in a new .global gTLD launch. UDRP and ccTLD domain recovery and defense across .global. Email the firm to assess your case.

A new gTLD delegation opens a window. Within days of a .global launch, names matching well-known brands appear in the registration queue – some by rights holders acting fast, most by third parties placing bets on who will pay to reclaim them. The question is not whether your brand will be targeted. It is whether you have the right tools in place before the registration locks in.

To protect a brand in a new .global gTLD launch, rights holders have three interlocking tools: pre-launch trademark claims services (which give notice of conflicting applications), the Uniform Rapid Suspension system (URS) for quick suspension of abusive registrations once the zone is live, and a full UDRP complaint before WIPO where transfer – not just suspension – is the goal. The URS applies a clear-and-convincing evidence standard and suspends the domain for the registration term; a UDRP complaint filed with WIPO can transfer ownership but requires satisfying all three elements of Paragraph 4(a). Choosing the right tool depends on the zone, the urgency, and what outcome the brand actually needs.

This page sets out the procedures that govern .global, the evidence that decides the outcome, how URS and UDRP compare in this zone, and what a rights holder should do before launch day.

What governs disputes in the .global zone?

The .global zone is a new gTLD, which means it operates under the ICANN framework that replaced the pre-2012 namescape – including mandatory support for the URS and, where the registry agreement incorporates it, the UDRP. For practical purposes, both procedures are available in .global through WIPO and other ICANN-accredited providers, just as they are in other new gTLDs such as .shop, .tech, or .online. WIPO is the most widely used provider, and in our practice we file the large majority of new-gTLD complaints there.

The critical difference from legacy gTLDs like .com is the pre-launch infrastructure. New gTLD launches typically include a Trademark Claims service running for at least the first 90 days of General Availability. During that window, applicants who attempt to register a string matching a mark recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) receive a notice; if they proceed, the rights holder also receives an alert. That alert is not a blocking mechanism – it is a warning and an evidentiary starting point.

Before General Availability, most new gTLD launches also run a Sunrise period. During Sunrise, verified TMCH registrants may apply for exact-match domains ahead of the general public. Missing Sunrise for your core brand in a new gTLD is the single most costly pre-launch error we see. It shifts you from a position of first-mover registration to a position of post-facto dispute – and post-facto disputes, while winnable, take time and cost more than a Sunrise application would have.

How does the URS work in a .global launch, and when is it the right tool?

The URS – Uniform Rapid Suspension – was designed specifically for new gTLDs as a faster, lower-cost emergency brake. The remedy is suspension of the domain for the remainder of the registration term: the domain stops resolving, but ownership does not transfer. If the brand wants ownership, URS is not enough on its own.

The evidentiary standard under the URS is higher than under the UDRP. A URS examiner must find the case "clear and convincing" – meaning the three core elements (confusing similarity, no legitimate interest, bad faith registration and use) must be established without ambiguity. Where the facts are nuanced – an arguable fair-use defense, a disputed trademark priority date, or a registrant claiming a business name – the URS is risky. Examiners who cannot reach clear-and-convincing confidence deny the suspension, and a denial does not automatically mean the UDRP claim fails, but it adds procedural friction and signals to the respondent that the case has complexity.

URS is the right tool when: the infringing registration is fresh, the brand mark is well-known and registered, the registrant's bad faith is obvious on the face of the evidence (a parking page with competitor links, a pay-per-click page trading on the brand's goodwill, or a demand letter sent within days of launch), and the immediate goal is to stop the harm rather than to acquire the domain. It is also useful as a holding measure while a parallel UDRP complaint is prepared, since a suspended domain cannot be transferred to a third party during the suspension period.

To assess whether URS or UDRP is the right first move for your .global registration, contact info@cognomenlaw.com.

When does a UDRP complaint before WIPO produce a better outcome than URS?

A UDRP complaint transfers ownership. For most brand owners, transfer is the goal – not temporary suspension – which makes UDRP the primary strategic tool when the evidence is solid and the budget allows a slightly longer process. The filing fee at WIPO starts at USD 1,500 for a single-member panel covering one to five domains, and a standard case resolves in approximately two months. A URS proceeding moves faster – typically a few weeks – but delivers only suspension.

The UDRP's three-element test under Paragraph 4(a) requires the complainant to prove: (1) the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it holds rights; (2) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain; and (3) the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith. All three must be met. In .global disputes, the third element – bad faith registration and use – is often where the outcome is decided. A registrant who registered during Trademark Claims and ignored the notice, or who sent an unsolicited offer to sell immediately after launch, provides strong bad-faith evidence under Paragraph 4(b).

In a recent matter (a .global launch, spring 2025), we filed a UDRP complaint at WIPO on behalf of a consumer-goods brand whose name had been registered by a third party within 48 hours of the zone's General Availability opening. The registrant had no prior connection to the term, had pointed the domain at a parking page, and had ignored the Trademark Claims notice. The complaint was straightforward; transfer was ordered without the need for a three-member panel.

UDRP is the better tool when: the brand needs ownership, not just suspension; the evidence of bad faith meets the Paragraph 4(a)(iii) standard clearly; or the registrant is the same holder across multiple .global and other gTLD strings (a single complaint can cover multiple domains held by the same registrant). For a portfolio of suspected typosquats across .global and sibling new gTLDs, a single multi-domain UDRP is typically more cost-efficient than a sequence of URS filings.

What evidence decides the outcome of a .global brand-protection dispute?

Panels at WIPO decide new-gTLD UDRP complaints on the record submitted; there is no discovery and no oral hearing. The quality of the evidence package is therefore the primary lever the complainant controls. Getting it right before filing is the difference between a clean transfer order and a denial that hands the domain back to the registrant.

The evidence falls into three layers. The first is trademark proof: registered trademark certificates showing the mark predates the disputed registration, plus – where useful – evidence of unregistered rights (sales figures, advertising spend, press coverage) to reinforce the scope of protection. The second is identity or confusing similarity: a side-by-side string comparison showing the domain reproduces the mark exactly or with a minor variation (a typo, a hyphen, an appended generic word). The third, and most contested, is bad faith: what was the registrant doing with the domain, and what can be inferred from the registration context?

For a new gTLD launch, the Trademark Claims record is a powerful bad-faith indicator. If the registrant received a Claims notice – which the TMCH system logs – and registered anyway, that conduct can support a finding under Paragraph 4(b). Other strong bad-faith markers include: an unsolicited offer to sell to the mark owner; pay-per-click content exploiting the brand's goodwill; a pattern of registering brand-matching names in multiple new gTLDs; and a registrant whose WHOIS/RDDS contact details are false or privacy-screened with no evident legitimate purpose.

On the respondent side, the Paragraph 4(c) safe harbors matter. A registrant who can show a bona fide business use of the string before receiving notice of the dispute, or who is commonly known by the name in question, can defeat even a strong trademark complaint. We regularly advise brand owners to run a pre-filing WHOIS/RDDS and business-name check before lodging a complaint – discovering a legitimate registrant after filing is both expensive and embarrassing, and in the worst case produces a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

For a read on whether the three UDRP elements are met in your .global matter, reach us at info@cognomenlaw.com.

How do pre-launch tools reduce your post-launch dispute exposure?

The most cost-effective brand protection in a new gTLD launch happens before the zone goes live. The ICANN new gTLD process builds in several rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) that brand owners can use to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of abusive registrations.

The Trademark Clearinghouse is the foundational record. Marks entered in the TMCH are eligible for Sunrise applications in new gTLDs and trigger the Claims notice process during General Availability. A brand owner who has not verified its core marks in the TMCH before a .global launch – or any new gTLD launch – loses access to both benefits. TMCH verification takes time; it should happen well in advance of any anticipated launch, not the week before.

Sunrise applications give TMCH-registered rights holders first access to exact-match domains before the general public. Not every brand needs every new gTLD string. But for a global brand where .global registration has obvious value – or where third-party use of [brand].global could cause genuine consumer confusion – a Sunrise application is generally far cheaper than a post-launch UDRP or URS proceeding. We assist brand owners in identifying which new gTLD launches warrant Sunrise investment and which can be monitored without a defensive registration.

Domain monitoring during and after the Trademark Claims window is the third layer. Once the Claims period ends, abusive registrations can proceed without triggering an automatic alert. Continuous monitoring of new registrations across .global and other new gTLDs allows a brand owner to identify infringing strings quickly and file before the registrant develops entrenched use. Speed matters: a domain that has been resolving to a live site for months is harder to recover than one registered last week.

What is the cross-zone picture for a brand active beyond .global?

A brand with meaningful commercial presence is almost never at risk in only one zone. A .global launch coincides, in practice, with exposure across other new gTLDs (.shop, .store, .online, .tech, .brand), legacy gTLDs (.com, .net, .org), and – if the brand operates internationally – country-code zones. Each zone has its own governing procedure, and the remedies differ.

For .com and other legacy gTLDs, the UDRP is the standard route, with WIPO and the Forum accounting for roughly 97% of all proceedings. For new gTLDs, both URS and UDRP apply. For national ccTLDs, the applicable procedure is the one adopted by the relevant registry: the Nominet DRS for .uk (with its own two-stage mediation and expert process, and a test of "abusive registration" rather than the UDRP's bad-faith standard), the CAC ADR.eu platform for .eu, the German courts plus a DENIC DISPUTE entry for .de, and WIPO-administered procedures for the many ccTLDs that have appointed WIPO as their provider.

The decision matrix for a multi-zone dispute follows the evidence and the remedy needed. A brand owner who finds its mark registered across [brand].global, [brand].com, and [brand].shop held by the same registrant has a strong candidate for a single multi-domain UDRP complaint at WIPO, provided the registrant identity is consistent across all three. A brand owner facing [brand].global (new gTLD, clear bad faith, rapid suspension needed) plus [brand].de (German-law dispute, no UDRP available) needs a two-track approach: URS or UDRP for the new gTLD and local litigation counsel in the relevant jurisdiction for the .de matter, potentially with a DENIC DISPUTE entry to prevent transfer while the German case proceeds.

In a recent cross-zone matter (a .global plus legacy gTLD dispute, autumn 2024), we coordinated a UDRP filing covering both the new gTLD registration and the matching .com held by the same respondent. A single complaint before WIPO addressed both strings, saving the client a second filing fee and producing a consolidated record for the panel. The result was transfer of both domains within the standard two-month window.

What does the dispute process cost, and what is the realistic next step?

Transparency on cost is one of the reasons clients come to COGNOMEN. Forum filing fees and legal fees are separate, and conflating them understates the real budget required.

For a UDRP complaint at WIPO covering one to five domains, the official WIPO filing fee is USD 1,500 for a single-member panel. If the respondent requests a three-member panel, the fee rises to USD 4,000, typically split between the parties. For six to ten domains, the single-member fee is USD 2,000. These are WIPO's published rates. Legal fees for a straightforward single-domain UDRP complaint are typically in the USD 3,000–7,000 range in the market, depending on complexity, the number of domains, and the strength of the evidence record that needs to be built. URS proceedings carry lower filing fees and generally lower legal fees, reflecting the faster, simpler procedure.

The realistic next step for a brand owner who has identified a potentially abusive .global registration is a focused pre-filing review: Does the trademark predate the domain? Is the registrant using the domain in a way that establishes bad faith? Is the evidence of confusing similarity clear on the string comparison? That review takes a day or two for a straightforward case and determines whether the right tool is URS (fast suspension), UDRP (transfer), or a combination of both. Where the evidence is weaker – for instance, where the registrant has an arguable legitimate interest – a more thorough pre-filing analysis reduces the risk of a denial or, in the worst case, an RDNH finding against the brand owner.

We assess the three UDRP elements, assemble the bad-faith evidence, select the forum, and file the complaint. On the defensive side, where a brand owner's registrant partner or licensee has received an unexpected complaint in .global, we build the legitimate-interest record, document good-faith registration, and where warranted, seek an RDNH finding.

Related at COGNOMEN

• URS and new gTLD dispute services – full practice overview across all new gTLD zones
• URS vs. UDRP FAQ – when to suspend and when to seek transfer in a new gTLD
• ccTLD transfer remedy guide – procedures and eligibility outside the gTLD system