ICANN 2026: Which New Domain Extensions Put Your Trademarks at Risk?

ICANN has revealed the next wave of proposed internet domain extensions. For enterprise trademark owners, the immediate question is not how many new extensions might become available. It is whether any could affect their rights, customers or commercial interests.

On October 7, 2026, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) published the applications submitted under its 2026 New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Program.

The applications identify proposed extensions and the organizations seeking to operate them. However, the initial list is not necessarily final: eligible applicants have until October 21 to select replacement strings, with confirmed strings scheduled for publication on November 17.

For businesses managing international trademark and domain portfolios, this creates a valuable opportunity to assess emerging risks before critical objection processes begin.

But more domain extensions do not automatically mean more trademark risk. The priority is knowing which applications deserve attention, and which do not.

Which new gTLD applications should concern trademark owners?

A proposed domain extension may be relevant to a brand for several reasons. Some are directly connected to existing trademark rights. Others present commercial considerations that require a different response.

The first priority is identifying applications that match, resemble or have a meaningful relationship with protected brand names.

An exact match between a proposed extension and a registered trademark may warrant closer examination. So might a visually or phonetically similar string, particularly where consumers could associate it with an established business.

However, similarity alone does not establish infringement or provide automatic grounds for objection.

Context matters.

A proposed extension might describe a common industry term, product category or geographic market. Its significance will depend on the strength and scope of the brand's rights, the applicant's intended use and the potential for consumer confusion.

For multinational organizations, commercial relevance is equally important. An extension associated with a major product line or strategic growth market may deserve attention even when it does not directly reproduce a trademark.

The objective is to identify credible exposure, not treat every new string as a potential dispute.

Why applicant identity and intended use matter

The same proposed extension can present very different risks depending on who intends to operate it and how it will be used.

ICANN's published application information allows trademark owners to examine the applying organization and relevant details about the proposed registry.

This information can help establish whether an application is connected to a legitimate business, industry initiative or other intended purpose.

It can also highlight questions requiring further investigation.

Could the extension create a misleading association with an established brand? Might consumers interpret websites using it as official communications? Could its proposed operation affect an organization's commercial interests?

These are not questions that can be answered through string similarity alone.

For example, an extension associated with a recognizable product category may be commercially relevant to several businesses without necessarily conflicting with their legal rights.

Conversely, a string closely associated with a distinctive trademark may justify detailed legal review.

Effective assessment combines trademark intelligence with commercial context and evidence about the applicant's proposed activities.

The commercial risks of third-party control

The implications of a new domain extension can extend beyond a potential trademark dispute.

Domain names are important signals of identity and authenticity. Consumers use them to find official websites, access services and determine whether communications appear legitimate.

Where an extension becomes associated with a recognizable brand or industry, its operation could influence how consumers interpret websites using that namespace.

There is also a distinction between the extension itself and the individual domains that may eventually be registered beneath it.

A proposed extension does not automatically create phishing websites or counterfeit storefronts. However, depending on its registration policies and eventual use, second-level registrations could introduce opportunities for impersonation, misleading commercial activity or traffic diversion.

Brands may also face additional monitoring responsibilities, decisions about defensive registrations and questions about future domain availability.

These consequences should be assessed proportionately.

The potential cost of inaction must be considered alongside the expense of challenging an application, expanding a defensive portfolio or monitoring an extension that may present little practical risk.

Challenge, monitor or take no immediate action?

The most useful outcome of a trademark risk assessment is a clear decision.

Not every relevant application requires a formal objection. A structured framework can help brands allocate resources according to the strength of the evidence and potential business impact.

Challenge: When the concern is material and actionable

Formal intervention may be appropriate where a proposed extension raises a significant concern and the organization has standing under an applicable ICANN objection mechanism.

A Legal Rights Objection can address specified conflicts with existing legal rights, including relevant trademark rights.

A String Confusion Objection addresses the applicable ICANN criteria concerning confusing similarity between strings. It is not a general-purpose trademark infringement procedure.

Each mechanism has its own requirements, and an unfavorable commercial outcome does not automatically establish a valid objection.

Monitor: When relevance is clear but intervention is premature

Some applications may have commercial significance without currently meeting the threshold for formal action.

Monitoring allows brands to track developments, review updated application information and reassess exposure as the process progresses.

This may be appropriate where applicant intent, future registration policies or potential consumer impact remain uncertain.

No immediate action: When identifiable risk is limited

Other applications may have little meaningful relationship to the organization's trademarks, products or markets.

In these cases, further intervention may not be justified.

Recording the assessment and retaining normal portfolio oversight is often more proportionate than pursuing defensive action without a clear business rationale.

The key is to make the decision deliberately rather than through blanket policies.

Why timing matters in the ICANN 2026 process

Trademark owners have different options at different stages of the new gTLD program.

ICANN's Reveal Day on October 7 provided the first opportunity to examine the published applications. The replacement period closes on October 21, with String Confirmation Day scheduled for November 17.

The community input and objections period is scheduled to run from November 17, 2026, through March 16, 2027.

These milestones matter because the opportunity to object to an application is different from the mechanisms available once an extension is operational.

During the application process, eligible parties may be able to challenge a proposed string through the relevant ICANN procedures.

After delegation, trademark owners generally address potentially infringing individual domain registrations through applicable rights protection mechanisms, dispute procedures or other enforcement action.

Trademark Clearinghouse services and relevant Sunrise periods may provide additional protection opportunities before general registration becomes available, subject to their eligibility and procedural requirements.

Waiting until an extension launches could therefore mean losing an opportunity to address a concern at the application stage.

Early assessment does not require immediate legal action. It allows brands to preserve informed choices.

How should enterprises prepare their trademark portfolios?

The 2026 round provides an opportunity to review whether existing trademark and domain protection strategies reflect current commercial priorities.

That review should begin with the organization's core trademarks, including important variations, product names and marks used across multiple jurisdictions.

These rights can then be assessed against the published application strings, taking account of legal protection, similarity and commercial relevance.

The process may also reveal gaps in existing registrations or inconsistencies between trademark and domain portfolios.

Trademark Clearinghouse records should be reviewed where relevant, alongside existing defensive registrations and monitoring arrangements.

Coordination is essential.

Legal and IP teams can evaluate rights and objection eligibility. Brand Protection teams can assess potential misuse and consumer exposure. Cybersecurity teams can consider impersonation and phishing implications. Domain Portfolio Managers can evaluate registration requirements and operational costs.

Corsearch's trademark intelligence, monitoring and domain protection expertise can support this process by helping organizations identify relevant risks and prioritize proportionate responses.

The aim should not be to register more domains automatically. It should be to understand which applications matter and what action, if any, is justified.

Better domain protection begins with better decisions

ICANN's 2026 round will introduce new possibilities for organizations and internet users. It will also create decisions for trademark owners responsible for protecting established brands.

Some proposed extensions may justify formal intervention. Others will require monitoring. Many may present no significant identifiable threat.

Treating them all equally risks diverting resources from the applications that matter most.

The strongest domain protection strategy is not the one that challenges the most applications or registers the most domains. It is the one that identifies genuine exposure early and responds proportionately.

Assess your trademark exposure before the next gTLD milestone

Discover how Corsearch, an accredited Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) agent, combines trademark intelligence and domain protection expertise to help your organization evaluate new domain extensions, identify relevant risks and prioritize the actions that protect your business.