Co-authored by Tatiana Sainati, Partner in Wiley’s Global Disputes Practice

With the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (“ICANN”) publication of applications in the 2026 New Generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) Program, applicants, brand owners, governments, and community organizations have entered one of the most consequential phases of the application process. Publication triggers a limited window for stakeholders to evaluate proposed strings and determine whether formal objections are warranted. For many parties, the objection process represents the last realistic opportunity to prevent delegation of a problematic gTLD before it enters the root zone. Applicants, meanwhile, should not underestimate the significance of the objection phase. A successful objection can disqualify an application altogether or force competing applicants into contention resolution procedures that materially affect the path to delegation.

These are not ordinary administrative proceedings. ICANN’s objection process functions as a specialized form of dispute resolution at the intersection of Internet governance, trademark law, and international arbitration, with proceedings conducted before independent dispute resolution providers operating under the gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Each objection ground has its own substantive standards, standing requirements, evidentiary considerations, and procedural rules. As a result, success often turns as much on understanding the unique ICANN framework and prior panel decisions as it does on the underlying merits of the dispute. Parties considering whether to initiate or defend an objection should be familiar not only with the Applicant Guidebook and applicable rules, but also with the body of precedent developed during the 2012 round, which will inform how panels evaluate and resolve these disputes.

At a Glance: The Four Objection Mechanisms

Not all objections serve the same purpose. The Applicant Guidebook establishes four distinct objection grounds, each aimed at a different category of concern and administered by a different dispute resolution provider:

• String Confusion Objections
• Legal Rights Objections
• Limited Public Interest Objections
• Community Objections

The objection mechanism selected can significantly influence both the procedural path and substantive arguments available. Accordingly, parties should carefully evaluate potential grounds for objection as soon as applications are published.

String Confusion Objections

String Confusion Objections are governed by Module 4 of the Applicant Guidebook and arise when an applied-for gTLD is alleged to be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or another applied-for gTLD.

The inquiry goes beyond visual similarity. Panels may consider whether the strings are likely to create confusion in appearance, pronunciation, meaning, or overall commercial impression. As a result, even if two strings are not identical, an objector may argue that they are sufficiently similar to cause Internet users to mistakenly assume a relationship, affiliation, or association between them.

Existing gTLD operators, country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) operators, certain interested parties associated with a relevant country or territory, and competing applicants in the current application round all have standing to lodge a String Confusion Objection.

The consequences of a successful String Confusion Objection differ significantly depending on who brings the challenge. If the prevailing objector is another applicant, the competing strings may be placed into the same contention set, requiring further contention resolution.¹ If the prevailing objector is an existing gTLD operator, ccTLD operator, or other qualifying party, the challenged application may be disqualified altogether. If the String Confusion Objection is unsuccessful, the application will continue to advance through the approval process.²

Successfully bringing or defeating these objections will require marshalling linguistic analysis, technical understanding of the Domain Name System, consumer perception evidence, and familiarity with prior ICANN precedent.

Legal Rights Objections

Legal Rights Objections (“LROs”) are among the most frequently discussed (and frequently misunderstood) objection mechanisms because they provide trademark owners and other rights holders with a means of challenging applications that allegedly infringe existing legal rights. But the 2012 round demonstrated that LROs are not easily won. Of the 69 Legal Rights Objections filed during that round, only four succeeded.³ Prior decisions make clear that an objector must do more than establish trademark rights or similarity between a mark and the applied-for string. Rather, the objector must demonstrate that the applicant’s proposed gTLD would impermissibly take unfair advantage of, unjustifiably impair, or otherwise infringe the objector’s legal rights.⁴

The Applicant Guidebook permits LROs based upon an asserted infringement of existing legal rights, including trademark rights, whether or not these rights arise out of a registered trademark or alternatively have been established through use.⁵

LROs are administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), which developed detailed procedural rules and a substantial body of precedent during the 2012 application round. That precedent reflects that LRO panels evaluated numerous factors, including:

• The degree of similarity between the applied-for string and the asserted mark.
• The objector’s rights in the mark.
• The likelihood that Internet users would associate the gTLD with the objector.
• The applicant’s intent in selecting the string.
• Whether the applicant has a legitimate interest in the string.
• The likelihood of unfair advantage, consumer confusion, dilution, or other harm to the rights holder.

Unlike traditional trademark litigation, LROs proceed on an accelerated schedule before specialized arbitral panels familiar with both trademark law and the unique context of domain name governance. The low success rate of LROs during the 2012 round underscores an important point: these proceedings are not merely trademark infringement actions transplanted into the ICANN context. Panels generally required objectors to establish not only similarity, but also that the applicant’s use of the string would take unfair advantage of the objector’s legal rights under the standards set forth in the Applicant Guidebook.⁶

For brand owners with highly distinctive marks that correspond closely to an applied-for string, an LRO can be the most effective mechanism for preventing delegation of a problematic gTLD.

Limited Public Interest Objections

Limited Public Interest Objections are among the narrowest objection grounds available under the Applicant Guidebook. These objections contend that a proposed gTLD is contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under principles of international law. The standard is intentionally demanding. Not every controversial, offensive, or unpopular string will satisfy the criteria. A single Limited Public Interest Objection was sustained during the 2012 application round.⁷

Any party may file a Limited Public Interest Objection, and ICANN’s Independent Objector⁸ may also do so when warranted.

The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) administers proceedings raising these challenges with expert panelists evaluating whether the string violates internationally recognized norms relating to issues such as discrimination, incitement, or other matters affecting public order. Although rarely used, this objection category can present substantial risk for applicants seeking controversial or highly sensitive strings.

Community Objections

Community Objections protect clearly delineated communities from gTLD applications that may improperly target, appropriate, or adversely affect their interests. Established institutions associated with a community may launch these objections if there is substantial opposition to the application from a significant portion of that community.

Community Objections are among the most fact-intensive proceedings in the objection framework. These objections are administered by the ICC, and panels typically consider questions including:

• Is the asserted community clearly delineated?
• Does the objector genuinely represent that community?
• Is there substantial opposition within the community?
• Is there a likelihood of material detriment to the community if the application proceeds?

Applicants sometimes underestimate the complexity of this analysis. Prior proceedings demonstrate that disputes often arise over whether the asserted community is sufficiently cohesive and whether the objector genuinely represents a substantial portion of that community. Establishing the existence of a qualifying community or substantial opposition demands extensive evidence, declarations, organizational records, and historical context.⁹

A successful Community Objection results in the challenged application being ineligible to proceed.

Procedural Considerations

In all cases, objection proceedings move quickly and require careful strategic planning. Objections must be filed with the designated dispute resolution provider. Submissions are subject to strict word limitations, and applicants generally have a limited period to prepare and submit responses.

Appeals through ICANN’s designated appellate process are possible, but review is limited and substantial deference is afforded to the original panel’s decision.

In addition to filing fees, both sides are typically required to provide advance payments covering the time and expenses of the arbitral panel. As a result, successful objections often depend as much on early strategic assessment as on the merits of the underlying case.

What Stakeholders Should Be Doing Now

Publication of the 2026 applications marks the beginning, not the end, of the strategic evaluation process. Because objection proceedings move quickly and often require substantial evidentiary support, stakeholders should begin assessing their positions immediately.

Applicants should carefully review the published application list to identify competing strings, potential trademark conflicts, geographic-name concerns, and community-related issues that may give rise to objections. Applicants should also begin preserving and organizing materials that may be needed to demonstrate legitimate interests in the applied-for string, anticipated use of the gTLD, and the absence of consumer confusion or community harm.

Brand Owners should promptly review published applications for strings corresponding or similar to valuable brands, product names, certifications, or other protected identifiers. Early assessment is particularly important because Legal Rights Objections require a detailed factual showing and often depend on evidence concerning the strength of the asserted rights and the likely impact of delegation.

Industry Associations, NGOs, and Community Organizations representing identifiable communities should evaluate whether any application purports to represent, target, or appropriate their community. If concerns exist, these organizations should begin assessing whether substantial opposition may exist within the community and identifying evidence necessary to establish standing and material detriment.

Existing Registry Operators and Other Interested Parties should evaluate whether newly applied-for strings may create a risk of confusion within the domain name system. Prior rounds demonstrate that confusion analyses can be highly fact-specific and often benefit from early technical, linguistic, and market-based assessment.

Counsel advising applicants or potential objectors should begin evaluating both procedural and substantive options now. Objection proceedings often require the rapid development of legal arguments, expert support, and evidentiary records. Waiting until objection deadlines approach may significantly narrow the available strategic choices.

Conclusion: Experience and Preparation Matter in ICANN Objections

ICANN objection proceedings occupy a unique intersection of Internet governance, international arbitration, intellectual property law, and/or domain name policy. Few legal proceedings require mastery of such a diverse array of fields.

The 2026 round will undoubtedly generate disputes over valuable strings, brand-related terms, industry identifiers, geographic names, and community-based applications. For some stakeholders, the objection process is the last realistic opportunity to block delegation of a problematic string. For applicants, it can determine whether a gTLD proceeds toward delegation, becomes entangled in contention-resolution proceedings, or fails altogether.

Organizations should therefore be evaluating potential claims and defenses now, while there is still time to develop the factual record, assess strategic options, and shape the outcome before formal objection proceedings begin.