<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

	<channel>

	<title>&#45; CircleID</title>
	<link>https://www.circleid.com/blogs/</link>
	<description>Postings from  on CircleID</description>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:rights>Copyright 2026, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
	<dc:date>2026-03-31T21:29:00+00:00</dc:date>

	
	<item>
		<title> Is Sharing the Answer to .BRAND Top Level Domain Disputes? (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20150617_is_sharing_the_answer_to_brand_top_level_domain_disputes</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20150617_is_sharing_the_answer_to_brand_top_level_domain_disputes</link>
		<description><![CDATA[In opening up for the .BRAND top level domain, ICANN has artificially created a scarce resource of great commercial value. Indeed, the values of the .BRAND TLDs may be astronomical due to the investments made by the companies that own the trademarks represented in the .BRAND TLD. While the above is interesting in its own right, I will here focus specifically on how we deal with situations where more than one company has a legitimate trademark interest in a particular .BRAND TLD. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20150617_is_sharing_the_answer_to_brand_top_level_domain_disputes">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-03-31T14:29:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	

	</channel>
</rss>