Securing a new gTLD is rarely a straight line from application to delegation. Even the most carefully crafted applications can face opposition, whether from competitors, trademark holders, communities, or regulators. In the 2012 round, dozens of applications were derailed or delayed due to disputes, with some never making it to delegation.
This is where dispute resolution and representation become critical. At Pitch, we stand beside our clients to ensure that when their right to a string is challenged, they are not only defended but positioned for success.
The domain name system sits at the intersection of technology, law, and commerce. Unsurprisingly, new gTLD applications can trigger strong reactions from stakeholders with competing interests. Common triggers for disputes include:
1. String Contention: When two or more applicants apply for the same or similar string, ICANN requires them to resolve the contention. If they cannot, the string may go to auction — a process that can be costly and unpredictable.
2. Intellectual Property Conflicts: Trademark owners may allege that a proposed string infringes on their legal rights. For example, a brand may object to a string that is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks.
3. Community Challenges: Community groups may object to an application they feel misrepresents or harms their interests. For instance, a healthcare-related string might be opposed by medical associations concerned about misuse.
4. Public Interest Concerns: Some strings raise broader societal questions. Applications that touch sensitive areas — such as morality, human rights, or regulated industries — can trigger objections based on the “limited public interest” ground.
These disputes are not just bureaucratic hurdles. They can define whether an application (and your investment) moves forward, stalls indefinitely, or is lost altogether.
ICANN established a system of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for the 2012 round, and it is expected to remain in place (with refinements) for the upcoming round. Different types of disputes are handled by specialized providers:
Each proceeding follows its own rules, timelines, and evidentiary standards. While they are designed to be faster and more efficient than traditional litigation, ADR processes can still be complex, adversarial, and high-stakes.
At Pitch, we bring together legal expertise, technical knowledge, and deep familiarity with ICANN policy to defend our clients’ applications. Our approach rests on three pillars:
1. Strategic Defense
We analyze the objection or dispute not just at face value, but in the broader context of ICANN precedent and policy. Was a similar objection upheld or rejected in the past? Does the objection align with ICANN’s mission, or is it a tactical maneuver by a competitor? This strategic lens allows us to respond effectively and persuasively.
2. Robust Representation
ADR proceedings require written submissions, documentary evidence, and sometimes oral hearings. We handle every aspect: drafting briefs, gathering evidence, coordinating expert testimony, and representing clients before panels. Our team has successfully defended applications across all four objection grounds.
3. Negotiation and Resolution
Not all disputes need to be fought to the bitter end. In some cases, negotiation or settlement may be the best path forward — whether through private contention resolution, co-existence agreements, or partnerships. We help clients weigh the costs and benefits of litigation versus resolution, always with their strategic goals in mind.
During the last application window, many organizations underestimated the likelihood of disputes. Some were blindsided by objections from competitors or community groups they hadn’t anticipated. Others went into contention sets without a clear strategy and ended up in costly auctions.
The key lessons were:
These lessons shape our approach today. By combining foresight with experience, we help clients avoid the mistakes of the past. For this reason, we will be making a risk assessment on each of the objection grounds in the Feasibility Assessment stage, ensuring that applicants come prepared.
Dispute resolution is not just about winning or losing an argument. The outcomes have real, lasting consequences:
Put simply, this step determines whether the vision you’ve built for your gTLD survives contact with the real world.
Every new gTLD application represents an investment of time, money, and vision. When disputes arise — and they often do — applicants need more than a consultant. They need an advocate, a strategist, and a defender.
At Pitch, we provide that representation. Our track record across all objection types demonstrates our ability to fight effectively, but also wisely — knowing when to litigate, when to negotiate, and when to push back. Because in the end, a gTLD is more than just a string of characters. It is part of your digital identity, your brand, and your future. And when that future is challenged, we are there to fight for it.
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
%402x.svg){kind=small}