A visualization of reality for brand protection costs and new top level domain names.
One thing that’s clear from talking to various people at ICANN 50 this week is that they are surprised by the low level of defensive trademark registrations in new TLDs.
The trademark lobby expected a nightmare. New TLD applicants expected a lot less, but still more than they got.
Here’s the reality in a simple chart:
No harm done to the trademark lobby for exaggerating the cost? Not really. People will point out the results of brand protection in this round when creating the next round of TLD expansion.
If most brands don’t care about new TLDs why would/should anyone ?
Adam, how did you come to this conclusion? From a doodle chart with no scale, parameters or other backing info and sources?
Also, defensive registrations or lack therefore is not an indication of interest or not in the gTLD namespace by companies and brands.
“Also, defensive registrations or lack therefore is not an indication of interest or not in the gTLD namespace by companies and brands.”
What does a lack of registrations indicate then ?
When a customer base (like major brands) is not buying your product, call me crazy, but I read that as a lack of interest.
I will say this though, brands haven’t really led the way in the way of paradigm shifts. It took many of them years to even secure their .com domains back in the 90s.
I’m curious about your thoughts here. What is showing you a sign that major brands ARE interested in the space ?
I believe that the sad truth is that no one gives a .sh*t since the entire gtld program is clearly destined to fail. Not even worth sending a c+d letter. Let em pay the $30/yr annually for a .crap. That is punishment enough. All to soon fail.
Apparently you can foresee the future down to its finest detail. Please let us know the winning Lotto numbers – be useful for a change.
The registration volume in the new gTLDs is a lot lower than some people were expecting. Some of these new gTLD registries seem to be basing their projections on 2008 figures when there was an artificially created shortage of good domain names dropping. The artificial shortage was caused by Domain Tasting and Kiting. And this is the environment that spawned the new gTLDs. Couple that with the fact that the ccTLDs were beginning to eclipse .COM and the other gTLDs in country level markets, the new gTLDs probably made sense to ICANN and the promoters.
The shift from brand protection to brand enforcement is an interesting one and it took a major revenue stream from many new gTLDs. The plundering of the new gTLDs by their own registries also killed the Landrush buzz that accompanies the launch of a new TLDs. Even newbie domainers are beginning to realise that domaining in these new gTLDs is a rigged game. So where does that leave the mom and pop registrants? Still on their .COM or .ccTLD. There’s no switching benefit for many of these registrants. For some new gTLDs, only carriage on Godaddy offers some hope. And even then, there are no guarantees of success.
I think it’s fair to point out that brand protection costs would rise in proportion to nTLD popularity.
Right now the nTLDs aren’t getting much traction with the general public. So brand protection costs are (proportionally) lower than some people expected.
But if awareness grows, then brand protection costs will rise. Even if companies are — rightly, in my opinion — shifting toward enforcement, many of the brand protection costs are yet to come.