直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

USPTO Updates Policy on Registration of Generic Top-Level Domains

April 09, 2014

Authored and Edited by Naresh Kilaru

Everyone knows gTLDs such as “.com” and “.net” are not registrable as trademarks, but what about “.Nissan”? In view of ICANN’s impending rollout of hundreds of new gTLDs, the USPTO has recently revised its policy governing registration of gTLDs to provide that gTLDs may be registered as trademarks under certain circumstances.

Under the revised policy, gTLDs are registrable as trademarks provided that:

  1. the gTLD will be perceived as a source identifier;
  2. the applicant has a current registry agreement with ICANN; and
  3. the services provided are primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant.

To satisfy the first element, an applicant must (1) own one or more registrations for goods or services that are related to the subject matter of the websites that will be registered via the new gTLD, and (2) submit “significant” additional evidence showing that the gTLD serves as a source indicator. Such evidence may include advertising and promotional materials, the amounts expended for such promotion, and consumer testimonials.

Second, to avoid a deceptiveness refusal, the applicant must include a verified statement that it has a Registry Agreement (or a currently pending application for a Registry Agreement) with ICANN. If the application is pending, the Examining Attorney may suspend the application until the application has been approved.

Finally, to be considered a “service” within the meaning of the Lanham Act, the applicant must indicate that the registry and registrar services it offers under the gTLD are primarily for the benefit of others. For example, while operating a gTLD registry that is available only for the applicant’s employees or solely for the applicant’s marketing initiatives would likely not qualify as a “service,” operating the registry for use by authorized dealers should meet this requirement.

Tags

generic top-level domains (gTLDs), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Related Practices

Domain Name Litigation and UDRPs

Trademark and Brand Management

Contacts

Naresh Kilaru
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4236
Email

Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Webinar

U.S. Patent Case Law Update 2026

July 23, 2026

Webinar

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Mere Invalidity of Asserted Claims Does Not Render Patent Infringement Case Exceptional or Warrant Sanctions

June 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP