News

Introduction

The long-awaited Next Round of ICANN’s new gTLD Program is finally on the horizon.
Set to open in April 2026, this new application window will reshape how trademark owners, communities, and innovators engage with the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS).

The next round of ICANN’s new GTLD program follows the landmark 2012 round, which introduced over 1,200 new top-level domains (.app, .shop, .paris, .集团, etc.). Since then, the Internet ecosystem has evolved dramatically, reflecting broader technological, linguistic, and regulatory shifts.

ICANN’s community, through the GNSO Subsequent Procedures Working Group, has redefined the policy framework to increase diversity, inclusivity, and competition within the DNS. The Next Round aims to create a more accessible and multilingual Internet, encouraging participation from under-served regions and new industry sectors.

For trademark owners, the upcoming round is not merely a technical event, it is a strategic turning point!

The 2026 timeline: milestones and implementation path

ICANN has confirmed a tentative 12–15-weeks application window beginning in April 2026, with preparatory programs already in motion:

• Applicant Support Program (ASP): open since November 2024, closing November 19, 2025 (extended to December 19, 2025 to submit a completed application).
• Registry Service Provider (RSP) Evaluation Program : pre-evaluation window closed since May 20, 2025.
• Applicant Guidebook (AGB): to be finalized by December 2025, establishing the definitive rules and criteria for applicants.

These steps are part of ICANN’s phased approach covering policy implementation, program design, infrastructure development, and operationalization, the four pillars identified in its official status report.

Key outcomes from ICAAN 84 in Dublin

The ICANN 84 meeting in Dublin served as a decisive moment for consultation.
Multiple sessions focused on governments’ readiness, trademark engagement, and the technical ecosystem’s preparedness.

Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) engagement

During its plenary and capacity-building sessions, the GAC emphasized its oversight role, especially the Early Warnings mechanism, allowing governments to flag potentially problematic strings or applicants on public-interest grounds. A new “GAC Readiness Pathway” was launched, including webinars, e-learning modules, and outreach to national governments scheduled for late 2025.

Governments also raised recurring concerns regarding geographic TLDs (geoTLDs), IDN variants, and fair access to applicant support program, issues that will shape the policy environment for 2026.

Geographic and trademark registries

The GeoTLD Group highlighted the importance of genuine local community engagement and governmental non-objection letters, stressing transparency in governance for place-based TLDs.

In parallel, the Brand Registry Group (BRG) discussed strategies relating to .brand TLDs, emphasizing the need for preparation as early as the second quarter of 2026, including provider selection, contractual compliance, and post-delegation planning. For companies, this requires close coordination between domain-name strategy, marketing, cybersecurity, and legal teams ahead of the opening of the application window.

Core challenges for applicants

1. Governmental involvement and Early Warnings

Applicants must anticipate governmental scrutiny early in the process. GAC Early Warnings can significantly affect evaluations or even trigger objections.

Recommendation: Monitor applied-for strings, maintain dialogue with relevant authorities, and integrate public policy considerations into your application strategy.

2. Applicant Support Program (ASP)

The ASP aims to reduce fees by up to 75–85% for qualified applicants from under-served regions. However, governments and civil-society groups stress that outreach remains insufficient.
Applicants should assess eligibility criteria, potential benefits, and strategic trade-offs between ASP participation and standard applications.

3. Contention sets and auctions

When multiple applicants seek the same string, contention resolution becomes critical. ICANN has not yet confirmed whether auctions, controversial in 2012, will remain the default.

Trademark owners should prepare for potential competition, alliances, or pre-emptive applications to mitigate disputes.

4. Technical and operational readiness

The RSP Evaluation Program transfers part of the technical due diligence outside the applicant phase. While this simplifies evaluation, it also requires early engagement with RSP partners to ensure compliance, stability, and security.

Selecting a technically competent RSP is now a precondition for application success.

5. Fees and cost management

The application evaluation fee is estimated around USD 227,000 per TLD, excluding legal, technical, and operational costs.

Applicants should prepare comprehensive budgets, anticipate cost recovery mechanisms, and align internal governance with registry obligations.

6. IDNs, variants, and multilingual opportunities

The Next Round will support 26 scripts under the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR).
This represents a major opportunity for global trademarks seeking to localize their digital presence. However, applicants must address string similarity risks, translation accuracy, and local regulatory nuances.

7. Public Interest Commitments (PICs) and Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)

All new registries must agree to PICs/RVCs, defining commitments related to consumer protection, transparency, and responsible operation. These are legally binding under the Registry Agreement.
Trademark owners must prepare governance and compliance frameworks to support these obligations.

Strategic implications for trademark owners

For trademark owners

Applying for a .brand TLD (also called a dotBrand) represents one of the most strategic evolutions in corporate digital identity since the first gTLD round in 2012. A dotBrand allows a company to operate its own exclusive, secure domain space under its direct control.

This model goes far beyond traditional defensive registrations or marketing convenience. It provides unprecedented autonomy in managing domain names, strengthens consumer trust, and supports digital transformation objectives across business units.

1. Brand control and consumer trust

Owning a .brand enables the creation of a trusted digital ecosystem, where every domain ending in the company’s TLD is verified and controlled by the rights holder.
This eliminates risks of phishing, counterfeiting, and typosquatting within the namespace, ensuring users can safely navigate to authentic websites such as shop.brand, careers.brand, or support.brand.

From a reputational standpoint, the .brand domain reinforces brand integrity and customer’s trust, particularly for regulated sectors like financeand health

2. Strategic marketing and innovation potential

A .brand opens new opportunities for innovation in communication and marketing.
Companies can structure personalized campaigns (e.g. summer.brand), or segment offerings (pro.brand, luxury.brand) with full consistency. This fosters omnichannel continuity, as the brand controls the entire domain architecture.

Moreover, using a .brand TLD signals technological leadership and enhances SEO performance by centralizing traffic under one authoritative namespace, improving both discoverability and data security.

3. Operational autonomy and long-term efficiency

Operating a private TLD brings technical independence from third-party registrars and external platforms. It allows companies to define their own registration policies, DNS management, and security standards (DNSSEC, SPF, DMARC, etc.).

While initial costs are higher than traditional domain portfolios, maintaining a .brand over time can be more economical and efficient, particularly for organizations managing hundreds of domain names. The consolidation of assets into one controlled namespace reduces administrative complexity and renewal expenses.

4. Challenges and responsibilities

However, a .brand also comes with governance and compliance obligations.
Brands must appoint a Registry Service Provider (RSP) meeting ICANN’s technical criteria and assume ongoing reporting duties under the Registry Agreement. Internal teams (legal, IT, marketing) must collaborate closely to ensure compliance with Public Interest Commitments (PICs) and Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs).

It is crucial to prepare internal procedures for policy management, data protection, and incident response within the .brand environment.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our focus article on .brands.

Conclusion

The Next gTLD Round is both an opportunity and a challenge.
ICANN’s roadmap is becoming clearer, but success will depend on early strategic preparation, stakeholder engagement, and a sound understanding of both policy and technical frameworks.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1. What is a gTLD?

A gTLD (generic Top-Level Domain) is a generic domain name extension appearing at the end of an Internet address, such as .com, .org, .shop, or .paris. gTLDs serve to structure the Domain Name System (DNS) and provide new opportunities for communication, visibility, and digital positioning for businesses, institutions, and communities.

2. What is the Applicant Guidebook (AGB)?

The Applicant Guidebook (AGB) is the official ICANN document setting out the rules, procedures, and requirements applicable to applicants seeking to operate a new gTLD. It defines the evaluation criteria, objection and dispute resolution mechanisms, and the technical, financial, and contractual obligations applicable to prospective registry operators.

3. What are the Public Interest Commitments (PICs)?

The Public Interest Commitments (PICs) are contractual obligations ensuring that registry operations serve the public interest, protect consumers, and prevent abuse.

4. How are domain names in non-Latin scripts handled?

Domain names aren’t limited to the Latin alphabet. In the next application round, it will be possible to register domain names in 26 different writing systems, including Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, and Cyrillic.

To ensure these domain names work properly worldwide, ICANN uses a set of technical rules called the “Root Zone Label Generation Rules” (RZ-LGR). In short, this system makes it possible for people to use the Internet in their own language and writing system, while ensuring that domain names remain safe, clear, and universally functional.

5. Do trademark owners need government approval to apply for new gTLDs?

Only geographic extensions (geoTLDs), such as .paris or .london, require the support, authorisation or formal non-objection of a government or competent public authority.

6. How should trademark owners prepare for the 2026 ICANN application window?

To make the most of the upcoming round, trademark owners should begin preparing now by taking a structured, strategic approach. Preparation involves:

• Conducting feasibility and ROI assessments to determine whether adopting a .brand TLD aligns with the company’s long-term digital and marketing goals.
• Mapping potential use cases and establishing naming conventions to ensure consistent deployment across business units.
• Engaging early with qualified Registry Service Providers (RSPs) to confirm technical readiness and compliance capacity.
• Budgeting for application, setup, and annual registry operations, anticipating both one-time and recurring costs.
• Reviewing internal compliance frameworks to ensure alignment with ICANN’s upcoming 2025 policy updates and Public Interest Commitments (PICs).

This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

Genuine use is a fundamental condition for maintaining the validity of a trademark. A trademark may indeed be revoked if it has not been put to genuine use for the goods or services for which it is registered over an uninterrupted period of five years. This requirement prevents the registration of trademarks without real commercial intention and preserves the availability of distinctive signs for other economic operators.

The date of December 31, 2025 stands as a key milestone for EU trademark owners holding a “cloned” UK trademark. As from January 1^st, 2026, use of the trademark within the European Union will no longer be accepted to demonstrate genuine use of a cloned UK trademark (often identifiable by a number beginning with 008 or 009). In other words, only actual and effective use of the trademark in the United Kingdom will make it possible to avoid revocation for non-use or to satisfy a proof-of-use request before the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).

The context of the UK’s withdrawal and the creation of “cloned” UK trademarks

The establishment of “cloned” trademarks in the United Kingdom

When the United Kingdom left the European Union on December 30, 2020, EU trademarks (EUTMs) ceased to automatically cover UK territory. In response, the UKIPO created comparable or “cloned” UK trademarks for every EUTM registered on that date, as well as for international registrations filed through WIPO designating the European Union.

These cloned trademarks retained the filing date, priority and seniority of the original EUTM but became fully independent national UK rights, subject to UK rules on renewal, genuine use, revocation, and invalidity.

The transitional regime for use between the EU and the UK

A transitional mechanism allowed use within the European Union to be taken into account for cloned UK trademarks, provided such use occurred before January 1^st, 2021 or if the five-year reference period included use prior to that date.

This transitional bridge remained applicable until the beginning of the new five-year period starting January 1^st, 2021. Consequently, from January 1^st, 2026, only use in the United Kingdom will be relevant for cloned UK trademarks.

Why is December 31, 2025 a pivotal date for trademark owners?

The end of EU-use recognition for cloned UK trademarks

The turning point is clear: after December 31, 2025, the five-year reference period for assessing genuine use will apply exclusively to use occurring after January 1^st, 2021. As a result, use in an EU Member State will no longer be acceptable to justify the use of a cloned UK trademark, only genuine, effective use in the United Kingdom will be considered.

Trademark owners who relied solely on EU-based use must therefore demonstrate real and effective use in the UK. Failing this, their rights will be at risk of revocation for non-use and may no longer serve as a valid basis in opposition or invalidity proceedings.

Consequences for vulnerable trademarks: revocation, loss of enforceability, weakened rights

The consequences are significant:

• A cloned UK trademark that has not been used in the United Kingdom since 2021 will become vulnerable to revocation for non-use as of January 1^st, 2026.
• In opposition or invalidation proceedings, proof of use may be required; EU-only use may be deemed insufficient.
• The loss of a cloned trademark may allow a third party to register an identical or similar sign and obtain an earlier right, thereby weakening the former owner’s legal position.
• This calls for heightened vigilance among French and EU trademark owners whose trademarks are active in the EU market but unused in the UK.

What strategies should rights holders adopt as the deadline approaches?

Portfolio audit and proof of use in the United Kingdom

We recommend a multi-step action plan:

• Compile a complete inventory of cloned UK trademarks (prefixes 008 / 009) including specifications of goods and services, filing dates, and renewal deadlines.
• Gather and organise admissible evidence of use: invoices in GBP, delivery notes to UK clients, UK-targeted advertising, “.uk” webpages, listings with UK distributors, etc.
• Assess whether the use qualifies as genuine, meaning real, commercial, and non-symbolic according to UK case law.
• Consider implementing prompt commercial use in the UK before December 31, 2025 if no use exists, while noting that late use may be scrutinised more strictly.

Strategic alternatives: specification limitation, new filing, controlled withdrawal

If genuine use in the UK is not feasible, alternative strategies may be considered:

• Where certain goods or services have never been exploited in the UK, consider limiting the specification or voluntarily surrendering unused parts to reduce exposure to non-use attacks.
• File a new UK trademark application for the same sign with an appropriate specification, restarting the five-year usage period, though with a later filing date and potential opposition risks.
• If the trademark has no commercial relevance in the UK, a strategic non-renewal or controlled withdrawal may be more rational.

For more detailed guidance on defending cloned UK trademarks, we invite you to read our dedicated article.

Conclusion

As December 31, 2025 approaches, concrete steps are required to secure trademark protection in the United Kingdom. Whether through portfolio audits, initiating genuine use in the UK, or implementing alternative filing strategies, time is of the essence.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1. What is meant by “genuine use” in the United Kingdom?

It is real and tangible commercial use of the trademark in the UK marketplace, directed to the public and not merely symbolic or preparatory. This may include invoices in GBP, shipments to the UK, targeted advertising, or operation of a “.uk” website.

2. What happens if no action is taken before the deadline?

The cloned UK right will become vulnerable to revocation for non-use (five years of non-use) as of January 1^st, 2026, and the owner may lose the ability to enforce the trademark or rely on its earlier filing date.

3. Does this deadline apply to trademarks filed after Brexit?

No. The December 31, 2025 deadline concerns only “cloned” trademarks, meaning those that were automatically created by the UK IPO from EU Trade Trademarks registered no later than 31 December 2020, as well as international registrations designating the EU on that same date. Trademarks filed directly in the United Kingdom after Brexit follow the standard national UK regime, with no connection to former EU rights and no transitional grace period: they are subject to the ordinary UK rules on filing, use, and revocation.

4. What is the territorial scope of cloned trademarks?

Cloned UK trademarks provide protection throughout the entire territory of the United Kingdom, namely England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In certain circumstances, this protection may also extend to Gibraltar, in accordance with applicable UK law.

However, cloned UK trademarks remain entirely distinct from EU Trade Trademarks, which cover only the 27 EU Member States. Since Brexit, no overlap exists between an EU Trade Trademark and a cloned UK trademark: each right must be managed, renewed, and used independently.

5. What if the company has no current market or activity in the UK?

It may be appropriate not to renew the cloned trademark or to limit its specification, so as to avoid unnecessary costs for an unused right. A controlled disengagement strategy may be preferable.

Introduction

In a context where biodiversity and traditional knowledge play a central role in scientific and technological innovation, the question of patent law applied to genetic resources and indigenous knowledge has become a major legal and ethical debate.

The use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge is governed by several international agreements. The Nagoya Protocol of 2010, which implements the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 1992, is one of the key instruments. This protocol requires parties to ensure that access to genetic resources is done in compliance with prior informed consent from local and indigenous communities, and that the benefits derived from their exploitation are shared fairly. The European Union and France have fully ratified these international instruments.

The recent adoption of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectualproperty, genetic resources, and traditional knowledge on May 24, 2024, marks a historic milestone. Indeed, it is the first international regulation to explicitly address the use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in conjunction with patent law.

This article aims to clarify for professionals, businesses, and institutions the interactions between patent law, genetic resources, and traditional knowledge, analyzing the legal and strategic implications of this emerging framework.

Conceptual framework and key terminology

Genetic resources and traditional knowledge

It is crucial to clearly define the concepts of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. According to the Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 1992, genetic resources are “genetic material of actual or potential value,” which refers to “materials of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity.” Traditional knowledge, in this context, refers to the knowledge, innovations, and practices passed down through indigenous or local communities, related to the characteristics or use of genetic resources. A well-known example is that of turmeric (Curcuma longa), a plant that has been used for centuries in traditional Indian medicine for its anti-inflammatory and healing properties. The turmeric root constitutes a genetic resource, while the medicinal knowledge transmitted within local communities falls under associated traditional knowledge.

The coexistence of these two concepts presents a legal challenge: it involves economic interests (research, innovation, patents) as well as ethical, cultural, and social issues (community rights, access to resources, and benefit-sharing from the use of those resources and knowledge). This dual dimension requires both patent holders and the communities possessing the knowledge or resources to approach the issue with rigor.

The role of patent law in this context

Patent law aims to encourage innovation by granting a temporary monopoly to the inventor. However, when an invention is directly or significantly based on a genetic resource or associated traditional knowledge, the patent system faces several challenges:

• The issue of prior art: Traditional knowledge may de facto represent undocumented or even oral prior art, complicating the assessment of novelty or inventive activity.
• Transparency of origin: If the source of the genetic resource or knowledge is not disclosed, a patent application may be contested for lack of adequate disclosure.
• The issue of equitable benefit-sharing: This is notably regulated by the Nagoya Protocol (2010) between the inventor and, inter alia, indigenous or local communities.

Thus, for a patent applicant, it is essential to address these issues from the outset of the invention process. Proper management often requires turning to a specialized firm to ensure its legal compliance.

Legal and strategic issues for patent holders

Risks of “biopiracy” and defense mechanisms for indigenous communities

The term biopiracy refers to the unauthorized appropriation of genetic resources or traditional knowledge for commercial gain without recognition or compensation. Some biopirates even go as far as filing patents.

For example, certain indigenous peoples have seen patents granted for products derived from medicinal plants or other biological resources, which they have had knowledge of for generations. Such situations typically arise from:

• Lack of prior consent from the concerned community.
• Failure to share the benefits (“benefit-sharing”), as required by the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and the Nagoya Protocol (2010).
• For the patent holder, ignoring these aspects can lead not only to litigation risks but also to reputational risks. Despite multiple regulations, biopiracy persists.

The WIPO has thus taken action to regulate this issue by adopting a treaty that strengthens the protection of indigenous communities and encourages fair access to genetic resources.

Obligation to disclose the origin: the new WIPO treaty

After more than twenty years of discussions, WIPO adopted, on May 24, 2024, the first international treaty explicitly regulating the relationship between intellectual property, genetic resources, and traditional knowledge. Among its key provisions:

• The requirement to disclose, in the patent filling, the origin or source of the genetic resource used in the invention.
• The obligation to specify, in the patent filling, which indigenous or local communities are the source of the traditional knowledge exploited.
• The establishment of an information system (database) accessible to intellectual property offices to verify the compliance of patent applications.

For an applicant, this means that their patent strategy must integrate the verification of the origin from the very start, obtain clear consent from the relevant communities, and document the access to the resources. Failure to comply with this obligation could result in rejection of a patent application, as well as financial compensation.

The WIPO Treaty adopted in May 2024 is however not yet in force; it will only enter into effect once it has been ratified by at least fifteen States. To date, only Malawi and Uganda have ratified it.

How to adapt your patent strategy to the challenges of genetic resources and traditional knowledge?

To secure the validity of a patent and avoid future disputes, several crucial steps must be considered when dealing with genetic resources and traditional knowledge. First and foremost, it is essential to document the exact origin of the genetic resource, specifying the country of origin, the indigenous or local community, and the sample used. This approach provides clear and transparent traceability, meeting legal requirements. It is also crucial to ensure that access to the resource and traditional knowledge is in compliance with both national and international obligations (e.g., access permits or harvesting permits).

In this context, obtaining prior informed consent (PIC) from the community holding the knowledge is an indispensable step, whenever applicable. This consent should be formalized to ensure the protection of the community’s rights. Furthermore, it is critical to include in the contract a provision for equitable benefit-sharing, whether financial or non-financial, in favour of the concerned communities, ensuring compliance with principles of fairness.

To meet the new obligations imposed by the WIPO Treaty, it is also recommended to include a disclosure statement in the patent application about the provenance of the genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge, ensuring full transparency. Finally, conducting a specific prior art search, focusing on traditional knowledge, local databases, and non-scientific publications, is crucial to minimize the risks of contested novelty.

By integrating these steps into their patent filling strategy, companies not only strengthen the legal robustness of their patent but also ensure compliance with the emerging ethical and legal obligations in this complex field.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the integration of genetic resources and traditional knowledge within the framework of patent law is becoming an increasingly structured area legally: the WIPO Treaty of May 24, 2024 is a testament to this. For any business or inventor, it is important to integrate enhanced verification, origin transparency, and equitable benefit-sharing from the early stages of the invention process. For holders of traditional knowledge, it is essential to structure their protection and engage in balanced partnerships.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Does the 2024 WIPO Treaty also apply to other intellectual property rights?
No. The WIPO Treaty adopted in 2024 applies exclusively to patent law and does not introduce any specific obligations in the fields of copyright, trademarks, or designs. Members of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore continue to explore how to protect traditional cultural expressions and works derived from indigenous knowledge within the framework of copyright law. These ongoing discussions could eventually lead to the adoption of complementary international instruments aimed at better regulating the use and preservation of such traditional creations.

2. What does “disclosure of origin” mean in the context of a patent application?
In the context of the WIPO Treaty, this means the applicant must disclose the country or source of the genetic resource used, as well as the identity of the indigenous or local community from which the associated traditional knowledge originates.

3. Does the existence of traditional knowledge prevent the granting of a patent?
No, but this knowledge can constitute prior art, which can destroy the novelty or inventive step of the invention. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct thorough research into traditional knowledge and anticipate its impact on the patent strategy.

4. How does the Nagoya Protocol relate to patent law?
The Nagoya Protocol imposes obligations regarding access to genetic resources and the fair sharing of benefits. Although it doesn’t explicitly target patents, patent offices and applicants must ensure that access has been authorized and that benefits are shared in accordance with the protocol.

5. What impact does non-compliance with these obligations have on a company?
The company exposes itself to potential challenges to its patent, facing litigation with the communities concerned, being subject to financial compensation obligations, and suffering reputational damage. It is therefore essential to incorporate these aspects into its IP strategy.

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an indispensable tool in communication and advertising. Capable of drafting texts, generating visuals, imitating voices, or even creating virtual characters, AI is transforming the way companies design their campaigns and interact with their audiences. In the field of influencer marketing, these technologies expand creative possibilities: automated recommendations, personalized messaging, virtual influencer avatars, and content tailored to each user profile.

However, this technological revolution comes with significant legal risks. Who owns the copyright for AI-generated creations? How can the transparency and authenticity of an advertisement produced without direct human involvement be ensured? And what obligations now apply to trademarks and influencers under the emerging regulatory framework governing digital communications?

The legal challenges of AI-generated or AI-assisted advertising creation

The issue of copyright ownership

Under French law, copyright protection depends on the originality of the work and the personal imprint of its author. This principle, reflected in the Directive 2001/29/EC and the French Intellectual Property Code (Articles L111-1 et seq.), implies that a purely machine-generated creation cannot be protected, as AI has no legal personality and cannot claim authorship.

The situation becomes more complex when a human partially intervenes, for example, by settling the prompt, selecting a model, or editing the result. The prevailing legal view amongst law specialists is that if human input is sufficiently significant, it may justify copyright protection. In such cases, the extent of human creativity determines whether the work qualifies as an original intellectual creation.

For further insights on the link between copyright law and artificial intelligence, we invite you to consult our previously published articles on AI-generated creations and the legal risks arising from their use.

Risks of infringement and violation of image rights

Generative AIs are trained on vast datasets often containing copyrighted works. Their use can lead to partial reproductions of existing elements without authorization. An advertisement using such outputs could therefore constitute an act of counterfeiting.

Similarly, if an AI generates a face, voice, or body resembling a real person without consent, it may infringe image rights or their right to privacy. In influencer marketing, where authenticity and personality are central, such misuse can damage both the trademark’s reputation and consumer trust.

The role of the European AI Act: a structural framework for digital advertising

A pioneering text regulating AI within the European Union

Adopted in 2024 and to be fully implemented by 2026, the AI Act is the world’s first comprehensive legislation regulating artificial intelligence based on a risk-based approach. It establishes four levels of risks : unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal, and sets out specific obligations depending on the purpose and impact of each AI system.

Direct impact on advertising and influencers

Generative AI systems used to create advertising content fall under the “limited-risk” category but are subject to enhanced transparency requirements. Under Article 50 of the AI Act, both providers and users must:

• Clearly indicate when content is generated by artificial intelligence ;
• Disclose any significant alteration or manipulation of reality (voice, image, video);
• Implement safeguards against misinformation and opinion manipulation;
• Maintain documentation on the datasets and sources used to train the artificial intelligence model used.

Consequently, companies and influencers will need to adapt their practices to this new regulatory framework by integrating these obligations into their production workflows and compliance policies.

Towards shared responsibility among stakeholders

Article 25 of the AI Act introduces a shared responsibility regime amongst developers, providers, and deployers of AI systems. In the advertising sector, this entails greater traceability and accountability, identifying which artificial intelligence tools were used, under what conditions, with which type of data, and under which degree of human oversight.

This approach complements the logic of the GDPR and reinforces the need for robust legal governance of AI in commercial communication.

The legal obligations of companies and influencers in the age of AI

Transparency and identification of advertising content

Transparency obligations remain central under both French and EU law. Following the introduction of French article 5 of Law No. 2023-451 of 9 June 2023 (law aimed at regulating commercial influence and combating abuses by influencers on social media), any commercial communication must be clearly identifiable as such. Consequently, advertisements must explicitly indicate when they result from AI-generated content.

Campaigns that fail to make such disclosure may be deemed misleading commercial practices, thereby engaging the liability of both influencers and advertisers., exposing both the company and the influencer to civil and criminal liability. Companies should therefore adopt a transparency policy ensuring that all AI-assisted content carries clear, visible mentions distinguishing human from artificial communication.

Data protection and advertising profiling

AI-based advertising tools often rely on extensive processing of personal data, including browsing history, location, interests, and purchasing behaviour. Such processing must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Accordingly, companies must:

• Obtain explicit user consent to use their personal data;
• Limit private data collection to what is strictly necessary;
• Provide clear information on the purposes of processing personal data;
• Regulate the use of automated decision-making and profiling systems.

Every AI-driven advertising campaign must therefore incorporate GDPR compliance from the design stage onward.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence is redefining advertising creation and influencer marketing, but it also introduces a complex web of legal responsibilities. Key challenges include intellectual property protection, advertising transparency, data protection, and compliance with the AI Act.

Companies must take a preventive and strategic approach, auditing their AI tools, documenting their use, and implementing internal governance mechanisms to ensure compliance. Only under these conditions can AI become a regulated innovation rather than a legal risk.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1. Must AI-generated advertisements undergo legal review before publication?
Yes. It is strongly advised to perform a comprehensive legal audit before publication, including verification of third-party rights, GDPR compliance, mandatory transparency notices, and the absence of any unauthorized reproductions (logos, trademarks, or artistic works).

2. Can an AI-generated image of a person violate image rights?

Yes. If the AI-generated image resembles or imitates a real person without authorization, it may infringe image rights or privacy, and in commercial contexts, could amount to unfair competition or parasitism.

3. What are the legal risks of undisclosed AI use in advertising?

Failure to disclose the use of AI may constitute a misleading commercial practice, exposing the advertiser and influencer to civil, criminal, and administrative sanctions.

4. How can companies regulate AI use by their partners?

By including dedicated clauses in contracts that specify rights ownership, responsibilities, GDPR compliance, mandatory transparency mentions, and pre-publication validation procedures.

5. How can companies prepare for the AI Act’s entry into force?

They should:

• Identify all AI tools used in advertising;
• Document their purpose, providers, and operational parameters;
• Include clear AI-related disclosures in all content;
• Establish internal governance and regulatory monitoring systems.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not designed to apply to specific situations, nor does it constitute legal advice.

Introduction

Advertising jingles are everywhere, whether it’s a melody associated with a TV commercial or a short sound signature on a mobile app, they play an essential role in the marketing strategy of many companies. But beyond their marketing function, can they be legally protected? The question arises in the context of trademark law, which has gradually evolved to include sound elements as objects of protection.

The question arises in the context of trademark law, which has gradually evolved to include sound elements as objects of protection. Recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union provided a clear answer to this question. In a decision dated September 10, 2025 (case T-288/24, Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe – BVG), the Court held that a short two-second jingle could be protected as a sound trademark at the European level.

What is a sound trademark ?

A trademark is no longer just a name or logo : it can now take the form of a sound. A sound trademark is a jingle, melody, or musical pattern used to identify a company’s goods or services and distinguish them from those of its competitors.

To qualify as a trademark, the melody must above all fulfill a distinctive function: it must allow consumers to immediately associate the sound with the trademark / company, without any possibility of confusion with other companies.

Conditions for protecting a jingle

Not all jingles can be protected as a trademark. For a melody to be protected as a sound trademark, it must meet certain essential criteria:

• Distinctiveness: The key requirement. The sound or musical phrase must be capable of distinguishing the company’s goods or services from those of others.
• Availability: The jingle must not already be registered or used by a competitor for identical or similar goods or services.
• Legality : The jingle must not be contrary to public order or morality.

The BVG case (T-288/24): the decision of the General Court of the European Union

In this case (T-288/24), Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), a public transport company in Berlin, had filed a two-second jingle as a sound trademark. The EUIPO refused to register this trademark, considering that the melody was too short and banal to be perceived as a sign of commercial origin.

The General Court of the European Union annulled this decision, ruling that the brevity and simplicity of the jingle were not sufficient to exclude its distinctive character.

According to the Court, in a sector such as transport, sounds can play a key role in creating a sound identity, and a short melody can be easily memorized by the public and associated with a given company.

This decision confirms that a jingle is eligible for protection as a sound trademark if it is deemed distinctive, memorable to the public, and not purely functional.

Difference between copyright and trademark law

It is important to distinguish between the two types of protection that may apply to a jingle :

• Copyright : It protects the melody as an original work of authorship, regardless of its commercial use. Protection arises automatically upon creation..
• Trademark law: It protects the use of the jingle as a distinctive sign in commercial use. This protection requires registration with the INPI and is valid for a limited period (10 years, renewable).

Thus, a jingle can benefit from dual protection : copyright guarantees the protection of the musical creation itself, while registration as a sound trademark secures its commercial use.

Some practical examples

Some companies have taken full advantage of this opportunity:

• Intel : its jingle has been registered as a sound trademark.
• Netflix : The short melody that accompanies the launch of its series content has been registered as a trademark.

These examples illustrate how protecting a jingle can become a real strategic and commercial asset.

Conclusion

Jingles can be protected as trademarks, provided they are original, distinctive, and used commercially. Legal protection for a jingle strengthens the company’s sound identity, secures its use in the marketplace, and constitutes a valuable intangible asset. To maximize the chances of success, it is recommended to carefully prepare the application and ensure that the melody is clearly distinct from those already used by others.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1.What is a sound trademark ?

A sound trademark is an audible sign used to identify a company’s goods or services. It can be a melody, a jingle, or a distinctive sound pattern associated with the company.

2.How can a jingle be registered as a sound trademark ?

Since December 15, 2019, it has been possible to register a sound trademark with the INPI in the form of an audio file (MP3, MP4). Registration is done online via the INPI website.

3.What are the criteria for protecting a jingle?

The jingle must be original, distinctive, reproducible accurately, and used in a commercial context to identify a company’s goods or services.

4.What is the difference between a sound trademark and a copyrighted musical work ?

Copyright protects musical creations as a work of authorship, while trademark law protects the commercial use of jingles as distinctive signs. A jingle can benefit from both types of protection simultaneously.

5.Are there any examples of famous sound trademarks ?

Yes, companies such as Intel,and Netflix have registered their jingles as sound trademarks, thereby strengthening their sound identity and public recognition.

Introduction

ICANN84 was held in Dublin from October 25 to 30, 2025, bringing together more than 1,500 participants from 129 countries in a hybrid format that combined in-depth policy work with operational capacity building. The goal of this annual meeting was to translate the policies developed into concrete practices within the domain name ecosystem.

ICANN84 took place within the broader context of the upcoming review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+20), the ongoing reform of Internet governance, and ICANN’s own internal review process.

Context and challenges of ICANN84

The 2025 edition of the annual meeting of the ICANN was characterized by a strong commitment to transforming policy work into operational mechanisms in support of a stable and inclusive DNS.

Three key challenges defined this edition:

• Policy/Technical Alignment : The aim was to ensure that recommendations from the working groups (Policy) were effectively translated into technical and contractual operations.
• DNS Abuse : As DNS abuse through phishing, malware, and malicious domains continues to grow, the community reunited focused on developing mechanisms for prevention, detection, and rights protection.
• Regional Balance/Inclusiveness : The goal was to ensure that new gTLD cycles remain accessible, especially to underrepresented regions, and to encourage global participation.

Multi-stakeholder governance at the heart of the ICANN model

One of the defining features of the ICANN governance model lies in its bottom-up approach, based on the participation and coordination of multiple stakeholders, rather than on a centralized, top-down form of regulation.

This balanced model, which combines technical, political, and user perspectives, is what makes ICANN unique as a distributed governance model.

DNS Abuse: From Debate to Implementation

Throughout the week, DNS abuse remained at the forefront of discussions. Key themes included:

• Measurement and Reporting: How can abuse be reliably quantified by  registrars, and third parties?
• Roles of “Trusted Notifiers”: Defining the actors authorized to report abuse, and outlining their relationship with registries and registrars.
• Enforcement/Fundamental Rights Balance: Ensuring that mechanisms to address abuse do not undermine fundamental rights like freedom of speech.
• International Harmonization: Given the differences in jurisdictions, policies must be coordinated without imposing a single framework on states.

Although no binding policy was adopted during the meeting, ICANN84 helped solidify a roadmap. The Final Issue Report on DNS abuse is expected in November 2025, and the GNSO will need to decide whether to launch one or more Policy Development Processes (PDPs), particularly on API control and verification of associated domains.

Next cycle of new extensions: preparation and challenges

One of the key moments at ICANN84 was the preparation for the new gTLD cycle, scheduled to open in April 2026, the first expansion since the 2012 wave. The sessions in Dublin covered the following topics:

On this topic, the various working sessions in Dublin addressed the following:

• Program Design : Rules, evaluation criteria, and support for applicants.
• Security and Anti-Abuse Safeguards: Integrating prevention mechanisms from the outset.
• Geographic and Financial Inclusivity: Reducing bias in favor of large entities or developed countries.
• Dispute Resolution, Technical Evaluation, and Compliance Procedures
• Integrating Public Interest Principles : Ensuring that public interest is at the heart of the process.

A major milestone was reached in Dublin with the approval of the final version of the  Applicant Guidebook (AGB) by the ICANN Board of Directors. The result of lengthy community negotiations, this document now establishes the official rules for the 2026 application cycle, consolidating, in particular, the obligations related to the prevention of DNS abuse and the protection of rights.

ICANN bodies and their missions

ICANN operates through an ecosystem of bodies with complementary missions. In Dublin, each of them played a specific role in implementing the 2025-2026 priorities:

• The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC): represents public interests and government authorities. In Dublin, it reinforced its recommendations on consumer protection, strengthened its dialogue with the ICANN Board, and was actively involved in discussions on the Applicant Guidebook.
• The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO): The driving force behind gTLD policies. At ICANN84, it led the Policy Development Process, particularly on DNS abuse and the RDRS, while prioritizing and planning resources for the implementation of recommendations. Its role is to sequence work in a way that avoids scheduling conflicts and ensures that decisions are actionable.
• The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): Defends the interests of end users. At the meeting, it emphasized accessibility and universal acceptance, ensuring that measures to combat abuse do not restrict users’ rights or hinder innovation.

• The Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO): shared its expertise on country code domains, providing feedback on registry governance and compatibility with local legislation. Its interventions helped harmonize procedures between gTLDs and ccTLDs, particularly with a view to promoting cross-border cooperation.
• The Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) provided technical recommendations on DNS system resilience and risk management. Their work aims to translate technical recommendations into contractual obligations and operational routines in order to maintain the stability and security of the global infrastructure.
• Finally, the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), representing regional IP address registries, emphasized the importance of ensuring consistency between address allocations and the development of DNS services, thereby guaranteeing the sustainability of routing and compatibility between domain name expansion and addressing capacity.

Implications for trademark holders and strategic directions

For trademark owners, these developments present both challenges and opportunities. It is increasingly essential to adapt trademark protection strategies to the evolving landscape of enhanced security, compliance, and governance standards. This proactive approach will help mitigate the risks associated with abuse and leverage the new opportunities offered by the next round of gTLDs.

Conclusion

ICANN84 marked a key milestone in global domain name governance, reaffirming the critical role of the multi-stakeholder model and the transition to the concrete implementation of developed policies.

For trademark holders, the next round of new gTLDs, scheduled for April 2026, presents both an opportunity and a challenge. The expansion of the domain name space will be governed by stricter policies on abuse prevention, data protection, and contractual liability. As a result, rigorous legal and strategic preparation will be essential to protect rights, anticipate potential conflicts, and capitalize on new opportunities.

ICANN84 illustrates how international coordination and engagement among various stakeholders are shaping a safer and more reliable environment for all DNS participants, while underscoring the need for brands to stay proactive in the face of upcoming changes.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. What is the ICANN and what is its role?
The ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is the international organization that oversees the governance of the domain name system (DNS). It coordinates policies for assigning domain names and IP addresses worldwide, ensuring the stability, security, and accessibility of the Internet.

2. When will the next round of new gTLDs begin?
The next cycle of new gTLDs is scheduled for April 2026, marking the first expansion since 2012. This round aims to expand the available namespace while incorporating robust policies for security, inclusivity, and user protection.

3. What is the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) and why is it important?
The Applicant Guidebook is the official manual governing the application process for new gTLDs. It specifies requirements for DNS abuse prevention, data transparency, and rights protection, and defines procedures for applicant support and geographic name management.

4. How should trademark holders prepare?
Trademark holders should anticipate the risks and opportunities associated with the expansion of gTLDs: analyze the AGB, review their contracts with registries and registrars, strengthen compliance and rights protection procedures, and participate in public consultations to influence the applicable rules.

Introduction

The specification defines the scope of goods and services covered by the trademark, in other words, the precise boundaries of its exclusive rights. Too often seen as a mere administrative formality, this step is in fact an exercise in legal and strategic precision that directly determines the strength of the protection granted by the registration.

An imprecise, overly broad or overly narrow wording can have serious consequences: refusal by the office, vulnerability to revocation for non-use, or the inability to effectively act against an infringer.

This article examines, in light of our experience in trademark law, why and how a well-drafted specification constitutes the foundation of a successful trademark strategy, identifying common mistakes to avoid, best practices to adopt, and the long-term advantages of a legally sound approach.

The strategic importance of a precise and comprehensive trademark specification

Defining the exact scope of protection

When a trademark is filed, the list of goods and services determines with legal precision the extent of protection. The rights conferred on the owner apply exclusively to the goods and services mentioned in the specification.

A poorly drafted specification can therefore reduce the legal value of the trademark or even compromise its effectiveness in case of infringement. For instance, a trademark registered for “clothing” (Class 25) does not automatically cover “protective footwear” (Class 9) or “medical uniforms” (Class 10). Such distinctions, often overlooked by unassisted applicants, can prove costly in litigation.

Anticipating business and market developments

A specification should not only reflect the company’s current activities but also anticipate its future growth. The careful inclusion of related categories, without engaging in overprotection, can prevent the need for additional, costly filings.

For example, a cosmetics company planning to expand into dietary supplements may wisely include Class 5 (“dietetic products for medical use”) from the outset to avoid a subsequent filing.

Common pitfalls in drafting a trademark specification

The risk of an overly broad specification: allegations of bad faith

Filing for classes unrelated to the company’s actual or intended activity may lead to partial or total invalidation. IP offices such as the INPI, EUIPO, and UKIPO now closely examine the proportionality between the scope of protection and the applicant’s declared commercial activity.

The arbitrary inclusion of classes without genuine intent to use may be deemed a bad-faith filing, a risk reinforced by the Sky v. SkyKick decision of January 29, 2020 (ECJ, C-371/18), where the Court emphasized that the applicant’s intention to use must be serious and justified.

For further details on the implications of Sky v. SkyKick, please refer to our previously published article on the subject.

The danger of an overly narrow specification: loss of protection

Conversely, an excessively narrow description limits the trademark’s reach. If the specification only covers “sport shoes,” the owner cannot act against a competitor selling “formal shoes.”

A balanced formulation, such as “footwear, including sports shoes,” ensures coverage of both the general category and its subcategories.

The risk of a misinterpreted or non-compliant specification

Some applicants, through misunderstanding or excess caution, include goods or services that do not reflect their actual business, such as “advertising services” or descriptions of internal sales processes, believing this broadens their protection..

In a decision of May 21, 2025 (T-1032/23), the General Court of the EU upheld the partial revocation of Airbnb’s trademark for “advertising services,” reasoning that the term referred to advertising for third parties, not the promotion of Airbnb’s own offers. Therefore, there is no need to claim “advertising services” if the company merely promotes its own products; only providers offering genuine advertising services to others should include such terms.

Formal errors: punctuation, wording, exclusions

Punctuation rules carry legal significance. A comma separates items within the same category, while a semicolon distinguishes between groups. A misplaced punctuation may thus narrow the scope of protection.

Similarly, the improper use of parentheses can limit protection to what they contain: the expression “footwear (namely sports shoes)” will be construed as covering only sports shoes.

Finally, overly generic terms such as “machines” or “sales services” are deemed insufficiently specific by the INPI and EUIPO. They should be clarified, for example as “machine tools” or “retail services for clothing.”

Best practices for drafting an effective trademark specification

Rely on the Nice Classification without copying

The Nice Classification, updated annually, serves as the reference framework for categorizing goods and services. However, merely copying its headings is not enough: the specification must be tailored to the company’s actual business and trademark strategy.

Personalizing the wording enhances the coherence of the filing and strengthens the trademark’s enforceability in case of litigation.

Favour clarity and terminological precision

Trademark offices and courts favour clear and precise wording. Ambiguous expressions such as “namely” or “including” must be used carefully, as their interpretation can either broaden or narrow the protection depending on context.

A meticulous drafting approach also helps avoid revocation actions for non-use. If certain listed goods are never used, the trademark may be partially cancelled after five years of non-use, in accordance with Article L714-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

Adapt the specification to an international strategy

Each jurisdiction has its own interpretative rules. The United States requires a demonstrable intent to use for each listed item, while China applies a very literal reading of the specification.

For further details on trademark protection in the United States, please refer to our dedicated page.

A globally filed trademark must therefore be harmonized while respecting local specificities. Consulting an intellectual property firm helps avoid hazardous translations or divergent interpretations.

Conclusion: a well-drafted specification, a lasting asset for the trademark

Drafting the specification of a trademark means laying the legal foundation of its commercial identity. This strategic step determines not only the breadth of protection but also the trademark’s longevity and value.

By adopting a precise, consistent, and forward-looking drafting approach, companies safeguard their intangible assets and prevent future disputes.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

1. Can the specification be modified after filing?

No. Once the application is filed, it is not possible to broaden the protection, only to restrict it (by means of a partial withdrawal). Hence the need for meticulous drafting from the start.

2. What happens if the trademark is not used for all the listed goods and services ?

After five years of non-use, the trademark may be partially or entirely revoked for the  goods or services concerned.

3. Why should overly broad terms be avoided?

An excessively general specification may be challenged for bad faith or face objections from the office. It also increases the risk of conflicts with earlier rights.

4. Can one use the Nice Classification headings?

Yes, but they should be adapted to the company’s real activity and specify the relevant goods and services.

5. How can a specification be adapted to an international strategy?

By harmonizing terminology in line with the requirements of each jurisdiction while ensuring global consistency across the trademark portfolio.

Introduction

As the ICANN 84 in Dublin (October 15 to 30, 2025) approaches, anticipation is building around a pivotal milestone: the expected adoption of the final Applicant Guidebook (AGB). This long-awaited document will mark the last major step before the official launch of ICANN’s Next Round of new gTLDs, expected in 2026.

The first expansion of the ), launched in 2012, brought over 1,200 new domain extensions such as .shop, .bank, .paris, and .google. However, that expansion also exposed significant challenges, technical complexity, high costs, limited diversity, and ongoing issues around rights protection and DNS abuse.

ICANN’s upcoming round aims to learn from these lessons and create a more balanced, inclusive, and secure program, reshaped to meet the demands of today’s Internet: more global, more commercial, and more sensitive to cybersecurity and brand protection.

A restructured program for a new internet era

The Next Round will introduce several reforms designed to simplify the process while promoting fairness and technical reliability. Central to this is the Registry Service Provider (RSP) pre-evaluation system, ensuring that only pre-qualified technical backends can operate new extensions.

At the same time, ICANN is emphasizing inclusion through the Applicant Support Program (ASP), which offers substantial fee reductions (up to 85%) and mentorship for applicants from developing regions or limited-resource organizations. This initiative aims to support community, linguistic, or public-interest TLDs, long underrepresented in the DNS landscape.

Timeline and key milestones

The preparatory phase for the Next Round is finished. The pre-evaluation of Registry Service Providers (RSPs) started in November 2024 and finished in May 2025. This step allows ICANN to certify the technical operators that may later be selected by applicants, ensuring a uniform baseline of technical quality and security.

Simultaneously, the Applicant Support Program (ASP) was launched on November 19, 2024, giving resource-limited applicants early access to assistance and mentoring. The deadline to apply for support is currently set for November 19, 2025, with a possible one-month extension until December 19, 2025. Once the ASP phase closes, ICANN will identify the successful candidates before the main application period begins.

The final version of the Applicant Guidebook is expected to be published around December 2025, following the public comment period opened in May 2025. The application window itself is projected to open in April 2026 and remain open for approximately 12 to 15 weeks.

From mid-2026 onward, ICANN will begin the evaluation, contention, and objection processes, depending on the number of applications received and the challenges filed. Finally, from late 2026 into 2027, successful applicants will sign their Registry Agreements and move toward delegation of their new extensions.

What has already happened

Registry Service Provider (RSP) Pre-Evaluation

Unlike the 2012 round, applicants must now select an ICANN-approved technical provider. This measure prevents redundant evaluations, enforces uniform security standards, and improves DNS resilience. Over 50 providers have entered this pre-evaluation phase, with results expected by the end of 2025.

Applicant Support Program (ASP)

The ASP is designed to democratize access to the DNS. It provides financial assistance, technical mentorship, and operational guidance to smaller entities and organizations in emerging economies. Applicants are not required to disclose their proposed string at this stage, preserving confidentiality and encouraging participation in the public-interest space.

The Applicant Guidebook (AGB)

On May 30, 2025, the Applicant Guidebook was published in draft form. It sets out the complete framework for the new gTLD application process, including evaluation criteria, objection mechanisms, technical and financial requirements, and rights protection measures. It also strengthens mechanisms such as the URS and UDRP and introduces new obligations for DNS abuse prevention.

A complementary Base gTLD Registry Agreement introduces a 10-year term, stricter renewal standards, and stronger abuse reporting duties.

Clearing the 2012 Backlog

ICANN has begun resolving or closing unresolved applications from 2012, including .GCC, .WEB, and .WEBS, ensuring that these long-contested strings can re-enter the 2026 process without administrative obstacles.

What to expect at ICANN 84 (Dublin, October 25 to 30, 2025)

The Dublin meeting will likely confirm several decisive steps:

• Board approval of the final Applicant Guidebook.
• Publication of the qualified RSP list.
• Progress reports from the ASP and the Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG).
• GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) sessions addressing public interest safeguards, geographic names, and DNS abuse.

Governments are expected to tighten oversight on sensitive identifiers, including geographic, cultural, and linguistic terms, and emphasize transparency and accountability across registry operations.

Anticipated Challenges

While the framework has evolved, familiar tensions from 2012 are likely to resurface:

• String contention: Competing applications (e.g., .music, .hotel, .shop) may lead to auctions or negotiations.
• Rights protection: Brand owners must once again monitor applications to prevent trademark misuse or cybersquatting.
• Speculation and warehousing: ICANN will impose stricter “intent-to-operate” conditions to discourage speculative filings.
• DNS abuse: Enhanced scrutiny on security, phishing, and malware control.
• High costs and complexity: Despite simplifications, total costs may still range from USD 150,000 to 250,000, excluding legal and operational fees.

A Turning Point for the DNS

Beyond the procedural aspects, this new round has a broader policy and governance dimension. ICANN faces growing expectations to balance innovation with stability, as governments and rights holders call for stronger IP enforcement and faster takedown mechanisms.

For further insight on ICANN’s strategic role, please refer to our earlier article published on this topic.

Emerging technologies, AI-driven abuse detection, DNSSEC adoption, and identity-based models, could profoundly reshape compliance and monitoring obligations for registries.

Ultimately, this new wave of domain extensions represents more than a technical expansion. It is a strategic opportunity for businesses to:

• Secure new digital real estate for branding and innovation.
• Expand linguistic and geographic reach.
• Reinforce digital sovereignty and brand protection.

For policymakers and ICANN itself, Dublin 2025 will mark a defining moment, a delicate balance between openness and control, between innovation and trust. As the launch countdown begins, the Internet community will be watching closely to see whether ICANN has truly learned from 2012, and whether the next era of gTLDs will deliver a more responsible and sustainable Internet.

Conclusion

The upcoming launch of ICANN’s new gTLD program marks a historic evolution in Internet governance. More than a decade after the first expansion, the Next Round embodies a more structured, secure, and equitable approach to domain creation.

For companies, it will open unprecedented possibilities for innovation, marketing, and digital positioning, but also require vigilance and proactive brand defense. For ICANN and policymakers, it represents a test of credibility: ensuring that the mistakes of 2012 are not repeated while adapting to the realities of today’s Internet, shaped by cybersecurity imperatives, global diversity, and accountability demands.

When the final Applicant Guidebook is approved in Dublin, it will not only signal the beginning of a new application cycle, it will mark the beginning of a new chapter for the Internet itself, one that must balance openness and control, innovation and trust.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A:

1.What is a gTLD?

A gTLD (generic Top-Level Domain) is a generic domain name extension appearing at the end of an Internet address, such as .com, .org, .shop, or .paris. gTLDs serve to structure the Domain Name System (DNS) and provide new opportunities for communication, visibility, and digital positioning for businesses, institutions, and communities.

2. Why is a new round of gTLDs being launched?

The ICANN is launching a new round of gTLDs to foster innovation, competition, and diversity within the Internet ecosystem by allowing the creation of extensions tailored to specific brands, communities, languages, or business sectors..

3. What is the Applicant Guidebook (AGB)?

The Applicant Guidebook (AGB) is the official ICANN document setting out the rules, procedures, and requirements applicable to applicants seeking to operate a new gTLD. It defines the evaluation criteria, objection and dispute resolution mechanisms, and the technical, financial, and contractual obligations applicable to prospective registry operators.

4.What is the impact of this new round of gTLDs for trademark owners?

Businesses and trademark holders  will need to:

• Closely monitor new gTLDs applications to detect any parasitic or infringing uses,

Assess strategic opportunities to apply for their own branded extension;Adapt their trademark-enforcement policies to the new objection and appeal mechanisms set out in the Applicant Guidebook (AGB).

5. How can companies prepare now?

It is recommended to:

• Identify strategic extensions to monitor or potentially apply for,
• Audit existing trademark and domain name portfolios,
• Establish internal responses procedures to react swiftly in case of publication of a problematic application;
• And anticipate the costs and timelines associated with a possible participation in the next round.

To learn more about how businesses can prepare for the introduction of new gTLDs, please refer to our earlier article published on this topic.