Trademark Sunrises in New gTLDs Gatekeeping or Guardrail?

The introduction of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has revolutionized the digital landscape, opening the namespace far beyond the traditional confines of .com, .net, and .org. The expansion allows for domain extensions like .app, .guru, .photography, and .store, each designed to offer more specificity, flexibility, and branding opportunities. However, with this explosion of options came the need to mitigate the risk of abuse, particularly concerning intellectual property rights. One of the key safeguards implemented to address these concerns was the “Sunrise Period”—a limited pre-launch window during which trademark holders could register domain names corresponding to their marks before the general public. Ostensibly introduced to prevent cybersquatting and brand confusion, the Sunrise Period has become a lightning rod for criticism. Detractors see it as a mechanism of insider privilege, enabling large corporations to exert disproportionate influence over digital real estate. The resulting debate encapsulates broader tensions between fairness, innovation, and protectionism in the domain name ecosystem.

At the heart of the Sunrise Period is the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), a centralized repository of verified trademarks that functions as the gatekeeper for early domain registration rights. Trademark owners must submit their marks to the TMCH in order to participate in Sunrise Periods across new gTLDs. Once a mark is accepted, the owner gains the ability to preemptively register matching domain names during the initial launch phase of each new gTLD. This offers brand owners a strategic advantage: they can block others from acquiring potentially infringing domains and secure desirable web addresses before the general availability stage when domain names can be registered by anyone, often on a first-come, first-served basis.

Supporters of the Sunrise model argue that it provides necessary protection against rampant cybersquatting—a persistent problem since the early days of the internet. New gTLD launches have historically attracted domain speculators who register high-value or recognizable names with the intent to resell them to the rightful trademark owners at inflated prices. In some cases, the misuse of brand names in domain registrations can also lead to phishing attacks, counterfeit sales, or reputational harm. From this perspective, the Sunrise Period is a preventive measure that avoids these risks by giving verified rights holders a head start. It reflects a balancing act: encouraging expansion and innovation while safeguarding legitimate commercial interests.

But critics contend that Sunrise Periods privilege the already powerful, reinforcing structural inequalities in digital access and innovation. Participation in the TMCH comes with significant financial and administrative burdens. Trademark owners must pay fees to register their marks, often on a per-year, per-mark basis, and must navigate a complex legal and procedural framework. For multinational corporations with large IP portfolios, this is a manageable cost of doing business. For small businesses, entrepreneurs, or independent creators, however, the cost of participating in dozens or even hundreds of Sunrise Periods across different gTLDs becomes prohibitive. The result is a skewed playing field where the well-resourced can dominate namespace expansion, scooping up valuable digital assets before others have a chance.

Moreover, the Sunrise process has been criticized for failing to distinguish between legitimate protections and opportunistic behavior. There have been instances where trademark holders registered common dictionary words—protected under trademark law only in very specific commercial contexts—as a way to monopolize generic terms in new gTLDs. For example, a company with a trademark for “Delta” related to faucets or airlines might claim rights over delta.travel or delta.tech, even if other legitimate uses of the word exist. This approach creates a chilling effect for other potential registrants who might have equal or greater justification to use the term in a different context but are locked out due to early registration rules favoring trademark holders.

The design of some registry Sunrise processes has also invited accusations of bias. Certain registry operators have created overlapping or extended Sunrise-like mechanisms—such as “Founder’s Programs,” “Premium Lists,” or “Early Access Periods”—that, in practice, give special treatment to high-profile brands or deep-pocketed applicants. These mechanisms can effectively restrict access to desirable names under the guise of brand protection, creating what amounts to a tiered marketplace in a space that was initially envisioned as open and democratized.

ICANN itself has acknowledged these concerns in policy reviews and community discussions, particularly during its Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Working Group deliberations. While most stakeholders agree that trademark protection is important, there is less consensus on the scale and structure of the Sunrise Period. Suggestions for reform have included narrowing eligibility criteria, introducing dispute mechanisms for generic word claims, and instituting cost-caps or subsidies to make the TMCH more accessible to smaller businesses. However, achieving policy consensus in ICANN’s multistakeholder environment—where registries, trademark holders, civil society, and technical experts often have conflicting priorities—has proven difficult.

Another aspect that complicates the Sunrise Period debate is its limited effectiveness. While Sunrise Periods provide a first-mover advantage, they do not guarantee permanent brand protection. Trademark owners must still monitor registrations post-launch and file disputes under mechanisms like the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system or the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) if infringing uses occur. Additionally, studies have shown that many brands do not take advantage of Sunrise opportunities unless the TLD is particularly relevant to their industry. This suggests that for many companies, the burden of proactive registration outweighs the perceived risk of abuse, which undermines the narrative that Sunrise is a universally necessary defense tool.

The question of whether the Sunrise Period is an insider privilege or necessary protection ultimately depends on one’s perspective on equity versus security. If the goal is to create an internet where innovation and access are not restricted by legacy power structures, then the current Sunrise model may require significant reform. If, on the other hand, the primary concern is preventing consumer confusion, trademark infringement, and domain abuse, then some form of early access for rights holders remains justifiable. The challenge is to find a model that can accommodate both objectives without privileging one at the expense of the other.

As ICANN prepares for future rounds of gTLD expansion, the Sunrise Period will likely remain a focal point for debate. Any meaningful evolution of the domain name system must grapple with the complex interplay between intellectual property law, market access, and the principles of an open internet. The legitimacy of the DNS—and by extension the trust users place in it—depends on ensuring that protective mechanisms do not become instruments of exclusion. Only by rethinking how we define and allocate rights in the digital public square can the internet continue to serve as a space for both innovation and protection.

The introduction of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has revolutionized the digital landscape, opening the namespace far beyond the traditional confines of .com, .net, and .org. The expansion allows for domain extensions like .app, .guru, .photography, and .store, each designed to offer more specificity, flexibility,…