Trademark Clearinghouse 2.0 Proposals and Their Impact

As ICANN prepares for the next round of new gTLD applications, reform of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) system is emerging as a pivotal issue. Originally established as a rights protection mechanism during the 2012 round, the TMCH was designed to serve as a centralized repository of verified trademark information, enabling both sunrise registrations and Trademark Claims notifications. While the system did provide a baseline of protection for brand owners and a mechanism to deter clear-cut cybersquatting, its limitations—particularly around scope, timing, accessibility, and misuse—have led to widespread calls for improvement. TMCH 2.0 proposals aim to address these issues through structural, procedural, and policy upgrades that could significantly alter the way brand protection functions in the domain name space and reshape the strategic behaviors of both registries and rights holders.

One of the central areas of proposed reform is the expansion of trademark eligibility and validation criteria. In its current form, the TMCH accepts registered word marks that are nationally or regionally recognized, but it excludes common law marks, stylized or composite marks, and unregistered rights. Critics argue that this limited scope leaves many legitimate rights holders, particularly small businesses and organizations in developing jurisdictions, without access to the sunrise phase or claims notifications. TMCH 2.0 proposals are exploring mechanisms to include common law marks or additional rights recognized under national regimes, contingent upon evidence of sustained use or legal recognition. This would require the development of a more sophisticated and layered validation system, potentially incorporating third-party assessors, evidentiary review procedures, or AI-assisted documentation verification.

Another major area of reform under consideration is the duration and coverage of the Trademark Claims service. In the 2012 round, claims notifications were required to be operational for only the first 90 days of general availability for each new gTLD. Brand owners, especially those with global portfolios, expressed concern that this limited window failed to deter infringing registrations that occurred months or even years later, especially as new domain variants emerged. TMCH 2.0 proposals are evaluating extended or renewable claims periods, particularly in high-risk gTLDs or those with open registration policies. Some proposals suggest a tiered approach, where rights holders could subscribe to ongoing claims coverage based on risk appetite, with ICANN or the registry operator absorbing or sharing the cost structure. Such an approach would transform the TMCH from a point-in-time service into a persistent brand surveillance framework.

The reform agenda also addresses systemic concerns about abuse and misuse of the TMCH by parties leveraging the system to game sunrise registration for speculative or overreaching purposes. In the first round, some entities were able to register marks with narrow jurisdictional recognition and then use those to obtain exclusive access to hundreds of gTLDs during sunrise periods, acquiring domain names with no intent of active use. TMCH 2.0 proposals may introduce a more rigorous review of the nexus between trademark rights and claimed domain interests, as well as auditing mechanisms to monitor portfolio behavior. Proposals also include rate-limiting sunrise registrations across unrelated gTLD categories unless additional evidence of brand use or relevance is presented. Such measures would curtail registry gaming while preserving legitimate defensive registration opportunities.

Another anticipated change is the creation of a more transparent and queryable TMCH database. The first version of the TMCH operated under strict confidentiality constraints, limiting external access to its contents. This hindered researchers, rights holders, and registrars from evaluating the system’s effectiveness or verifying the legitimacy of claims. TMCH 2.0 could introduce controlled query capabilities for verified stakeholders, along with anonymized statistical reporting and performance metrics. This would not only improve accountability but also provide valuable insight into abuse trends, keyword targeting patterns, and trademark-string collision zones, helping both registries and brand owners tailor their risk management strategies.

Multilingualism and script diversity are also on the table. The 2012 TMCH system had limited ability to recognize or cross-match trademarks across IDN scripts, particularly for languages using non-Latin alphabets. In the next round, with a broader range of gTLDs likely to include non-English and internationalized domain name strings, TMCH 2.0 is expected to support script-aware processing, enabling cross-lingual recognition of trademarks. This would significantly enhance protection for global brands operating in multilingual markets and would better align with ICANN’s commitments to Universal Acceptance and linguistic inclusivity in the DNS ecosystem.

The interface between the TMCH and registry operators is also being examined. Under current procedures, registries receive notifications when a prospective registrant attempts to register a domain matching a TMCH-recorded mark, but the resolution process is largely left to the registrant’s discretion. TMCH 2.0 could include stronger integration points with registry dispute mechanisms, enabling registries to adopt proactive challenge procedures or offer alternative conflict resolution models before potentially infringing registrations go live. Registries operating sensitive or sector-specific gTLDs—such as .health, .bank, or .law—may be incentivized to offer enhanced TMCH integration as part of their public interest commitments, giving brand owners a greater degree of trust and participation.

Cost and access equity will be another important policy challenge. Critics of the original TMCH noted that its subscription-based model created a barrier for small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those in emerging markets. If TMCH 2.0 is to become a more inclusive and globally representative system, its pricing structures must reflect the diversity of the trademark ecosystem. Sliding-scale fees, fee waivers for developing countries, and ICANN-funded support programs may be necessary to ensure that access to rights protection is not monopolized by large multinationals. Furthermore, registrars and registries may be encouraged—or even required—to promote TMCH registration as part of broader DNS outreach and capacity-building efforts.

The implications of TMCH 2.0 for new gTLD applicants are substantial. Applicants will need to understand how TMCH revisions may influence the profile of registrants attracted to their TLD, the type of legal risk they inherit, and the degree of operational complexity introduced by stronger rights protection protocols. TLDs with thematic alignment to regulated industries, brand-centric sectors, or high-value keywords may need to incorporate TMCH responsiveness into their launch plans, pricing strategies, and abuse mitigation frameworks. At the same time, registry operators seeking to attract innovators, artists, or decentralized content creators may lobby for TMCH reforms that guard against overreach and domain name suppression.

Ultimately, the evolution of the Trademark Clearinghouse into a more dynamic, equitable, and intelligent platform is not just a matter of brand protection—it is a test of the DNS governance community’s ability to balance commercial interests, freedom of expression, market fairness, and technical efficiency. TMCH 2.0 has the potential to reframe the relationship between trademark law and internet naming architecture, ensuring that legitimate rights are respected while preserving openness and innovation in the domain name space. As the next application window nears, the policies and design choices made around TMCH reform will help define the trustworthiness and accessibility of the expanded domain name system for years to come.

As ICANN prepares for the next round of new gTLD applications, reform of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) system is emerging as a pivotal issue. Originally established as a rights protection mechanism during the 2012 round, the TMCH was designed to serve as a centralized repository of verified trademark information, enabling both sunrise registrations and Trademark…