1215.02(d)    Marks Comprised Solely of gTLDs for Domain Registry Operator and Domain Name Registrar Services

Background. A "registry operator" maintains the master database of all domain names registered in each top-level domain (TLD), and also generates the "zone file," which allows computers to route Internet traffic to and from TLDs anywhere in the world. A "registrar" is an entity through which domain names may be registered, and which is responsible for keeping website contact information records and submitting the technical information to a central directory known as the "registry." The terms "registry operator" and "registrar" refer to distinct activities and are not interchangeable. Further, "registry operators" and "registrars" are distinguishable from re-sellers, which are entities that are authorized by registrars to sell or register particular Internet addresses on a given TLD. See Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Acronyms and Terms, https://www.icann.org/en/icann-acronyms-and-terms?nav-letter=a&page=1  (accessed Nov. 30, 2022).

Failure to function refusal. A mark composed solely of a generic TLD (gTLD) for domain registry operator or domain name registrar services typically fails to function as a mark because consumers are predisposed to perceive gTLDs as merely a portion of a web address rather than as an indicator of the source of domain registry operator and domain name registrar services. See In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd., 2020 USPQ2d 11289, at *3-4 (TTAB 2020) (citing In re AC Webconnecting Holding B.V., 2020 USPQ2d 11048, at *3-4 (TTAB 2020)), aff'd, 25 F.4th 1348, 2022 USPQ2d 115 (Fed. Cir. 2022); TMEP §1215.02. For any proposed mark, including a gTLD, the determination of whether the designation functions as a mark hinges on consumer perception. In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd., 25 F.4th 1348, 1351, 2022 USPQ2d 115, at *2 (Fed. Cir. 2022); In re AC Webconnecting Holding B.V., 2020 USPQ2d 11048, at *3. Therefore, registration on the Principal Register of such proposed marks must initially be refused under Trademark Act §§1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051,  1052, 1053, and 1127, on the ground that the gTLD does not function as a mark to identify and distinguish the source of the services because it would not be perceived as a mark. TMEP §1301.02(a). For applications on the Supplemental Register, the refusal must be made under Trademark Act §§23(c) and 45, 15 U.S.C §§1091(c), 1127.

Including stylization in a gTLD does not render it registrable on the Principal Register unless the stylization creates a commercial impression separate and apart from the impression made by the wording itself. In re Vox Populi Registry, 25 F.4th at 1353, 2022 USPQ2d 115, at *4; In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 606, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1639-40 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In addition, a "completely ordinary and nondistinctive" stylized display of a gTLD does not render it registrable on the Supplemental Register. In re AC Webconnecting Holding B.V., 2020 USPQ2d 11048, at *13-14 (citing In re Anchor Hocking Corp., 223 USPQ 85, 88 (TTAB 1984)). See TMEP §1209.03(w) regarding stylization of descriptive or generic wording.

Response options. The applicant may, in some circumstances, avoid or overcome the refusal by providing evidence that the mark will be perceived by consumers as a source identifier. In addition to such evidence, the applicant must show that: (1) it has entered into a currently valid Registry Agreement with ICANN designating the applicant as the Registry Operator for the gTLD identified by the mark and (2) the identified services will be primarily for the benefit of others.

Descriptiveness refusal. If the gTLD merely describes the subject or user of the domain space, the examining attorney must also refuse registration under Trademark Act §2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the ground that the gTLD is merely descriptive of the registry services. See TMEP §§1209-1209.03(w) regarding refusals based on descriptiveness.

1215.02(d)(i)    Prior Registration(s) of the Same Mark for Goods or Services in the Same Field of Use

Relevant evidence that the gTLD shown in the mark may be perceived as a source identifier includes evidence that the gTLD is the subject of one or more prior U.S. registrations for goods/services that are related to the identified subject matter of the websites to be registered via the domain registry operator and domain name registrar services. Applicants seeking to demonstrate that a gTLD functions as a mark by relying on prior U.S. registration(s) must establish:

  • (1) Ownership of one or more currently active U.S. registrations on the Principal Register for the same mark, based on use in commerce under §1 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051,  or
  • (2) Ownership of a U.S. registration on the Principal Register for the same mark, based on either a foreign registration under §44(e) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1126(e),  for which an affidavit of use in commerce under §8 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §  1058, has been accepted, or a registration under §66(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1141(f)(a),  for which an affidavit of use in commerce under §71 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1141k,  has been accepted.

The prior U.S. registration(s) must show the same mark as that shown in the relevant application. However, the lack of a "." or "dot" in the prior U.S. registration(s) is not determinative as to whether the mark in the registration is the same as the mark in the application. In addition, the prior registration may be registered pursuant to §2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.  §1052(f).

Because a consumer’s ability to recognize a gTLD in an application as a source-identifying mark is based, in part, on the applicant’s prior registration(s) for the same mark, the applicant must limit the "field of use" for the identified domain registry operator and domain name registrar services to fields that are related to the goods/services listed in the submitted prior registration(s). For example, if the applicant submits prior registrations identifying its goods as "automobiles," the services in the application may be identified as "domain name registrar services for websites featuring automobiles." However, the applicant may not identify its services as, for example, "domain name registrar services for websites featuring restaurants" or merely as "domain name registrar services."

If the applicant does not specify a field of use for the identified domain registry operator and domain name registrar services, or specifies a field of use that includes goods/services not listed in the prior registration(s), the examining attorney must require the applicant to amend the identification of services so as to indicate only a field of use that is related to goods/services that are the subject of the prior registration(s). In amending the identification, the applicant may not broaden its scope. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06–1402.06(b).

If the application is not amended, or cannot be amended, to specify a field of use that is related to the goods/services listed in the prior registration(s), the examining attorney must refuse registration under Trademark Act §§1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1053, and 1127, because, absent a relevant prior registration, the gTLD would not be perceived by consumers as a mark.

1215.02(d)(ii)    Additional Proof that the Mark Used as a gTLD Will Be Perceived as a Mark

In addition to the prior registration(s), the applicant must also submit a significant amount of additional evidence relevant to the issue of whether the mark, with or without the "." or "dot," will immediately function to identify the source of the domain registry operator and domain name registrar services rather than merely being perceived as a portion of an Internet domain name that can be acquired through applicant’s services. Because consumers are so highly conditioned, and may be predisposed, to view gTLDs as non-source-indicating, the applicant must show that consumers already will be so familiar with the wording as a mark that they will transfer the source recognition even to the domain registry operator and domain name registrar services. The amount of additional evidence required may vary, depending on the nature of the wording set out in the gTLD, Relevant evidence may include, but is not limited to: examples of advertising and promotional materials that specifically promote the mark shown in the application, with or without the "." or "dot," as a trademark or service mark in the United States; dollar figures for advertising devoted to such promotion; and/or sworn consumer statements of recognition of the applied-for mark as a trademark or service mark.

1215.02(d)(iii)    Registry Agreement/ICANN Contract

If the applicant has not entered into a Registry Agreement with ICANN designating the applicant as the Registry Operator for the gTLD identified by the mark, consumers may be deceived by use of a particular gTLD as a mark. Consumers generally would believe that the applicant’s domain registry operator and domain name registrar services feature the gTLD in the proposed mark, and would consider that material in the purchase of these services. Therefore, to avoid a deceptiveness refusal under §2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.  §1052(a); TMEP §§1203, 1203.02–1203.02(g), the applicant must: (1) submit evidence that it has entered into a currently valid Registry Agreement with ICANN, designating the applicant as the Registry Operator for the gTLD identified by the mark prior to registration and (2) indicate in the identification of services that the domain registry operator and domain name registrar services feature the gTLD shown in the mark.

If the application does not include a verified statement indicating that the applicant has an active or currently pending application for a Registry Agreement with ICANN designating the applicant as the Registry Operator for the gTLD identified by the mark, the examining attorney must issue an Office action with an information request under Trademark Rule 2.61(b), 37 C.F.R. 2.61(b), that requires the applicant to submit a verified statement indicating: (1) whether the applicant has in place, or has applied for, such a Registry Agreement with ICANN and (2) if the applicant has so applied, the current status of such application. The examining attorney must include an advisory indicating that if the applicant does not have a currently active, or currently pending application for a, Registry Agreement with ICANN designating the applicant as the Registry Operator for the gTLD identified by the mark, a deceptiveness refusal will be issued pursuant to §2(a). A currently pending application with ICANN avoids an immediate deceptiveness refusal, but as discussed below, the USPTO will not approve the trademark application for publication without proof of the award of the Registry Agreement.

If the applicant fails to respond to the information requirement, the examining attorney must maintain and continue the information requirement and issue a deceptiveness refusal under §2(a). If, in response to the information requirement, the applicant indicates that: (1) the applicant has not applied for a Registry Agreement with ICANN designating the applicant as the Registry Operator for the gTLD identified by the mark; (2) the applicant has applied for a Registry Agreement with ICANN designating the applicant as the Registry Operator for the gTLD identified by the mark, but that the application has not been approved and is no longer pending with ICANN; or (3) the applicant’s previous Registry Agreement with ICANN is no longer valid, the examining attorney must issue a deceptiveness refusal under §2(a).

If the applicant indicates that it has a currently pending application before ICANN for a Registry Agreement for the gTLD identified by the mark and the applicant has otherwise demonstrated that the mark consisting of the gTLD in the application before the USPTO could function as a mark, the examining attorney may suspend the application until the resolution of the applicant’s pending application with ICANN. See TMEP §716.02(i).

1215.02(d)(iv)    Legitimate Service for the Benefit of Others

To be considered a service within the parameters of the Trademark Act, an activity must, inter alia, be primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant. See In re Reichhold Chems., Inc., 167 USPQ 376, 377 (TTAB 1970) ; TMEP §1301.01(a)(ii). Therefore, the examining attorney must issue an information request pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.61(b), 37 C.F.R. 2.61(b), to ascertain the following information to determine if the domain registry operator and domain name registrar services will be primarily for the benefit of others:

  • Does the applicant intend to use the applied-for mark as a gTLD?
  • Does the applicant intend to operate a registry for the applied-for mark as a new gTLD and sign a Registry Agreement with ICANN for such gTLD?
  • To what entities and industries will the applicant’s domain registry operator and domain name registrar services be targeted?
  • Does the applicant intend to register domain names for others using the gTLD identified by the applied-for mark and will there be any restrictions on to whom it will be available?

While operating a gTLD registry that is only available for the applicant’s employees or for the applicant’s marketing initiatives alone generally would not qualify as a service, registration for use by the applicant’s affiliated distributors typically would.

If the applicant fails to indicate for the record that the applicant’s domain registry operator and domain name registrar services are, or will be, primarily for the benefit of others, the examining attorney must refuse registration pursuant to §§1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C §§1051-1053, 1127. See TMEP §1301.01(a)(ii).

The USPTO’s Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual) includes "domain registry operator services" in International Class 42 and "domain name registrar services" in International Class 45 for use by those entities with valid Registry Agreements or current accreditation as a registrar by ICANN.