In 2012, the launch of the New gTLD Program quietly introduced a distinct category of extensions: the .BRANDs, top-level domains reserved for a single company. More than a decade later, ICANN is preparing to reopen the program in 2026, with a more stable legal framework (Base Registry Agreement, Specification 13, Global Amendments) and concrete feedback from the first round. Between new freedoms, real costs, silent terminations and spectacular successes, .BRANDs are neither a fad nor a miracle solution, but a strategic tool. The question is no longer simply whether a company can obtain its own TLD, but what it intends to do with it.

Introduction

The opening of the New gTLD Program in 2012 did not only multiply the extensions visible to the general public. It also introduced a more discreet but structurally important category: the .BRANDs. For the first time, a company could obtain its own top-level domain, an extension in its own name (.brand), and retain full control over all registrations under it. This mechanism was formalized by ICANN in a contractual text annexed to the standard gTLD registry agreement, the “Specification 13, .BRAND TLD Provisions”, which defines the framework applicable to corporate TLDs. A gTLD can be qualified as a .BRAND when it corresponds to a registered trademark, is used exclusively by the owner of that mark (and, where applicable, its affiliates), and is not open to public registration. In other words, a .BRAND is not a gTLD “like any other”: it is a closed TLD, under the control of a single actor, who becomes de facto the registry of its own name space.

Since 2012, this mechanism has been consolidated through several successive instruments, including the Applicant Guidebook, Specification 13 (2017), and the 2023 Global Amendments, which extended to .BRANDs the reinforced obligations relating to security, abuse management and transparency. At the same time, the first lessons from practice have emerged: some corporate TLDs have been abandoned, while others have established themselves as genuine digital infrastructures, capable of organizing a domain-name portfolio, strengthening trust and supporting a brand strategy. This article offers an overview of these .BRANDs: their legal framework, possible uses, costs, reasons for success or failure, and the lessons to be drawn in the run-up to the 2026 round.

1. The legal framework of .BRANDs

From a technical and contractual standpoint, nothing initially distinguishes a .BRAND from another gTLD delegated in the 2012 round. In both cases, the operator must sign with ICANN a standard registry agreement for gTLDs (Base gTLD Registry Agreement). This agreement imposes a common set of obligations: ensuring the availability of the naming service, submitting regular reports to ICANN on registry operations, complying with the rules that apply to all new gTLDs, and maintaining a stable DNS infrastructure. In practice, most .BRAND holders do not operate the technical layer themselves and outsource it to a registry service provider, often referred to as a back-end registry operator, such as Identity Digital[1], CentralNic[2], GoDaddy Registry[3] or Nominet[4]. These operators ensure the technical operation of the TLD and monitor compliance with the technical and legal requirements laid down by ICANN. Since 2023, the Global Amendments adopted by ICANN[5] also apply to Specification 13: they extend to dotBRANDs the same enhanced standards in terms of security, abuse mitigation and contractual transparency. In other words, registry operators and .BRAND holders are now fully bound to comply with them.

2. As free as a .BRAND

The most significant difference between an ordinary gTLD and a .BRAND lies in how the latter may be used, since the holder of a .BRAND can reserve all registrations for itself. This control opens up a wide range of strategic uses, including the following:

With a .BRAND, a company acquires a degree of freedom that no traditional TLD can offer. The .BRAND holder is no longer constrained by sometimes rigid rules imposed by registries or registrars: it becomes its own registry.

This position allows the company to design a hierarchy that reflects its internal logic rather than that of the domain-name market. A brand may deploy geographic spaces as autonomous digital territories (<fr.brand>, <uk.brand>, <apac.brand>, etc.). It may also structure product spaces (<auto.brand>, <insurance.brand> or <invest.brand>). The same logic applies to business functions: <legal.brand>, <hr.brand>, <research.brand>.

Under a .BRAND, the company may also create ephemeral spaces (<event2026.brand>, <summer.brand>, <expo.brand>), run unconstrained experiments (<test.brand>, <lab.brand>), or structure sensitive environments (<secure.brand>, <login.brand>) without fearing collision or coexistence (sometimes risky) with a third party already present in an open TLD.

In other words, beyond the contractual and technical stipulations arising from Specification 13, little is imposed on a .BRAND holder: no availability checks, no risk of prior reservation by an unknown third party, no auction or Sunrise to anticipate. The .BRAND gives the company what the history of the DNS had gradually taken away from it: control over its own digital territory.

3. The marketing asset

The value of a .BRAND can be seen in several recent ICANN documents, in particular the report of 20 May 2025, Understanding the gTLD opportunity for brands[6]. ICANN notes there that operating a .BRAND represents a genuine opportunity for “strengthening brand identity, improving customer engagement, fostering innovation, and expanding global reach”[7]. The survey carried out among more than 2,000 marketing decision-makers in eight countries also shows that their main objective is to increase brand awareness and visibility, which very naturally places .BRANDs in the digital strategy toolbox[8].

4. The .BRAND as a trust zone in an uncertain ecosystem

When a company obtains and operates its own .BRAND, it sends a simple message to its entire ecosystem: everything that truly comes from this company is found under that extension, and nowhere else. Inside the .BRAND, domain names are controlled. Outside, any use of the brand under another TLD can, at the very least, be approached with caution or even suspicion. In practical terms, this could change the game in matters of cybersquatting, and especially phishing. If customers or partners are informed that sensitive services (login, payment, customer area, etc.) are only accessible via addresses such as <login.brand>, <secure.brand> or <support.brand>, any email or site inviting them to connect to <brand-secure-pay.com> or <brand-support.net> becomes immediately suspect. The .BRAND then acts as a trust filter: legitimacy on one side; doubt on the other.

There is one caveat, however: a .BRAND does not make all forms of fraud disappear. It does not replace technical detection tools, staff vigilance or user education. What it does provide is a very clear boundary. Within the .BRAND, users can reasonably assume that they are on an official resource. Outside that zone, doubt exists by default, to the point where one could almost consider that the burden of proof is reversed: it is then up to the holder of the extra-.BRAND domain name to prove that it is not a decoy. In the traditional ecosystem, users too often have to wonder whether a domain name is legitimate or a site authentic. Put differently, with a .BRAND the presumption of legitimacy starts inside the brand’s ecosystem: everything under .BRAND benefits from immediate credit; everything outside it instinctively calls for caution.

5. The cost of freedom

This freedom offered by a .BRAND comes at a price. The New gTLD Applicant Guidebook of 4 June 2012 set the evaluation fee at USD 185,000 per application[9], while the Draft Applicant Guidebook of 30 May 2025 now raises this amount to USD 227,000 for the 2026 round[10]. On top of this entry fee come the annual fees provided for in the Base Registry Agreement, namely a fixed fee of around USD 25,000 per year (USD 6,250 per quarter), supplemented, where applicable, by a per-transaction fee of USD 0.25, as detailed in ICANN’s “Registry-Level and Registrar-Level Fees Adjustment” note of 30 October 2024[11]. Another often underestimated cost arises from the use of a technical registry operator, since very few companies possess in-house the expertise needed to manage DNS operations, security, protocols, DNSSEC or the documentation required by ICANN. As noted above, companies operating a .BRAND must also meet the compliance obligations set out in the registry agreement, which requires ongoing effort. The investment therefore goes well beyond the initial application fee. Operating a .BRAND means accepting, year after year, to behave as a genuine registry, with everything this entails in terms of governance, security and responsibility.

Some companies have fully internalized this logic and built around their .BRAND a coherent, durable and sometimes ambitious strategy. Others, by contrast, have discovered that maintaining a corporate TLD demands continuous mobilisation. In short, a .BRAND can be a powerful lever, provided it is actively owned and driven. Otherwise, it becomes an inert burden, a prestigious but underused asset whose cost ends up outweighing its utility.

Since 2012, .BRANDs have not all followed the same trajectory. ICANN maintains a page entitled “Registry Agreement Termination Information” [12], which lists voluntary and involuntary terminations of registry agreements. It includes a significant number of .BRANDs whose owners have chosen to terminate their registry contract. This is the case, for example, for <.bugatti>, <.dunlop> and <.tiffany>. These terminations show that a .BRAND is not a trophy but an exacting tool that only has value if it is embedded in a robust strategy. When cost, effort or lack of use end up outweighing perceived benefit, even a prestigious brand may decide to close its .BRAND.

Since 2024, ICANN has also published a handful of case studies on the use of new gTLDs, including those operated by brands[13]. A close reading of these cases reveals that when a company sets out a clear use case from the start, involves marketing heavily, ensures that IT has planned the necessary redirects, and that legal has secured the overall framework, the .BRAND is perfectly viable.

6. Positive trajectories

After the necessary realism of the “cost of freedom”, it is worth stating clearly: a .BRAND can become a powerful instrument of digital architecture when it is carried with conviction.

There is no shortage of examples. Canon has made <global.canon> the cornerstone of its global online presence, while adopting e-mail addresses in <@mail.canon>, a sign of deep structural adoption. Barclays uses <home.barclays> and <ib.barclays> to distinguish corporate from investment banking. BNP Paribas has turned <mabanque.bnpparibas> into a clear and secure entry point for its French retail customers. HSBC segments its services via <evolve.hsbc> and <grp.hsbc>. Google and YouTube have built around <about.google>, <blog.google>, <about.youtube> and <blog.youtube> a clear, coherent and instantly recognizable editorial logic.

Some deployments go even further, organizing the .BRAND according to geographic, product or service-based logics. Audi, Abbott and Monash University structure their digital spaces through neatly ordered territorial or functional subdivisions: <in.audi>, <aus.abbott>, <apply.monash>. Others embed their .BRAND in a more technical approach: <api.bmw> for BMW’s services, <nic.sony> or <nic.saxo> for official policies, <home.saxo> or <home.cern> for major institutional portals. Perhaps the most advanced example is the French insurer MMA IARD: an editorial portal at <zerotracas.mma>, a corporate/business portal at <portail-entreprise.mma>, and a constellation of hundreds of local agency sites in the form <city.mma>, such as <sens.mma> or <rennes-janvier.mma>. MMA IARD’s deployment illustrates perfectly what a .BRAND can become when it is aligned with a real-world organization, its territories, its networks and its flows.

These trajectories show that a .BRAND is not an abstract promise: it is a tool which, when embedded in the company’s strategy, generates clarity, coherence and trust. It organizes a digital portfolio, structures business environments, secures sensitive journeys, federates communication spaces and unifies fragmented identities. What some have viewed as a gadget has become, for others, a lever of architectural strategy.

And this is precisely where the perspective of the 2026 round opens up: a .BRAND has no future unless it is part of a broader vision. Companies that have given it a role – large or small, technical or marketing, local or global – are now deriving tangible value from it. Those that let it sleep have lost it. As ICANN reopens the program, the relevant question is therefore no longer “How much does it cost?”, but “What can we build with it?”. It is to this question, both pragmatic and forward-looking, that the conclusion must respond.

7. Putting the examples in perspective

To understand what a .BRAND can really bring, nothing is more useful than examining how the most active companies are already using theirs. Some have migrated their corporate site under their corporate TLD; others use it to structure business portals, segment geographic markets, strengthen the security of sensitive access points or centralize institutional policies. Players such as Canon, Barclays, Google, Audi, AXA, Monash University, Abbott, Sony, BMW, Saxo Bank and MMA IARD show that a .BRAND is not a symbol but a tool: a space for organization, coherence and trust. Whether for corporate portals, technical platforms, geographic sites or networks of local agencies, these examples demonstrate that a well-designed .BRAND can become a true digital infrastructure, capable of mirroring the real-world structure of an organization.

Taken together, these data support a simple finding: when a brand moves its corporate site to <global.canon>, builds a client portal on <evolve.hsbc>, segments its markets via <in.audi> or <ca.audi>, or runs a network of hundreds of local agencies as MMA IARD does with <sens.mma>, it is shaping a digital space that reflects its real-world structure, its business lines, its flows, its teams and its territories. These uses show that, far beyond symbolism, a .BRAND can become a genuine infrastructure – coherent for content, clear for users and partners, and sometimes even a tool of internal governance.

Conclusion

At the end of this analysis, the factors behind the success or failure of .BRANDs appear with some clarity, without the need to list them exhaustively. The .BRANDs that work are those that were applied for on the basis of solid reasons: cybersecurity, consolidation of an overly fragmented domain-name portfolio, or the construction of a more intelligible digital architecture. They are also those that benefit from clear internal governance, in which the legal department understands ICANN obligations, the technical team knows how to work with a registry service provider, and marketing is willing to embrace an extension that may be less “mainstream” than <.com> but more consistent with the brand’s identity. Conversely, .BRANDs that were applied for in 2012 mainly as a defensive move, simply to “not miss the train”, without an editorial project or a defined exploitation plan, tend to reappear a few years later in the public list of terminated registry agreements.

ICANN itself, in its History of the New gTLD Program of 5 April 2023[14], insists on this point: the challenge is less technical than strategic. The tools exist, the contractual framework is now stable, and the security and compliance mechanisms are known. What makes the difference is a company’s ability to embed a .BRAND within a broader vision: which uses, for which audiences, with which human and financial resources, and in what relationship with existing ccTLDs and open gTLDs. The reference texts discussed above provide a sufficiently clear basis to prepare for the 2026 round. A company that identifies its intended uses (securing customer journeys, digital identity, protection against impersonation, SEO rationalisation, deployment by subsidiaries), verifies that its mark qualifies for Specification 13 status, and seriously calculates its annual operating cost will be in a far stronger position than most applicants in 2012.

In this context, accumulated experience matters as much as the texts. IP Twins, which as early as 2012 assisted a major French insurance company in obtaining and then operating a .BRAND, and which subsequently managed a particularly large internal portfolio under that TLD, has gained concrete, hands-on insight into these issues. This experience covers the legal reading of ICANN rules as well as the operational aspects: dialogue with the Registry Service Provider, internal governance, prioritisation of uses, and abuse mitigation. It can be brought to bear in reviewing an application, testing the robustness of a closed registration policy, comparing the costs of a .BRAND with those of a dispersed <.com> portfolio, or, more simply, in answering the question that should precede any reflection on a Specification 13 project: what you are paying for is not just a TLD, but a piece of architecture. The real question is whether you have a project worthy of that space.

Notes

[1] Formerly Donuts/Afilias: Identity.digital/registry.

[2] CentralNIC: Centralnicregistry.com.

[3] Formerly Neustar: Registry.godaddy.

[4] Nominet: Nominet.uk.

[5] The 2023 Global Amendments, adopted by ICANN on 7 August 2023, uniformly modified the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, Specification 13, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Their purpose was to strengthen DNS security, harmonize abuse-reporting obligations (DNS Abuse Reporting), and improve transparency and cooperation between the various entities involved (registries, registrars and ICANN): Global Amendments 2023: Icann.org.

[6] ICANN, Understanding the gTLD opportunity for brands, 20 May 2025: ICANN.org.

[7] ICANN, Understanding the gTLD opportunity for brands, 20 May 2025, p. 4: ICANN.org.

[8] ICANN, Understanding the gTLD opportunity for brands, 20 May 2025, p. 7: ICANN.org.

[9] ICANN, gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2012-06-04, p. 1-42.

[10] ICANN, Draft Guidebook for the New gTLD Program: Next Round, 20 May 2025, p. 25: Icann.org.

[11] ICANN, ICANN Registry-Level and Registrar-Level Fees Adjustment, p. 17: Icann.org.

[12] ICANN, Registry Agreement Termination Information Page: ICANN.org.

[13] ICANN, New gTLD Use Cases, Icann.org. It is worth noting, albeit regrettably, that ICANN provides only two examples of .BRAND TLDs.

[14] ICANN, History of the New gTLD Program, Icann.org.