String Confusion Objections in New gTLD Expansion Rounds: Broad Standing, Contextual Merits, and Case-Based Insights

The string confusion objection is one of the four objections introduced in the pre-delegation phase of new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) applications. First introduced in the 2012 ICANN Applicant Guidebook (Module 3, article 3.2.1.) and preserved in the 2026 round, this objection is designed to prevent the delegation of strings that are likely to confuse Internet users.

At its core, a string confusion objection addresses whether an applied-for gTLD is “confusingly similar” to an existing TLD or another applied-for string. In the 2012 round the panels emphasized that the applicable standard is not abstract or theoretical; rather, panels consistently emphasize the perspective of the “average, reasonable Internet user.” Confusion must be probable—not merely possible—and mere association between strings is insufficient (Section 4.5.10.1 of the 2026 Applicant Guidebook).

Broad Standing: A Low Threshold Confirmed by Practice

The 2012 Applicant Guidebook allowed string confusion objections from two categories, that are maintained in the 2026 round: existing TLD operators and applicants within the same round. In practice, this translated into an extremely low threshold. Indeed, none of the 67 objections filed in 2012 were dismissed for lack of standing.

This openness is well illustrated by the objections filed in the 2012 round by existing TLD operators. Verisign, as the operator of <.com>, launched multiple objections against strings such as <.ecom>, <.bom>, <.cam>, and <.company>. Similarly, it objected to strings like <.mnet> and <.network> based on its operation of <.net>. These cases demonstrate that panels accepted standing where a formal connection to an existing TLD was established, without requiring a detailed analysis of the degree of similarity at this stage.

Other examples reinforce this aspect. The Universal Postal Union objected to <.epost> based on its operation of <.post>, while Neustar challenged <.gbiz> relying on <.biz>. Even more expansively, the Government of Montenegro was recognised as having standing to object to <.meme> due to its association with the country code <.me>. These examples confirm that the threshold for standing was satisfied through relatively formal and straightforward criteria.

The second category—applicants in the same round—further illustrates the breadth of access. Charleston Road Registry, for instance, successfully established standing to object to <.cars> based on its application for <.car>. Similarly, objections to <.pets> were admitted on the basis of applications for <.pet>. In these cases, panels focused solely on whether the objector fell within the defined category, rather than on the strength of the alleged similarity.

Perhaps the most revealing illustration of this permissive approach is found in cases involving minimal or even tenuous connections between strings. Commercial Connect, relying on its application for <.shop>, was granted standing to object to a wide array of strings including <.buy>, <.sale>, <.store>, and even non-Latin scripts translated as “number one store.” These cases highlight that standing did not require a preliminary showing of confusion; rather, it functioned as a gateway that was intentionally easy to satisfy.

The <.emerck> case further underscores this point. There, the objector (Merck & Co., Inc.) relied on an application filed by its subsidiary to establish standing. The applicant challenged this, arguing that only the named applicant should qualify. The panel rejected this narrow interpretation, holding that nothing in the Guidebook precluded a parent company from relying on its subsidiary’s application.

In the 2026 gTLD expansion round an important change in what concerns standing to file objections is that, in addition to an existing gTLD operator and a gTLD applicant, a new category of entities has standing, namely an existing ccTLD operator or a significantly interested party in the respective country or territory.

Merits: A Contextual and Autonomous Standard

The substantive standards have not significantly changed in the 2026 Applicant Guidebook compared to the ones in the previous round. This post will analyze below how panels applied in practice the substantive standards in string confusion objections in the 2012 round.

While standing was broad, the assessment on the merits was far more rigorous and context-dependent. Importantly, panels have consistently emphasized that string confusion objections are not confined to traditional trademark principles. Instead, they serve a distinct function: preserving the stability of the domain name system while fostering competition and choice.

This autonomy was reflected in the standard applied. Panels evaluated similarity visually, aurally, and semantically, always from the perspective of the average Internet user. Crucially, this assessment was conducted in the abstract, without reference to specific websites or actual use.

The case law reveals both consistency and divergence in how this standard was applied.

A notable example is the objection to <.cam> filed by Verisign based on <.com>. While the strings share visual and phonetic similarities, the panel ultimately rejected the objection. It reasoned that <.com> is universally recognized as denoting commercial websites and that users would readily distinguish it from <.cam>.

In contrast, the dispute between <.web> and <.webs> resulted in a finding of confusing similarity. The panel emphasized that the pluralization did not meaningfully distinguish the strings. Rather, it required users to actively differentiate between them, creating a probability of confusion. Importantly, the panel distinguished this from mere association, noting that cases like hypothetical <.twowebs> and <.oneweb> would not meet the threshold.

Interestingly, not all pluralization cases were treated consistently. While confusion was found in cases involving <.cars>, <.games>, and <.pets>, other decisions involving plural forms—such as <.tvs> or <.hotels>—reached different conclusions. This inconsistency ultimately led to a policy change in the 2026 round, where applications for singular and plural versions of the same word are no longer permitted.

Language and Meaning: The Limits of Semantic Similarity

Another complex dimension arouse in cases involving different languages or scripts. Panels have grappled with whether semantic equivalence across languages can give rise to confusion.

In several objections based on <.shop>, objectors targeted strings in Chinese and Japanese translated as “online store” or “shopping.” Initially, panels appeared receptive to the argument that semantic similarity could suffice, particularly given the multilingual nature of Internet users. In one case, an objection against a Japanese string meaning “online shopping” was upheld on the basis that translation revealed an essentially identical meaning.

However, this approach was later reversed in final determination. The reviewing panel emphasized the absence of visual and phonetic similarity, noting that the strings were written in entirely different scripts and pronounced differently. As a result, the objection was dismissed.

Balancing Competition and Stability

What the expert determinations rendered in the 2012 expansion round reflect is that experts emphasized the need to balance two competing objectives: promoting competition in the domain name space and preventing user confusion. This balance is reflected in the relatively low success rate of objections—only nine out of 58 resolved cases in 2012 were ultimately upheld.

At the same time, the introduction of additional categories of standing in the 2026 round—such as ccTLD operators and significantly interested parties—indicates a recognition that broader participation may enhance the legitimacy of the process.

Conclusion

The experience of the 2012 gTLD expansion round provides valuable insights into the operation of string confusion objections. Given that the substantive standards are found also in the 2026 Applicant Guidebook, the outcome in the previous round is informative for this new one as well.

The framework is characterized by a low threshold for standing, ensuring broad access to the objection mechanism.

At the merits stage, however, panels applied a nuanced and context-sensitive analysis grounded in the perception of the average Internet user, for which experts evaluated similarity visually, aurally, and semantically. This assessment is conducted in the abstract, without reference to specific websites or actual use. The scope of the assessment done in string confusion objections is not confined to trademark protection principles and it was construed in opposition to legal rights objections.