Introduction
One of the core components of a brand protection and IP management for a corporation is an effective domain-name management policy. In general, brand owners will maintain a portfolio of official domains, including ‘core’ domains used in the day-to-day execution of their business (e.g. for official websites and e-mail infrastructure) and ‘tactical’ domains, which may include examples intended for potential future use (such as those relating to planned brand or product launches) and other defensive registrations, held so as to avoid them being used (or abused) by third parties[1]. The maintenance of this group of company-owned domains should, in general, accompany a proactive programme of monitoring for third-party infringing activity across the Internet generally (‘outside the firewall’) as part of an overall brand-protection initiative.
The construction of an official portfolio of core and tactical domains can be a complex process, involving consideration of a number of factors, including levels of IP protection, geographical extent of business operations, brand-protection budget, pre-existing infringement patterns, and overall level of risk aversion by the brand owner.
Policy and portfolio construction
The first stage in the construction of a policy is the determination of the set of domains which the brand owner would ideally like to have under their control. In many cases, this can be represented through the construction of a ‘matrix’ of proposed domain names, in which the rows and columns represent the relevant keyword strings (comprising the second-level domain names (SLDs) – the parts of the names to the left of the dot – of the domains in question) and the TLDs (top-level domains, or domain extensions or suffixes), respectively.
In so doing, there are a number of factors to consider, including:
In general, the recommendations might typically include points such as:
A schematic example of how this domain matrix may look in practice is shown in Figure 1.
|
Required TLDs
|
||||||||
|
Popular
|
Geographically-relevant
|
Industry-relevant new-gTLDs
|
High threat
|
|||||
Keyword / SLD |
.com only |
Popular Group 1 |
UK (uk, .co.uk, etc) |
EU |
Rest of world |
General (shop, .store, .luxury, etc) |
Product-type-specific |
High threat Group 1 |
High threat Group 2 |
luxurybrand |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
weareluxurybrand |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
we-are-luxurybrand |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
luxurybrandhandbags |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
luxurybrandbags |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
luxurybrand-handbags |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
luxurybrand-bags |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
luxurybrandshoes |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
|
✔ |
|
|
luxurybrandboots |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
|
✔ |
|
|
luxurybrandfootwear |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
|
✔ |
|
|
luxurybrand-shoes |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
|
✔ |
|
|
luxurybrand-boots |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
|
✔ |
|
|
luxurybrand-footwear |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
✔ |
|
|
✔ |
|
|
luxurybrandperfume |
✔ |
|
✔ |
|
|
|
✔ |
|
|
luxurybrandfragrance |
✔ |
|
✔ |
|
|
|
✔ |
|
|
luxurybrand-perfume |
✔ |
|
✔ |
|
|
|
✔ |
|
|
luxurybrand-fragrance |
✔ |
|
✔ |
|
|
|
✔ |
|
|
Figure 1: Schematic example of a domain portfolio matrix for the fictitious (UK-based) luxury brand Luxurybrand, with tagline ‘We Are Luxurybrand’, and their products: handbags (major product), shoes (intermediate) and perfume (minor)
2. Portfolio analysis and consolidation
Having constructed the domain matrix, the next stage is to generate a full list of all required domains (essentially, by combining the keywords in the rows with the TLDs or groups of TLDs in the columns, and then deduplicating where necessary). The set of domains can subsequently be analysed to determine which ones:
There then follows a process to consolidate the portfolio as far as possible or appropriate. This might include some or all of the following steps:
This last step is generally the most complex. In some cases, it may involve domain purchases or (depending on the nature of the content currently present on the site) dispute procedures. In other cases (for example, where the domain is under the control of a third party making legitimate use of the same brand name), acquisition may not be possible. In certain instances, it may be advisable for the brand owner to monitor the sites for changes to the content (so as to identify any appearance of infringing material).
Other general recommendations are also often applicable. One example might be to ensure that any official portfolio domains which are not under active use are configured to re-direct to the brand owner’s official transactional site, so as to maximise web traffic.
Conclusion
The specifics of a domain-name portfolio reflect a balance between risk and budget but, when operating together with an effective brand-protection solution, an appropriate domain-name registration and management policy can form a key component of an organisation’s IP management, helping to ensure that key domains are in place for business use, and defensive registrations are held to prevent infringing use. Part of the domain-management piece is also the implementation of an effective domain security programme, utilising an appropriate enterprise domain-name registrar, to ensure that official domains are protected from security threats such as site compromise and hacking.
[1] https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/global-guide/anti-counterfeiting-and-online-brand-enforcement/2022/article/creating-cost-effective-domain-name-watching-programme
[2] https://circleid.com/posts/20230117-the-highest-threat-tlds-part-2