As Internet usage continues to grow, certain aspects of the underlying infrastructure – notably IP addresses and domain names – are beginning to run short of capacity in key areas. In this study, we consider the availability of registerable alphabetic[1] domains, considering the .com extension (or top-level domain, TLD) – still the most popular by a significant margin – and short domain names across the set of around 1,000 other gTLDs.

For .com, over 99.6% of all two-, three- and four-letter alphabetic domain names, and even many of the remainder are reserved or otherwise unavailable. Just under one-quarter of five-letter names are already taken, though this includes the vast majority of dictionary terms. A similar comment holds true even for domains of greater length. .net and .org also have more than 99% of all possible three-letter domains names already registered.

For two-letter domain names, seven different TLDs are at least 98% unavailable, and for one-letter domain names, there are 27 different TLDs for which all 26 possible options are already taken.

However, across the gTLD landscape in general, significant capacity does remain, with the proportion of registered domains across all ~1,000 extensions sitting at only 13%, 7%, and 3% for one-, two-, and three-letter domain names respectively, and even smaller values for longer domain names, providing a range of possibilities for prospective registrants.

Following on from the analysis, the following points may be borne in mind by brand owners:

• For registrations in accordance with the traditional preference for short, memorable .com domains, available options are significantly limited. Consequently, brand owners may need to resort to brokerage or (where IP protection permits) acquisition processes to secure their preferred domain names. Monitoring of third-party activity across the landscape of pre-registered domains, and new registrations, also remains key.
  
  
• One associated recommendation for potential new brand owners is to select a longer, unusual and/or novel term for their brand name. This not only raises the possibility of the respective domain being available for registration, but also makes it possibly to secure stronger intellectual property protection and makes the prospect of brand monitoring more straightforward.
  
  
• Additionally, it may be wise for brand owners to consider TLDs other than .com for their primary website presence. A number of pre-existing TLDs are beginning to be ‘repurposed’ for alternative use, including .io (primarily for technology-related brands) .ai (for brands relating to artificial intelligence), .tv (relating to television or streaming services), and .co (as an alternative to .com for company websites). We are also seeing a continued series of new TLD launches as part of the new-gTLD programme, with a new round of applications set to launch in Q2 2026. Some brand owners may find it advantageous to consider applying to run a new dot-brand extension, giving them full control over all domains across the TLD in question. Failing this, utilisation of programmes such as the TMCH and registration-alert and blocking schemes can be an effective way of defending IP and receiving early warning of infringements[2]. As an associated point, brand owners should consider registering relevant domain names defensively across key TLDs, where they are available.
  
  
• Finally, it may also be advantageous to secure IP within the emerging Web3 landscape. In particular, the blockchain domain ecosystem provides options across both generic extensions and dot-brands.

The full version of the study can be downloaded here.

[1] i.e. those containing only the characters a-z

[2] https://www.iamstobbs.com/opinion/the-new-new-gtlds