Verisign Files Patent Applications for Buying Future Rights to Domain Names
As reported by Domain Name Wire, Verisign recently filed two patent applications regarding securing future rights to domain names should they later become available. Verisign, according to its website, is a global leader in domain names and internet security. Verisign enables internet navigation for many of the world’s most recognized domain names and provides protection for websites and enterprises around the world.
The first application (US 2018/0302366) for “Domain Name Registration Reservation Through the Use of Encoding Domain Names” was filed on April 17, 2017 and published on October 18, 2018. This first application notes that a related application, “Domain Name Registration Reservation Through the Use of Encoding Domain Names for Pools” was filed concurrently. However, this second application does not appear to have been published.
The published application describes a process through which domain names may be backordered for when they become available in the future due to, for example, expiration of the domain on a certain date or when the current owner relinquishes the domain registration. Anyone wishing to secure a domain name for future use would register an “encoding domain”.
The application contains the following example:
For example, an encoding domain name that reserves a right to register example.com upon its deletion on Mar. 28, 2017 may be written as, for example, “dn–example-20170328.com”
The application indicates that rights could be to a specific domain name or a group of domain names and can be transferred to someone else. Additionally, rights could be ranked – essentially a line-up for the domain name.
The patents, if granted, may impact the domain name industry. It does not appear that corresponding Canadian patent applications have been filed.
Author: Alexandra Murray
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@nasa
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…