Summary

  • Jolly Host asks to extend Identity Digital’s Domains Protected Marks List to .circle, .got, .jot and .safety. A subscription can remove matching and variant labels from general availability for one to ten years. ICANN’s tracker says the request is approved but its contract amendments remain pending.
  • The proposed contract language lets another trademark holder unblock and register a name, yet says the existing DPML holder’s approval may be required in some instances when the applicant holds the same mark. The public filing supplies no rule for deciding which instances. ICANN recognized the possible effect on third parties when the same clause was proposed in 2018.

The second owner at the locked drawer

Imagine two firms entitled to use the same word for different goods or in different places. One buys a registry block. The other arrives with its own trademark and asks for a domain. Jolly Host’s 30 September 2026 application puts both possibilities in a single paragraph. Blocked labels do not prevent other trademark rights holders from unblocking and registering. Then comes the hinge: in some instances, a third party with the same trademark may need approval from the applicable DPML holder.

The scope of “some instances” is the missing rule. The filing gives no public test for that phrase, no path for a second rights holder to challenge a refusal and no example of a disputed name in the four TLDs. A prospective registrant cannot tell from the proposed text alone whether its own trademark will be enough or whether it must negotiate with another private customer. A policy that permits an exception should tell applicants how to find it before they submit a name.

DPML itself is a paid, multi-year service. Jolly Host describes a single-purchase subscription lasting one to ten years. Exact matches and variants of a subscriber’s brand are removed from the general availability pool across participating Identity Digital-backed top-level domains. The proposed contract wording also reaches labels containing an exact match and misspellings. The application says DNS resolution, zone files and the price of a domain registration remain unchanged. It does not disclose the price of the blocking subscription. The product is the restriction on availability before an active domain exists.

The four namespaces named in the filing are .circle, .got, .jot and .safety. The ICANN Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) tracker marks case 2026026 “Approved, Pending Contract Amendment.” The proposed consent clause awaits incorporation into four registry agreements. The public record checked here contains no launch notice or four-TLD case in which a second rights holder sought to lift a block.

ICANN saw this hinge eight years ago

The permission sentence is not an unexplored corner. In ICANN’s 2018 public-comment proceeding for a modification to Donuts’ DPML service, the organization identified the same addition: sometimes a holder’s approval may be needed before another party with the same mark can register. ICANN described the previous arrangement as allowing other trademark holders to unblock. It said the modification could significantly affect third parties, including rights holders and potential registrants, and opened the amendment for comment. Its RSEP assessment at that time had found no significant competition, security or stability issue. Both statements appear in the same official record: a narrow review conclusion and a concrete warning about who may be affected.

The 2018 staff report recorded five submissions and opposing views about the service’s scope. ICANN had named the collision: a protection product could alter the path available to another legitimate holder of the same mark. Jolly Host’s 2026 form answers the competition-effects question with a single “No” and reports no community consultation. The proposed Exhibit A still contains the permission sentence without a published test for applying it.

Availability has a gatekeeper

A registry can truthfully say a label is unavailable while leaving the reason invisible to the person trying to use it. A DPML block is different from an ordinary registration because the label need not point to a site or appear as an active domain. Yet the block occupies a slot in the availability decision. The proposed consent exception adds a second layer: a later claimant’s documented right may have to pass through the existing subscriber’s approval. In that moment, the customer who bought protection can become part of the registry’s allocation machinery.

The operator chooses matching rules, participating TLDs, subscription terms and the circumstances in which consent is required. The subscriber buys the block. Another legitimate rights holder carries the burden of finding out how to get through it. ICANN controls whether the service wording becomes part of each registry agreement. Leaving “some instances” undefined in the public text sends a potential applicant to a private conversation before it can know whether the registry will accept its request.