Summary

  • Radix Technologies Inc SEZC asks ICANN to add a Label Blocking Service to .fun, .host, .online, .press, .site, .store, .tech, .uno and .website. Its application allows a registered trademark, unregistered trademark, company name or celebrity name to support a block. ICANN's RSEP tracker still marks case 2026031 ICANN Review.
  • The filing promises verification and lists possible evidence, from a Trademark Clearinghouse SMD file to incorporation papers and any other supporting material. Its draft contract language reaches exact matches, containing labels and misspellings. The public request does not set out a category-by-category evidentiary threshold or a published decision path for a conflicting applicant.

The same locked drawer for four different papers

An applicant with a registered trademark can hand a registry a record with an identifiable owner and scope. An applicant relying on a company name may hand over incorporation documents. An unregistered mark or celebrity name presents a different question: what conduct, authority and geographic reach make the claimed name protectable? Radix's 11 October filing groups all four bases under one Label Blocking Service. If the registry accepts the proof, a domain label can be removed from ordinary registration.

The filing says rights will be verified before a blocking request is accepted. It gives examples: a Trademark Clearinghouse SMD file, a trademark registration, articles of incorporation or association, company registration documents and “any other evidence that supports the application.” That final category is generous to unusual claims. It also places a great deal of judgment at the verification desk. The public form does not say what evidence establishes an unregistered mark, how a representative proves authority over a celebrity name, which territories count, or how a conflicting applicant can inspect and challenge the basis for a block.

The exact missing item is a public rule for turning each sort of document into the same registry outcome.

The outcome reaches further than a single exact word. Radix's proposed Exhibit A covers a label that matches, contains a match, or is a misspelling of the protected string, including names containing a misspelling. Earlier in the form, the operator also mentions variants. A company name in a folder can therefore become several unavailable strings in a public namespace. The filing does not publish a limit on the number of labels generated from one verified claim or an example that demonstrates how far a variant may travel. A reader cannot test the width of the gate merely by seeing the source document.

The nine spaces named in the appendix are .fun, .host, .online, .press, .site, .store, .tech, .uno and .website. These are open registration surfaces used for very different subjects. In each, a block changes the answer to a registrar's ordinary availability question before a domain exists. The proposal refers to Specification 5, section 3.3 of ICANN's base Registry Agreement, which addresses a registry's ability to withhold names. That reserved-name authority explains where the gate sits. It does not tell a person outside the registry why a particular company or celebrity claim passed through it.

Approval belongs to the other claimants too

One paragraph in the draft contract makes the verification decision consequential for a second claimant. Where two or more parties have verified rights to the same label or string and one wants to unblock it for registration, approval from the other rights holder or holders would be required. In that situation, the first verification gives its holder a role in another applicant's route to a domain. The clause is specific; it does not establish a veto over every name. It sharpens the need to know how the registry judged each claimed right in the first place.

Radix says it consulted corporate registrars, registrars serving the general public and service providers, and reports support for the offering. The request names no consulted participant or published objection test. It answers “No” to the question about competitive effects. It puts “N/A” in the predeployment quality-assurance box and says the price of an ordinary domain registration would not change. None of those answers supplies the price of a blocking purchase or the rule for deciding an unregistered or celebrity-name claim. They describe a proposed service, not an audit trail for the names that it might remove.

The application asks for implementation immediately after ICANN approval. The RSEP tracker presently says ICANN Review for case 2026031. No approval, final amendments, launch notice or list of blocked labels appears in the cited record. That status sets the stake: the definition of a qualifying claim can still be made legible before the nine agreements authorize the service.