The expansion of internet addresses tends to look like a technology matter, but the new round of generic top-level domains is equally relevant to legal departments, trademark owners and Brazilian institutions. What may be at stake is the very term the public associates with a company, a service or a community.

gTLDs are the endings to the right of the last dot in a web address, such as .com and .org. Applying for a new extension is different from registering an address within an existing one: the applicant seeks to operate a namespace that may host countless domain names.

On October 7, 2026, ICANN published the applications for the new round: 1,615 applications, 333 of which are classified as brand applications. Publication makes it possible to identify overlaps and potential conflicts before the extensions are approved. Appearing on the list, however, does not mean that use of the name has already been authorized.^[1]

BTG Pactual Has Already Applied

ICANN's list shows that companies well known to the Brazilian public have already taken this step. BTG Pactual Asset Management US, LLC applied for the .btgpactual extension, which is listed as a brand application in the 2026 round.^[2]

The application remains subject to evaluation and is not equivalent to an approved extension. It does show, however, that organizations with a significant presence in the Brazilian market are already making concrete decisions on the matter.

For other companies and institutions, the expansion warrants legal and strategic attention. Whether to apply for a proprietary extension depends on each organization's objectives and circumstances. Monitoring applications that may affect their trademarks or institutional identity makes it possible to identify conflicts and assess measures in a timely manner.

PIX as an Example

ICANN's list contains the term .pix in four alternate string records filed by Agador Slip, LLC. These records are substitution options linked to applications, not four approved extensions. Their fate depends on the selection permitted under the procedure and on subsequent evaluation.^[2]

The overlap matters in Brazil. Article 16 of the Pix Regulation vests in the Central Bank of Brazil exclusive ownership of the trademark and governs the license to use granted to participants. Banks, payment institutions and other players use the sign in a regulated environment, in which correct identification of the service is of practical importance to users.^[3]

In 2026, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI) recognized PIX as a high-renown mark, as confirmed by the Central Bank and announced officially on June 10. This recognition triggers the special protection afforded by Article 125 of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law across all fields of activity, including outside the financial sector.^[7]

High-renown status reinforces the importance of examining the .pix extension and constitutes relevant evidence for a potential Legal Rights Objection. Before ICANN, however, its effect is not automatic: the Brazilian decision must form part of an analysis of the sign's reputation, the applicant's rights and intent, and the intended use of the extension.

The overlap alone does not support the conclusion that the .pix application infringes Brazilian rights. It is necessary to examine the stated purpose, the applicant's rights, its policies and the meanings of the term in other contexts. The legal question is a concrete one: could the intended use lead the public to believe there is a connection with the Brazilian payment system, or take advantage of its reputation?

An extension that appears to carry an official connection could, in theory, make it harder to identify legitimate services. This is a risk to be investigated, not an accusation of fraud or bad faith against the applicant. For this reason, the PIX case calls for a preventive, evidence-based analysis.

Avenues for Objection

There are four types of formal objection. The Legal Rights Objection is of interest to trademark owners. The Community Objection is of interest to established institutions associated with clearly delineated communities. The Limited Public Interest Objection is open to any interested party, within narrow international grounds. The String Confusion Objection requires specific standing linked to TLD operators, applicants in the round, or qualified parties in relation to a ccTLD.^[4]

For Brazilian companies, the Legal Rights Objection is likely to be the central avenue. The analysis considers unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the mark, unjustified impairment, and impermissible likelihood of confusion. Identity between names, on its own, does not resolve the conflict: it is necessary to assess the recognition of the mark, the applicant's intent, any independent rights and the intended use.^[4]

In a Community Objection, the objector must demonstrate a clearly delineated community, substantial opposition, a strong association with the string and a likelihood of material detriment. Isolated disagreement is not enough. Nor does the Limited Public Interest Objection operate as a catch-all for any Brazilian concern: it involves international principles of morality and public order.^[4]

Public comments also allow information to be submitted to evaluators and are useful mainly where the concern relates to the evaluation criteria, but they do not replace a formal objection. Regulatory concerns may also be raised with Brazil's representatives on ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), so that they may assess possible institutional action.^[5]

Famous Marks and Collective Interests

The issue goes beyond company names. An extension may suggest that it represents a professional group, a cultural community or an institution. The analysis must identify who holds the right or represents the collective, what the likely harm is and which mechanism allows the matter to be pursued.

For famous marks, Brazilian law provides tools. Article 125 of the Industrial Property Law protects registered high-renown marks across all fields of activity. Article 126 protects well-known marks in their field, regardless of prior filing or registration in Brazil.^[6]

The two categories are distinct, and neither guarantees success before ICANN. National recognition may strengthen the evidence, but the objection will be assessed under the procedure's own criteria. It is also necessary to distinguish an attempt to exploit a trademark from another party's legitimate use of a common word or acronym.

Why Specialized Counsel Matters

The specialized lawyer's contribution begins before any decision to litigate. The work includes cross-checking applications against trademarks, institutional names and relevant interests; verifying the potential objector's standing; examining the applicant's project; organizing evidence; and weighing objection, comment, dialogue and institutional action against one another.

In the PIX example, the license granted to participants does not make them owners of the trademark. Action by a financial institution, the Central Bank or a representative body requires an individual analysis of rights, representation and legal grounds. Having an economic interest in the matter is not enough to satisfy the requirements of any type of objection.

The timeline underscores the need for preparation. String substitutions are scheduled until October 21, 2026. The list will be confirmed on November 17, the date announced for the opening of the comment and objection period, which ends on March 16, 2027.^[1]

Brazilian companies and institutions should use this window to assess conflicts and gather evidence. When a name comes to identify an entire internet extension, the issue may involve reputation, trust and institutional representation. With specialized guidance, a worrying overlap becomes a precise legal assessment and, where there are grounds, a measure filed by the appropriate party and within the deadline.

Sources (accessed on October 8, 2026):

[1] ICANN, publication and timeline of the 2026 round

[2] ICANN, Application Publication and Statistics, CSV consulted on 10/8/2026

[3] Central Bank of Brazil, Pix Regulation, particularly Article 16

[4] ICANN, Applicant Guidebook, V3-2026.10.07, Module 4

[5] ICANN, public comments and institutional participation

[6] Law No. 9,279/1996, Articles 125 and 126

[7]

Central Bank of Brazil, confirmation of INPI's recognition of PIX as a high-renown mark

Official communication of the June 10, 2026 announcement, Agência Gov / Secom-PR

Source: Consultor Jurídico 19/10/2026 and Marcasur 19/10/2026