Reservation of short names

With the introduction of shorter ENS names, it might be a good idea to allow companies / projects to reserve names.

This process should be accessible by anyone, it should however have a cost associated with it, the funds of which would then be used to fund further development of ENS.

How would this look

A company would fill out a form with their name, website etc. This would go to the ENS team who then decide if the team is eligible for their brands domain. The registration would be brand.eth, if the brand is called brandeth they would not receive brand.eth but rather brandeth.eth.

Other teams should be able to file a dispute when all the reservations are public if they share the brand name. In this case the reservation would be given to neither and would be decided by an auction process.


How could we incentivize squatters to give up ‘brand name’ domains they are just sitting on? I’ve tried reaching out to many of them (via Etherscan) to get the names to the proper projects with no luck.

@ethereumkev I am not sure what this proposal has to do with squatters?

Please do that. I work for a crypto compagnie and we really want to get our domain name. We understand the auction mechanism in depth but are still very afraid of losing to some attacker. I will be more than happy to fund ENS in exchange for some peace of mind !

Rather than leaving it up to the ENS team to decide who is eligible for these names, I think that there should be an inclusive decision-making process that involves more members of the ENS/ETH community, and/or the users of the brand itself.

Maybe this file/dispute/auction process that you described could be accomplished using some sort of voting/staking process using smart contracts.

This seems like it would remove any form of objectivity of determining whether a name should be eligible and would simply be influenced by personal interest.

Making this process more inclusive on a broad scope will probably significantly reduce how many names we can process, and if it doesn’t it would only be a “shadow” community inclusion where real decisions would still be made by a team. The coordination required to achieve the amount of names I expect to be reserved will probably be insane. Keep in mind the dispute system should probably be open to anyone, this already gives the ability for the community to participate.

1 Like

Services like Twitter allow you to claim a name that has been taken if you hold a Trademark for the name. At least part of ENS’s solution could leverage Trademarks. I know it’s not perfect solution but it’s an easy binary lever.

Full disclosure: I work at Cent and we have a trademark on “Cent.”

1 Like

Giving someone a name after a trademark infringement will never be possible. The reason to this is due to the fact that our dispute resolution is on layer 2 rather than layer 1. So it will never directly be able to intrude in the ENS registry.

I don’t think there should be any reservation of short or brand names. In reply to the person from Cent, above. Get enough eth and bid a large amount for it. Your trademark for cent isn’t worldwide I would presume, so theres many other people or companies who may want it. Why should someone in another country respect your trademark? An auction is an auction, stump up or lose it, that’s how it should be and how auctions always have been. I’ve often seen people complaining that they were sniped or outbid. well, that’s no ones fault but their own. If I want a name, I’ll bid my max, if I don’t get it, i don’t get it.

If a brand realises in a few years that they need an .eth name and their’s is taken, well, for instance, how would they find out who the owner is? They can only find out the wallet address for the owner. At present, theres no way to contact the owner of a name, so who would they sue for it? If big business isn’t in on this at the moment, it’s not our fault. Back in the day, a guy used to work for MTV and told them they should secure the domain They ignored him as they didn’t see the importance of having it. Years later, they bought it for $4m from him. Why should we be worried about brands and their lack of foresight or knowledge of new technologies? You may call it speculation, and as someone in the top 100 of owners of ENS name I’ve done my fair share, but we’re in at the ground floor and why shouldn’t we use this opportunity for our personal gain?


This is only if the name is inactive. They won’t just steal it from anybody.

The problem here is that trademarks (in the USA) are category specific. A trademark Cent does not enjoy global or non-category protection. There could be a Cent line of tennis shoes, and another non-competing business Cent vacuum cleaners, and on-and-on, Both Cent trademark holders could hold valid trademarks. Therefore who would be allowed to get Cent.eth? It’s a can of worms.
Therefore I have to fallback to embrace a first-come first-served and let all those who don’t like it defer to the **Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), or similar for non-US jurisdictions to try to get some relief.

So my thoughts with reservation is, the second there is a dispute we let it be decided in the open market (the auction). We only reserve a name when no dispute was brought forth in a defined term.

1 Like

I 100% agree with that, except we should have a clear definition of what is ground for a dispute.

Imagine you work for tether, and you are interested in reserving tether.eth. As an indiviual, can I claim that I am interested in buying the same domain and prevent the reservation ? If so, the simple fact that you said you want to reserve tether.eth is a marker that you are (really) interested in it, which would attract attention from potential squatters and would backfire.

As someone who is genuinely interested in buying some short domains, I will only annonce my interrest in being “whitelisted” if I am sure it won’t backfire by anyone filling an dispute and then trying to squatte the domain.

1 Like

How do we decide which dispute is legit? If there aren’t strict rules, anyone can dispute just for the sake of bringing the name for the auction.


The same way we decide whether a claim is valid or not. A dispute is valid when it is in the form of a valid claim.

“a fraudulent statement of bona fide intent to use can in some circumstances invalidate a trademark application or the resulting registration”

Unfortunately, it’s rather complicated. Bottom line: The system ultimately requires use or reputation of trademarks to justify injunctive relief. Here’s how we try to deal with in in US and Canada.

… A bona fide intent to use should be an essential prerequisite for filing a trademark application …

Interest of both traders ("+/- squatters") and the public are best protected by a system that ultimately requires use or reputation of trademarks to justify injunctive relief. Although there are good reasons for allowing trademark applications to be filed based on “intent to use” US/CAN laws contain safeguards to ensure that the rights of other traders and of the public are not adversely affected.

Further, unlike the situation in the United States, where a fraudulent statement of bona fide intent to use can in some circumstances invalidate a trademark application or the resulting registration.

In Europe, as the law now stands, the doctrine of bad faith cannot be invoked even in a case of deliberate over-claiming of a specification of goods and/or services.

My point is … We must focus on a workable ENS system; one that simply works instead of focusing on some system to arbitrate or worse, make final determinations on trademarks/trade-names/service marks/common law name rights/words used descriptively that have no owner rights is wrought with time-wasting energy.

Leave that work to actual federal IP (Intellectual Property) courts, because that’s what they do everyday. … In our international marketplace of different rules and norms trying to arbitrate or render judgement or injunctions is either ludicrous or extremely daring.

1 Like

This is by far the most insightful yet realistic perspective I can agree on. As a server administrator for over 20 years, ENS technology encompasses many if not all of the practicality that we immersed our selves in the 1990’s trying to get servers to communicate to one another as efficient as possible. A blockchain ecosystem and its tools should be available to all who should successfully seek it. Imagine if all official Laws & Rights online were under lock and key and would only be accessible to those with proof of Law degrees.

1 Like