The trademark “land grab”: who owns the Internet in 2026?

For much of trademark history, protecting a brand followed a relatively predictable path.

• Choose a name.
• Clear it.
• File an application.
• Register the mark.

And maybe you get that website you always wanted.

That model worked reasonably well in a world where brands existed primarily in physical markets and traditional advertising channels.

In recent years, a curious phenomenon has been unfolding in the world of intellectual property: a self-effacing but determined land grab on trademarks. It is less a gold rush and more a preemptive fencing of territory—less about what a business is, and more about what it might someday need to claim it has always been.

Conventionally, trademarks served a straightforward function: to distinguish goods and services in the marketplace and to prevent consumer confusion, and of course, a source of origin. A company made shoes, registered a mark for shoes, and defended that mark against impostors. The logic was clean, almost quaint. Today, however, companies increasingly behave like cartographers of theoretical futures, staking claims across categories they have not yet entered and may never enter at all.

Did the Internet change that equation? Maybe. But the digital age and the ever-changing consumer behavior certainly did.

Today, a brand identity lives simultaneously across a complex network of digital environments: social media platforms, online marketplaces, influencer ecosystems, virtual products, and an ever-expanding universe of domain variations.

Each of these spaces functions as a form of brand territory. And increasingly, companies are racing to claim that territory before someone else does.

The result is what might reasonably be described as a modern trademark “land grab” or “intangible grab”.

Defensive filings and the business of “just in case”

This surge in defensive filings reflects a delicate shift in corporate psychology.

The modern brand is no longer tethered to a single product line but is imagined as an expandable universe. A company that sells beverages today may envision itself as a lifestyle platform tomorrow, and perhaps a digital ecosystem the day after. In such a landscape, trademarks are not merely identifiers; they are opportunities—financial or negotiable instruments, almost—granting the holder the right, but not the obligation, to occupy a conceptual space.

The result is a proliferation of “just in case” filings. People and companies register marks across an impressive array of classes: apparel, software, entertainment services, even vaguely defined “metaverse experiences” or maybe something to do with AI.

The intent is not necessarily to use these marks imminently, but to ensure that no one else can. It is a strategy driven as much by angst as by ambition. After all, in a hypercompetitive, rapidly evolving market, the cost of being late to a naming opportunity can be surprisingly high.

There is, of course, a certain irony in all this. Trademarks are meant to reflect use in commerce, yet the system increasingly accommodates—and perhaps incentivizes—speculative reservation. Taking a gander here, one begins to wonder whether the trademark registry is becoming less a record of economic activity and more a ledger of corporate imagination. The boundary between prudent foresight and bureaucratic hoarding grows ever thinner.

To be fair, the motivations are not entirely cynical. The expansion of digital markets, global branding, and platform-based business models has made category boundaries porous. A company that fails to anticipate adjacency risks being boxed in by more agile competitors—or by opportunistic registrants who see an opening and take it. Defensive filings, in this sense, are a rational response to an environment where identity itself is contested terrain.

Nike and Gucci were early movers here, filing for virtual goods and digital wearables long before the average consumer fully understood what those categories would look like. Others followed quickly, not necessarily because they had immediate plans, but because they did not want to be late to a space that might suddenly matter.

If the digital marketplace evolves in ways that make these categories commercially significant, brand owners want their names already secured. The cost of a defensive filing is modest compared with the cost of reclaiming a brand that someone else has claimed first.

#Handle wars and the first-mover problem

But trademarks are only one part of the digital landscape. Social media handles have become equally important, and in some cases, even more immediate.

A brand launch today is incomplete if the corresponding usernames across major platforms remain unavailable. Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, and emerging platforms now serve as primary points of consumer interaction. They are often the first place a customer encounters a brand.

And unlike trademark registries, these platforms operate on a first-come, first-served basis.

That reality has created an entire secondary market around usernames and domains. Founders regularly discover that their preferred brand name is technically available from a trademark perspective, but the handle has already been claimed by someone with no connection to the business. Sometimes that handle sits dormant. Other times, it is held for resale or a fight with the platform.

What should be a launch detail becomes a negotiation.

Dupe culture and the business of looking familiar

At the same time, a different phenomenon is taking hold on the consumer side.

“Dupe culture” has become a legitimate marketing strategy.

Products positioned as alternatives to well-known brands, often with names and packaging that feel intentionally adjacent, are now widely promoted across platforms like TikTok and Amazon. Lululemon has seen waves of “dupe” products that mimic not just functionality, but aesthetic cues closely enough to trigger recognition without crossing obvious legal lines.

In these cases, the goal is not confusion in the traditional sense. It is association.

The line between inspiration and infringement becomes increasingly difficult to draw, particularly when speed and visibility are driven by algorithms rather than deliberate brand building.

Another frontier in this evolving landscape involves influencer identity.

Influencers are no longer just content creators. They are brand owners, often building significant commercial value around their names, usernames, and visual personas.

As those brands expand into product lines and licensing deals, disputes inevitably arise.

We have already seen conflicts where influencers lose control of handles tied to early management agreements or where third parties attempt to register names associated with rising personalities. In other cases, brands collaborate with influencers only to later dispute ownership of co-created identities.

Traditional trademark principles provide a framework, but they were not designed with decentralized, personality-driven brands in mind.

The question of who owns a name becomes more complicated when that name is also a person.

Digital goods and the race to the unknown

Overlaying all of this is the uncertainty surrounding digital goods themselves.

The surge of trademark filings covering NFTs, virtual products, and digital assets reflects a broader question about where commerce is heading. Some of these filings will eventually support real business models. Others may never be used at all.

We saw a similar rush during the early NFT boom, where companies across industries filed for blockchain-related goods, not because they had clear product strategies, but because the risk of doing nothing felt greater than the cost of filing.

The pattern is familiar.  When the future is unclear, brands claim space early.

The underlying principles of trademark law have not changed. Priority still matters. Distinctiveness still matters. Likelihood of confusion still anchors enforcement decisions.

What has changed is the terrain on which those principles operate.

The Internet multiplied trademark boundaries for brand owners.

Brand protection now extends to handles, domains, platform presence, and emerging digital categories that may not yet have clear rules.

Because the modern brand economy moves quickly. And once a name gains traction online, reclaiming it later can be far more difficult than securing it early. Perhaps this is the defining feature of contemporary capitalism: not merely the pursuit of opportunity, but the systematic elimination of uncertainty. If the future cannot be predicted, it can at least be reserved. Whether this represents strategic brilliance or a mild collective neurosis is, fittingly, left open for interpretation.

In that sense, the online territory may feel limitless. But brand terrain remains very much contested ground.

–

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is solely for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or form an attorney-client relationship between you and Belous Law Corporation in any manner and is not an offer to represent any party. All content is provided as is and may not be disseminated without written permission. The content of this article may be considered Attorney Advertising, as legally applicable.

← Back to News