At a time when AI is blurring the lines and fake sites are multiplying, brands are facing a major challenge: being visible is no longer enough, they still need to be identified as legitimate.
For twenty years, companies have mainly sought to be visible online. Being well referenced, appearing in the first results, occupying the platforms: this logic has structured a large part of digital strategies. It retains its value, but it no longer answers the question that arises today: how to prove that a brand is indeed what it claims to be?
Trust, a new visibility criterion
The line between the legitimate site, the fraudulent copy and the generated content becomes less readable. Fake sites are multiplying, phishing is becoming more sophisticated and online scams are increasingly imitating established brands. Generative artificial intelligence further adds to this confusion, by facilitating the production of fake content, fake customer support, fake interfaces or fake messages.
In this saturated environment, the central topic is no longer just to appear in search results, but to be recognized as a reliable source. Trust is therefore no longer based solely on the notoriety of a brand, but on its ability to be authenticated.
A domain name is not a simple address. It constitutes an anchor point, carries an identity, organizes access to a service and sometimes supports sensitive transactions. Yet this infrastructure often remains poorly understood. Many businesses still treat their domain names as a secondary technical subject, even though they form one of the first lines of defense for their brand online.
The example of the HTTPS padlock illustrates this evolution. For years, it has served as a security benchmark for Internet users. However, a fake site can today display a padlock, use a valid certificate and use a credible interface. Encryption protects communication, but it does not always guarantee the user that they are dealing with the correct organization. The problem is therefore no longer just to secure the exchanges, but to make their origin immediately identifiable.
When the web address becomes a trusted asset
It is in this context that the .MARQUE extensions find new relevance. Their interest is not only to have a more distinctive address, but to create a digital space whose rules are controlled by the company itself. Who records what, according to what logic, for what uses: these choices no longer depend on an open environment where everyone can try to exploit a variant.
This logic modifies the relationship with trust. In a .BRAND space, the company defines its naming rules, controls uses and prevents a third party from creating a questionable address within its own scope. Cybersquatting, so difficult to combat in the open space of classic extensions, is largely losing its grip inside this closed territory.
The benefits also affect the readability of the brand. A .MARK creates a simple mark. It indicates that communication comes from the company and clarifies the paths for customers, partners, investors, employees or candidates. In a web where everything tends to look the same, this clarity becomes an advantage.
AI is shaking up the hierarchy of sources
The question becomes even more important with the rise of AI. Traditional search engines rank links, while conversational engines produce answers. The user no longer necessarily compares ten results: he reads a summary, questions a voice assistant or follows a generated recommendation.
For companies, the challenge is no longer just to be well positioned, but to be correctly identified by AI systems as well as by humans.
The transition from SEO to GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) opens a new sequence. If GEO still remains a field under construction, it already reflects a shift: visibility no longer depends only on technical criteria, keywords or backlinks, but also on the ability of a source to be understood, recognized and judged reliable by automated systems.
In this context, the .BRAND becomes one of the tangible elements of this identity. It does not replace either a content strategy or a cybersecurity policy, but it strengthens their coherence.
A rarely opened strategic window
A paradox remains. The first .BRAND extensions have existed for more than ten years, but their adoption remains limited, despite the progression of issues linked to digital identity, cybersecurity and brand sovereignty. For a long time, this subject was seen as a prestigious tool, reserved for very large groups. This reading now seems too narrow: as digital identity becomes an issue of trust, security and visibility, the .BRAND leaves the symbolic register to enter that of strategic assets.
Time is running out: companies have until August 12, 2026 to submit a file to ICANN in order to obtain their own internet extension. After this date, no new equivalent window is expected for several years.
A .BRAND requires resources: a file, governance, a naming strategy, reliable infrastructure and gradual adoption by teams. But its cost must also be compared to that of usurpation, phishing, litigation, domain name recovery campaigns, loss of trust and security incidents.
Basically, the question posed to companies is simple: do they want to continue to depend on open digital spaces, or to structure a territory that directly involves their identity?
At a time when AI is reshaping access to information, the question is no longer just where a brand appears. It is to know if its customers, its partners and the AI systems will be able to identify with certainty where it is speaking from.
