[1]Introduction
Conventional wisdom amongst many members of the domain-name trading industry is that the availability of unregistered domain names - as may be of interest to entities looking to launch a new brand identity and associated web presence - is extremely low, with the vast majority of attractive and memorable names already registered and only available for purchase at high prices as 'premium' domain names.
Whilst this is true up to a point, especially for short memorable names across popular domain-name extensions (i.e. top-level domains, or TLDs), there are still significant numbers of candidate names available - amongst the essentially almost limitless total stock of unregistered names, across the universe of possible names up to 63 characters in length, over the more-than-1000 possible TLDs[2,3] - provided appropriate techniques can be employed to identify them. Furthermore, I would suggest it is not unreasonable to claim that many of these are at least as compelling candidates for brandability as many of the other domains offered for sale as 'premium' names across the wide range of existing domain marketplaces.
In this article, I present an overview of techniques for identifying these unregistered candidate brandable domain names, illustrated by examples of domains identified using these approaches. The analyses focus specifically on .com domains (considering only those examples with names consisting just of alphabetic characters), from the point of view both of simplifying the search and analysis process (i.e. concentrating on searches just within a single domain name zone-file, with a known limited character set, and where 'word' analysis techniques can readily be applied) and reflecting the continuing popularity, renown and attractiveness of .com names specifically. It is worth noting that these techniques generally also require a process of subsequent verification to ensure that the identified names are actually available for registration (rather than simply being absent from the zone file for some other reason), and a process of manual review, to identify (subjectively) the most credible candidates for brandability from amongst the sets of candidate names identified. This assessment can be based on any of a range of proposed guidelines for selecting attractive brand names (see e.g. Kolenda, 2025)[4].
In general terms, these types of approach can identify names of a range of types, including abstract or word-like terms, or words which are similar (e.g. readable variants, such as those sometimes described as 'sensational (mis-)spellings') to input terms (names or keywords) of interest. These types of approach might be of particular relevance to service providers operating in the areas of brand-launch consultancy or marketing, who would be able to work with businesses to provide guidance on suitable attractive word structures or similar 'seed' terms to serve as the basis of searches for the candidate brand names.
All domains presented in the list in Appendix A were found to be unregistered and available for purchase at standard (.com) 'cost price' as of the date of analysis (across a period within August and September 2024), and all were acquired for inclusion into the UnregisteredGems.com portfolio as tradable commodities. The effectiveness of the approaches are illustrated by the estimated values of the names, as given by a range of independent domain valuation tools.
One important final point to note is that purely the availability of a domain name for registration is, in itself, no guarantee that the name will be a suitable candidate for use as a brand name. Before a name is used, the domain availability search should always be accompanied by corresponding searches of registered intellectual property rights and evidence of any prior use of the name, to ensure that any novel use by an interested entity would not be infringing. Furthermore, names which comprise potentially confusing misspellings or other variants of protected names may also not be appropriate for use (and could possibly be considered instances of 'typosquatting'), and names which are similar or identical to dictionary words or other relevant terms could be considered to lack distinctiveness from the point of view of potential brandability, which itself could impact on the ability to secure and defend appropriate intellectual property protection by the owner of the name.
Techniques for identifying brandable unregistered domain names
1. Analysis of phonetic word characteristics
a. Phonotactic analysis
One possible technique for filtering down the universe of unregistered names into a subset with greater potential for brandability is through the use of phonotactic analysis. This methodology involves the quantification of the potential 'readability' (or similarity to other words in the language - in this case, English) of the names in question (focusing on the second-level domain name, or SLD, i.e. the part of the domain name to the left of the dot, excluding the TLD).
The analysis was carried out through the application of algorithms to: (i) convert each name to its phonetic representation (in this case, using ARPABET syntax)[5]; and then (ii) apply the BLICK model (Hayes, 2012)[6] to the phonetic representation, to output a calculated phototactic 'violation' score (essentially, a measure of the 'non-word-ness' of the string), such that a lower score denotes a more word-like string and therefore (potentially) a more compelling candidate for brandability. This approach is able to identify both abstract (but word-like) names, and examples of names which are readably similar to dictionary words or other terms.
In order to first obtain a readily usable dataset for analysis, the .com zone file was first processed to extract the total set of possible names of lengths 5 or 6 characters which were currently unregistered (i.e absent from the zone file), of which there were 9.3 million and 303.5 million, respectively.
It is first informative to consider the distribution of phonotactic violation scores across this (essentially unfiltered) dataset. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 1, which considers only 5-character domains with names beginning with 'a' or 'b' (so as to reduce computation time, but deemed to be a representative subset of all 5-character names, by considering a dataset encompassing examples beginning both with a vowel and with a consonant).
Figure 1: Distribution of phonotactic violation scores for all unregistered 5-character alphabetic .com domains with names beginning with 'a' or 'b'
Of the 478,369 (SLD) names considered, 8,893 (1.9%) were assigned a score of zero, but with a wide range of scores observed, up to a maximum value of just under 68. The five strings with the highest phonotactic violation scores (i.e. the least 'word-like' names) were awbzp (59.43), bctko (65.17), anwjf (65.94), apgdj (67.26), and bchji (67.92).
In order to reduce down the dataset of candidate unregistered 5- and 6-character names into manageable subsets for further (phonotactic) analysis, the results were filtered according to word character patterns, such as selecting only those examples consisting of patterns of vowels (V) and consonants (C)[7] commonly associated with readable terms (e.g. 'CVCVC', 'VCVCV', 'CVCCV', 'CVCCVC', 'CVCVCV' or 'CVCVCC') and/or excluding examples with known 'bad' patterns or combinations of letters (such as more than two consecutive instances of the same letter, or strings with no vowels or no consonants). In practice, of course, these types of decision are somewhat arbitrary, and could be modified according to branding or marketing preferences in any given case.
Having calculated the phonotactic scores for the candidate sets of name, the subsequent manual review process then generally concentrated on those examples with scores of less than 3, though this threshold is also somewhat arbitrary.
Shown in Table 1 are examples of names identified using this approach and which were deemed to be sufficiently attractive from a brandability point of view that (despite being purchased at the time of discovery for .com 'cost price'), they were assigned 'premium' status - with suggested values in excess of $2,000 - by the Atom.com domain marketplace.
| Domain name |
Phonotactic violation score |
Domain value (Atom.com) |
|---|---|---|
| axidy.com | 0.90 | $2,299 |
| byskit.com | 0.12 | $2,499 |
| duklet.com | 0.93 | $2,599 |
| ebeya.com | - | $2,399 |
| fybric.com | 0.49 | $2,499 |
| gyble.com | 0.90 | $2,299 |
| kyppy.com | 0.90 | $2,299 |
| ozogy.com | - | $2,799 |
| qaxxy.com | 0.90 | $2,499 |
| tyckl.com | 0.00 | $2,699 |
Table 1: Examples of 'premium' domain names identified as unregistered examples using phonotactic analysis
b. Phonetic classifications and word 'types'
The use of phonotactic analysis as described above does have some shortcomings, including the facts that it is generally computationally relatively slow to calculate, and the fact that it does not always provide a clean 'mapping' between score and desirability (e.g. there are generally large numbers of names within a specified score range, and domains found 'actually' to be desirable can cover a wide range of scores).
As one simple alternative, it is possible to categorise candidate names according to their word 'type', giving a potential brand owner the option to specify the type (or 'structure') of name they would ideally like to use, as a basis for filtering the dataset of unregistered candidates. One such approach (based on English language) is to categorise the constituent characters of the names into their (broad) phonetic 'groups', using a framework such as that shown in Table 2.
| 'Top-level' group (manner of articulation) | Group | Phonetic type | Consonants |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (plosive) | 1A | Bilabial plosive | b, p |
| 1 (plosive) | 1B | Alveolar plosive | d, t |
| 1 (plosive) | 1C | Velar plosive | c, g, k, q |
| 2 (nasal) | 2A | Bilabial nasal | m |
| 2 (nasal) | 2B | Alveolar nasal | n |
| 3 (fricative) | 3A | Labiodental fricative | f, v |
| 3 (fricative) | 3B | Alveolar fricative | s, x, z |
| 3 (fricative) | 3C | Glottal fricative | h |
| 4 (approximant) | 4A | Labial-velar approximant | w |
| 4 (approximant) | 4B | Retroflex approximant | r |
| 4 (approximant) | 4C | Palatal approximant | y |
| 5 (lateral approximant) | 5A | Alveolar lateral approximant | l |
| 6 (affricate) | 6A | Postalveolar affricate | j |
Table 2: An example of a 'grouping' framework which can be applied to English-language consonants
On this basis, a 'CVCVC'-type string, for example (i.e. a five-character string in which the first, third and fifth characters are consonants) can be categorised according to the phonetic 'top-level' group (from 1 to 6) of each of its three constituent consonants, giving 216 (i.e. 63) distinct CVCVC word 'types' in total.
Applying this framework to the 137,648 unregistered CVCVC .com domains from the original dataset, it is informative to assess whether the domains assigned to each of the specific 216 types tend (on average) to be associated with lower or higher phonotactic violation scores (i.e. whether they broadly comprise - according to this particular metric - more 'credible' names in terms of brandability). From this analysis, the top four word types (in terms of lowest mean phonotactic violation score) were found to be type 225 (mean score = 0.41), type 525 (0.50), type 555 (0.75) and type 125 (0.82). Examples of names from each of these groups (and their corresponding phonotactic violation scores) are shown below:
- Word type 225 - memyl (0.00), munyl (1.63), nemul (0.00), nenyl (0.00)
- Word type 525 - lemyl (0.00), limyl (1.05), lunyl (0.93), lynul (0.00)
- Word type 555 - lalyl (0.90), lelyl (0.00), lylel (1.05), lylul (1.05)
- Word type 125 - banyl (0.12), cemyl (0.00), dimyl (0.00), gamyl (0.70)
Comparing this analysis with the 390 CVCVC-type examples taken from the top 2,000 5-character (SLD) names offered for sale on the domain marketplace Atom.com[8] - i.e. names which, by definition, have been assessed to be attractive brandable names - shows that the top ten most common word types within this dataset are actually 133, 334, 313, 331, 335, 113, 332, 333, 131, and 312. This type of study may form a useful basis for determining which word types are generally considered to be more attractive, and therefore allowing the selection of suitable criteria for filtering the general unregistered dataset. For instance, examples of type 133 (SLD) names from the set of available names include cisyx, civyz, cyfax, cyxix, doxiz, dyxix, gyfex, kysix, pyxox, qaxix, qizox, qyxes and toxiz.
As a (somewhat more rigorous) extension of the above idea, a grouping framework can also be applied to the constituent phonemes of a formal phonetic representation of each string, as produced by (for example) an algorithm to convert the string to its IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) representation. This variant methodology has some more preferable aspects, such as the ability to properly handle differences in pronunciation of particular characters depending on their context within the string, and the ability to generalise the approach to be applicable regardless of string length and character pattern.
One example of such a framework (analogous to that shown in Table 2 above) is shown in Table 3, which again focuses just on the constituent consonant components of the string[9,10].
| 'Top-level' group (manner of articulation) | Group | Phonetic type | Consonant phonemes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (plosive) | 1A | Bilabial plosive | b, p |
| 1 (plosive) | 1B | Alveolar plosive | d, t, ɾ |
| 1 (plosive) | 1C | Velar plosive | ɡ, k |
| 2 (nasal) | 2A | Bilabial nasal | m |
| 2 (nasal) | 2B | Alveolar nasal | n |
| 2 (nasal) | 2C | Velar nasal | ŋ |
| 3 (fricative) | 3A | Labiodental fricative | f, v |
| 3 (fricative) | 3B | Dental fricative | θ, ð |
| 3 (fricative) | 3C | Alveolar fricative | s, z |
| 3 (fricative) | 3D | Postalveolar fricative | ʃ, ʒ |
| 3 (fricative) | 3E | Glottal fricative | h |
| 4 (approximant) | 4A | Labial-velar approximant | w |
| 4 (approximant) | 4B | Retroflex approximant | ɹ, r |
| 4 (approximant) | 4C | Palatal approximant | j |
| 5 (lateral approximant) | 5A | Alveolar lateral approximant | l |
| 6 (affricate) | 6A | Postalveolar affricate | ʧ, ʤ |
Table 3: An example of a 'grouping' framework which can be applied to English-language consonant phonemes
Utilising this framework, strings can thereby be classified using a representation which reflects the group number of each component consonant phoneme (together with, say, 'V' to denote a vowel sound). Accordingly (for example), 'rolex' ('ɹoʊlɛks' in IPA representation) would be assigned word type 4V5V13.
Again considering the set of top 2,000 5-character names offered for sale on Atom.com, the top ten most common types were found to be 3V13V, 3V3V, 1V13V, 1V3V, 3V1V, 4V3V, 4V13V, 3V35V, 3V23V, and 1V1V. Examples of unregistered names of type 3V13V (considering, as an example, the subset where the first character is an 's') include sagsy, sedsi, sicsy, sodsy, sudci, suqsy, sybzi, sycci, sygzy, syksi and sytzo.
2. Sensational spellings
'Sensational spellings'[11] is the description sometimes given to the use of names comprising deliberate 'wacky' misspellings of words or other terms, to be used as brand names - with familiar popular examples including Flickr, Reddit, Tumblr, and so on.
The keys to the use of a sensational spelling as a potential brand term (and associated domain name) are: (i) the selection of a 'seed' term from which the variants are to be generated; and (ii) the construction of a suitable algorithm to generate the misspellings from this 'seed' (generally intended to be constructed so that - broadly - they would be pronounced similarly to the original term).
The exact specifics of the generation algorithm can be flexible (and generally would be proprietary information for the organisation offering any such domain recommendation service), but might generally[12] incorporate elements such as:
- Allowing the replacement of characters or groups of characters with alternatives which are phonetically similar (e.g. 'c' with 'k', or 's' with 'z')
- Allowing any vowel (or, optionally, any character) to be excluded from the string
- Allowing the replacement of repeated (double) characters with single versions
- Allowing any character to be repeated (i.e. doubled)
- Allowing the string to be 'pluralised', through the addition as a suffix of an 's' or 'z'
- Excluding any 'undesirable' generated variants, such as instances of triple letter repeats or pre-defined 'bad' combinations (such as, say, 'ckq')
The variants generated by any such algorithm can then optionally be 'scored' for suitability, taking into account factors such as the measured degree of similarity[13,14] to the original 'seed' string, and the 'readability' of the output variant (using ideas such as phonotactic analysis or analysis of letter patterns).
As a case study in this instance, an analysis was carried out to check for the availability of 'sensationally spelled' variants of any of a number of popular business-related keywords[15] (as the SLDs of unregistered .com domains, focusing on 5- or 6-character variants of 4-, 5- or 6-character keywords).
Table 4 shows a series of examples of the most compelling candidates for brandable domain names (based on a subjective manual analysis) identified via this analysis, for some of the keywords with greatest potential relation to a range of business areas of interest. Also shown in the table are the estimated values of the domains (where greater than $100), as provided by an AI-based tool offered by domain registrar GoDaddy.com.
| Domain name | 'Seed' term | Domain value (GoDaddy.com) |
|---|---|---|
| analysics.com | analytics | - |
| analytc.com | analytics | - |
| inzurs.com | insure | $125 |
| inzurz.com | insure | - |
| logikq.com | logic | $1,445 |
| logiqk.com | logic | - |
| marxet.com | market | $1,392 |
| medikq.com | medic | - |
| mediqk.com | medic | $1,366 |
| sckure.com | secure | - |
| stoqck.com | stock | - |
| sztem.com | system | $1,519 |
| zrver.com | server | $113 |
Table 4: Examples of domain names identified as unregistered examples through the generation as candidate names of 'sensationally spelled' variants of the 'seed' terms in question
3. Use of popular prefixes or suffixes
The third identification technique for brandable domain names involves the use of filtering to reduce the size of the overall dataset of unregistered names, whilst retaining only those examples featuring specific prefixes or suffixes of interest.
One such example is (as a suffix) '-ize' (or variants), which is popular due to its perceived conveyance of a sense of modernity and dynamism[16] and the assertion that 'verb-like' names can be more memorable[17]. Many of the most compelling candidate names of this form include actual dictionary terms or 'sensationally spelled' variants, in addition to neologisms, phrasal names (e.g. ending in 'wise' or 'size'), or other plays on words (e.g. where a word ending in '-ify' can be 'translated' into '-ifize', as a soundalike of '-ifies').
Considering the raw dataset of all unregistered .com domains with names ending with 'ize', 'ise', 'yse' or 'yze', there were over 65k 6-character examples, 1.8 million 7-character examples, 47.5 million 8-character examples, and 1.235 billion 9-character examples, again highlighting the importance of an effective filtering approach.
In the case study to illustrate this approach, the analysis focused on those domains in which the portion of the SLD prior to the suffix was consistent with any of a predefined set of patterns of consonants and vowels deemed to be most attractive and word-like (such as 'VCVC[ize]' or 'CVCVC[ize]').
From this analysis, some of the most potentially attractive identified names (in most of these cases, examples most similar (or identical) to dictionary terms) are shown in Table 5, together with their values as estimated by AI tools (where given / greater than $100).
| Domain name |
Domain value (Atom.com) |
Domain value (GoDaddy.com) |
|---|---|---|
| agonyze.com | - | - |
| avianize.com | - | $119 |
| civylize.com | - | - |
| demonyse.com | - | $109 |
| dygitise.com | - | $1,047 |
| eqalize.com | - | $1,280 |
| fynalize.com | $2,299 | - |
| idolyse.com | - | - |
| immunyze.com | $2,899 | $1,702 |
| minimyse.com | - | - |
| openyze.com | - | - |
| snthesize.com | - | - |
| ulogise.com | - | - |
| ulogize.com | - | - |
| utylise.com | - | - |
| utylize.com | - | $1,344 |
| womanyze.com | - | - |
Table 5: Examples of '-ize' (or variants) domain names identified as unregistered examples
Other examples of suffixes which have proven recently popular in branding and marketing include '-ly' and '-ify'[18]. There is again, of course, an near-infinite number of possible unregistered domains with names of this form (if domain name length is disregarded), so the analysis in this case focused on examples where the portion of the name prior to the suffix was any of a series of keywords or terms of interest, including the set of business keywords considered previously, together with other sets of common English nouns[19] or adjectives[20] , or industry vertical keywords[21,22,23]. Some of the most compelling examples identified through this analysis, and their values as given by GoDaddy’s AI domain valuation tool (where provided), included alcoholicly[.]com, amusemently[.]com ($104), competitionly[.]com ($185), introductionly[.]com ($104), petrochemically[.]com, and breakfastify[.]com ($1,326).
In a similar vein, domains with names beginning with 'the-' are also traditionally popular in branding, both from the point of view of offering a sense of specificity and gravitas, and providing greater availability in cases where the corresponding unprefixed term may not be available as an unregistered name.
There are actually already over 3 million registered such names in the .com zone file (again, with an essentially unlimited number of unregistered name options of this form) - so the analysis in this case focuses (similarly to the previous case studies) on those unregistered names where the portion of the SLD after the prefix is any of a list of (one or more) generic English dictionary terms[24]. Some of the most interesting unregistered examples identified in this case included thedifficulty[.]com ($1,598), theco-operation[.]com, theannoyed[.]com ($1,523), thewettest[.]com, and - forming a 'pair' which could potentially be sold together at a premium, offering additional brandability options - thefattest[.]com ($1,564) and thethinnest[.]com ($1,429). Many more examples featuring word pairs after the prefix were also identified, such as 421 unregistered domains of the form thebest[noun].com (for the set of keywords considered).
Appendix A - Set of domains identified using the techniques identified in this article (source: UnregisteredGems.com) and their values as given by AI-based tools (where provided)
| Domain name |
Identification technique |
Atom.com listing type* |
Atom.com value ($) |
GoDaddy.com value ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| agonyze.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| alcoholicly.com | Suffix (-ly) | - | - | - |
| amusemently.com | Suffix (-ly) | - | - | 104 |
| analysics.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | - |
| analytc.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | - |
| apyxa.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| ataqy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| attakx.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| avianize.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | 119 |
| axidy.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,299 | 1,472 |
| bovvr.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 153 |
| breakfastify.com | Suffix (-ify) | - | - | 1,326 |
| bygly.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,397 |
| bynkle.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| byrpys.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 104 |
| byskit.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,499 | 108 |
| byzniz.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| civylize.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| cobalz.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,379 |
| competitionly.com | Suffix (-ly) | - | - | 185 |
| cyklz.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 129 |
| cymbix.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| cyrvy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| deifyr.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| demonyse.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | 109 |
| ditzzy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,237 |
| duklet.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,599 | 103 |
| dyddl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 924 |
| dygitise.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | 1,047 |
| dyxic.com | Phonotactic analysis | Standard | - | - |
| ebeya.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,399 | 1,596 |
| enaqa.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 481 |
| eqalize.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | 1,280 |
| erepy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| essexy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,682 |
| etcily.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| etiqqy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| exxotq.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| ezicle.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 142 |
| eztacy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| faxabl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| fybric.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,499 | 1,281 |
| fymme.com | Phonotactic analysis | Standard | - | 1,463 |
| fynalize.com | Suffix (-ize) | Premium | 2,299 | - |
| fysog.com | Phonotactic analysis | Standard | - | - |
| gimmyx.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 120 |
| gybble.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,259 |
| gyble.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,299 | 1,783 |
| helicl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 111 |
| ickily.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| idolyse.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| immunyze.com | Suffix (-ize) | Premium | 2,899 | 1,702 |
| introductionly.com | Suffix (-ly) | - | - | 104 |
| inzurs.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | 125 |
| inzurz.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | - |
| ixody.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| jekkyl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| jyggl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| karmyc.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,412 |
| kernok.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,341 |
| komicl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| kyppr.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| kyppy.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,299 | 1,316 |
| kyssey.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| logikq.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | 1,445 |
| logiqk.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | - |
| magiqc.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,748 |
| marxet.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | 1,392 |
| medikq.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | - |
| mediqk.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | 1,366 |
| minimyse.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| muzaks.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 116 |
| mybuks.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,304 |
| mykkey.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| mymicx.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| myncy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,404 |
| ninqy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 154 |
| nypple.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,942 |
| objecz.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| openyze.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| oxamu.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 112 |
| ozogy.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,799 | - |
| petrochemically.com | Suffix (-ly) | - | - | - |
| pukkle.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| pyckey.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| pycki.com | Phonotactic analysis | Standard | - | - |
| pycnyx.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 120 |
| pyffl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| pyrvy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| qackly.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| qaxxy.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,499 | - |
| qoblin.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| qykky.com | Phonotactic analysis | Standard | - | 870 |
| qyppy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,375 |
| qystal.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| ryckey.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| rytzy.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 1,409 |
| sckure.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | - |
| sekze.com | Phonotactic analysis | Standard | - | 149 |
| snthesize.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| stoqck.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | - |
| sztem.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | 1,519 |
| teribl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 126 |
| theannoyed.com | Prefix (the-) | - | - | 1,523 |
| theco-operation.com | Prefix (the-) | - | - | - |
| thedifficulty.com | Prefix (the-) | - | - | 1,598 |
| thefattest.com | Prefix (the-) | - | - | 1,564 |
| thethinnest.com | Prefix (the-) | - | - | 1,429 |
| thewettest.com | Prefix (the-) | - | - | - |
| tiqty.com | Phonotactic analysis | Standard | - | - |
| tyckl.com | Phonotactic analysis | Premium | 2,699 | - |
| tykkly.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 108 |
| typcly.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 128 |
| typycl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| ulogise.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| ulogize.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| utylise.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | 1,344 |
| utylize.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| uxorly.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| victiq.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| wazzox.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| wedgd.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| womanyze.com | Suffix (-ize) | - | - | - |
| wybbl.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | - |
| ylaxa.com | Phonotactic analysis | - | - | 267 |
| zrver.com | Sensational spelling | - | - | 113 |
* for all domains deemed, according the Atom.com appraisal process, to be sufficiently desirable to be accepted for sale on the marketplace as tradable commodities
References
[1] This paper primarily comprises a synopsis of key ideas and case studies presented previously in a series of articles which include:
- https://circleid.com/posts/20240903-unregistered-gems-identifying-brandable-domain-names-using-phonotactic-analysis
- https://circleid.com/posts/20240911-further-explorations-in-brandable-domain-names-sensational-spellingz
- https://circleid.com/posts/20240916-unregistered-gems-part-3-keeping-your-ize-on-the-prize
- https://circleid.com/posts/unregistered-gems-part-4-other-brandable-domain-name-styles
- https://circleid.com/posts/availability-analysis-of-brandable-variant-string-domain-names
- https://circleid.com/posts/unregistered-gems-part-5-using-groupings-to-find-brandable-domains
- https://circleid.com/posts/unregistered-gems-part-6-phonemizing-strings-to-find-brandable-domains
[2] https://www.iamstobbs.com/availability-of-domains-ebook
[3] 'Patterns in Brand Monitoring' (D.N. Barnett, Business Expert Press), Chapter 9: 'Domain landscape analysis'
[4] https://www.kolenda.io/guides/brand-names
[5] https://github.com/Kyubyong/g2p/
[6] https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/BLICK/
[7] Note that, in this analysis, 'y' is generally considered to be both a vowel and/or a consonant (depending on context)
[8] https://www.atom.com/premium-domains-for-sale/all/length/5%20Letters
[9] https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~krussll/phonetics/articulation/describing-consonants.html
[10] https://www.dyslexia-reading-well.com/44-phonemes-in-english.html
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensational_spelling
[12] This description is based broadly on the offering provided by Domai.io in partnership with UnregisteredGems.com
[15] https://www.wordstream.com/popular-keywords
[16] https://www.appella.net/2017/01/how-creative-suffixes-help-brands-get-attention
[17] https://stickybranding.com/make-your-brand-name-function-as-a-verb/
[18] https://www.ceros.com/inspire/originals/ly-ify-startup-names/
[19] https://gist.github.com/creikey/42d23d1eec6d764e8a1d9fe7e56915c6
[20] https://www.stickyball.net/esl-grammar/parts-of-speech/100-common-adjectives.html
[21] https://www.strunkmedia.com/complete-list-business-verticals-industries-sectors/ and other sources
[22] https://www.reportingninja.com/blog/google-business-profile-categories
[23] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dz0rrQG0wq1zVPFVs_oX8zRWi2IEmNv7rz3m61hMQu8/edit
[24] This analysis utilises the same lists of keywords as previously, in addition to a list of superlative terms (https://typely.com/blogs/entry/6-how-to-form-superlative-adjectives-plus-100-common-superlatives-list/)
This article was first published on 16 May 2025 at:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/overview-brandable-domain-name-discovery-techniques-so3ye/
No comments:
Post a Comment