# Founder and executive names onchain
> How counsel and chiefs of staff handle the personal names of founders and executives onchain: the legal basis, who holds the name, and what happens at exit.
Source: https://hush.partners/founder-and-executive-names-onchain
Category: Brand protection
Published by Hush Partners.
---
Most brand protection files start from a trademark certificate. The file for a founder or an executive starts from a person. Their name was given to them at birth, they will carry it after they leave the company, and in most legal systems the company has no automatic right over it. Yet the name is commercially tied to the business for as long as the person fronts it, and in naming systems that sit outside the DNS it can be registered by anyone who gets there first.
That combination is why the question lands on the desk of the general counsel or the chief of staff and not on the desk of the trademark team alone. A personal name asks questions a registration does not answer: whose asset is it, who pays for it, who holds the keys, what the person has agreed to, and what happens on the day the person resigns, is dismissed, retires or dies.
This article sets out a way to answer those questions for onchain names. It gives information, not legal advice: the rules on personal names differ sharply from one country to the next, and your own counsel decides.
## Why an executive's name is not a trademark
A trademark protects a sign used in trade to tell one source of goods or services from another. The right comes from registration, use or both, depending on the country, and is scoped to goods, services and territories. It belongs to whoever registered or built it, which is almost always the company.
A personal name is protected by a different and more scattered set of rules. Depending on the country, a person may rely on a right to their own name, on personality or publicity rights that cover the commercial use of their identity, on rules against passing off or unfair competition, on privacy and data protection law, and on defamation law where a use misrepresents them. Some pass to heirs and some end with the person. None of them needs a registration, and none of them is owned by the employer.
Three consequences follow. First, the company usually cannot act in its own name on the strength of the executive's personal rights. If a third party uses the chief executive's name in a way that harms her, the claimant is in principle the chief executive. The company has a separate claim only if the use also misleads people about the company.
Second, a personal name can become a trademark, and many have. A surname or full name can often be registered as a mark where it is distinctive for the goods or services, and many offices ask for the consent of the living person named. Once registered and used, it is a mark like any other, owned by the registrant. So the same string of letters can be at once a person's name and a company's mark, with two different owners of two different rights.
Third, many legal systems give a person some room to use their own name honestly in business even where someone else holds a mark for it. That room is often narrow, and it is where disputes between companies and departed founders tend to start.
Onchain, none of these rights is applied by the naming system itself. The UDRP, the dispute policy that binds registrants of names in ICANN's generic TLDs through their registration contracts, does not reach names recorded outside the DNS. What remains is the law of each country, the policies of the platforms that display names, and the contracts you write yourself. The last of these is the one you control.
## The forms a founder's name takes onchain
Before deciding who should hold anything, be exact about what "the founder's name onchain" means. It can mean five different objects, and they are not held, issued or protected in the same way.
An onchain TLD is a top-level name recorded on a blockchain instead of in the ICANN root. On Freename, it exists as a token sitting in a wallet, and whoever controls that wallet controls the TLD. There is no yearly renewal to pay on a Freename TLD, so nothing lapses if an invoice is missed. Issuing a name under a TLD is reserved to its holder. These names resolve in software that supports them, such as certain wallets and a browser extension, and not in an ordinary browser on its own; coverage is partial and changes.
| Form | Who can create it | Typical concern |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Surname or full name as a TLD | Whoever registers it first | Held by a stranger, or by the person privately |
| Executive's name under `.yourbrand` | Only the holder of `.yourbrand` | Who receives it, and what happens on departure |
| Executive's name under `.yoursector` | Only the holder of `.yoursector` | Issued by a third party the company does not control |
| Name under a shared public suffix | Any registrant, first come | Many variants, low individual weight |
| Surname that is also the brand | Whoever registers it first | Person and company both have a claim |
The first row is the scarce one: there is a single TLD for a given string within a registry. The second row is the one the company controls completely, provided it holds its own TLD: nobody but the holder can create a name for the chief executive under `.yourbrand`. The third row matters in sectors where a market TLD has become a directory of practitioners: a name issued under `.yoursector` in the form of `name.yoursector` reads as a professional identity, and it is issued by the operator of that TLD under the operator's own terms, not by you.
The fourth row deserves monitoring, not acquisition. The fifth is the hard case.
## Which executives belong in the inventory
Not every name on the organization chart needs the same treatment. Three tests narrow it.
The first test is public identification. Does the outside world link this person's name to the company without being told? Founders, the chief executive, the chair and a handful of public-facing leaders usually pass.
The second test is authority to move money or commit the company. A name that appears to belong to the chief financial officer carries weight with a supplier or a junior employee precisely because of what a real chief financial officer can approve.
The third test is permanence of the link. A founder whose surname is on the building has a link that outlasts any contract; a hired chief executive does not. The longer the link, the more the holding arrangement matters.
Score each candidate on the three tests in plain words, not numbers, and keep the result short. For the brand side of the same exercise, the [Namespace Exposure Score](/namespace-exposure-score) gives a structured view.
## When the founder's surname is also the brand
Many companies carry the name of the person who started them. In that case the string behind `.yourbrand` is a family name, and three parties can have a legitimate interest in it: the company that trades under it and may hold marks for it, the founder who was born with it, and members of the same family who have nothing to do with the business.
The question to settle is which right the onchain name follows. There are two defensible answers, and the wrong move is to leave the choice unmade.
If the name functions as the company's trading identity, treat the TLD as a brand asset. The company holds it, under the same custody rules as its other onchain assets, and the founder consents in writing to that holding and to the company's use of the name. This matches how the trademark is usually handled, and it survives the founder's exit.
If the founder has a public life that is wider than the company, such as other ventures, a foundation, authorship or public office, the founder may reasonably want the bare surname for personal use. A workable split gives the company the TLD that matches the mark as used, and the founder the forms that are plainly personal, such as first name and surname together. Where only one string exists and both want it, the agreement decides, and it should be reached while relations are good.
The page on [trademark TLDs](/trademark-tlds) explains what makes a TLD a match for a mark. It answers the company's side of the question, not the founder's, whose interest does not rest on a mark.
Be careful with other members of the family. A cousin who registers the family surname for a personal site is using their own name. Treating that person as an adversary is usually wrong in law and in tone.
## Person or company: who should hold the name
For each name in the inventory, someone has to be the holder of record, which onchain means the party controlling the wallet where the token sits. There are three arrangements in practice.
| Arrangement | Works well when | Main weakness |
| --- | --- | --- |
| The person holds, in a personal wallet | The name is personal and outlives the job | Company has no control; key hygiene is the person's own |
| The company holds, in a corporate wallet | The name doubles as a brand, or the role matters more than the person | Company holds an identifier of a private individual |
| The company holds, with a written right for the person to receive it | The link is strong during the term and personal after it | Depends on a document being signed and kept |
### The person holds
The asset is the person's and leaves with them without formality. The company's interest is limited to two things: that the name is not used to speak for the company without authority, and that it is not lost to a careless mistake while the person is in office.
The weakness is custody. A senior executive's personal wallet is rarely managed to the standard of a corporate one, and losing a wallet's keys is generally final: no help desk can restore them. If the company encourages or funds a personal registration, it should also offer practical help with safekeeping, without taking control of the keys. One precaution is worth passing on: a public blockchain shows everything a wallet holds and has done, so a personal name belongs in a wallet used for that purpose and nothing else.
Funding raises a second point. If the company pays for an asset that the executive owns personally, that may be a benefit to the person with tax and disclosure consequences, and in some companies it may need formal approval. The treatment depends on the country and on the person's status. Ask before paying, not after.
### The company holds
The company holds the token in a wallet under its own rules, ideally a multisignature wallet, meaning one that needs several approvers to move an asset, so that no single employee can transfer it. This is the right default where the name is also the brand, and for names created under the company's own TLD for a role.
The weakness is that the company now holds something that identifies a private individual. In countries with strong personality or data protection rules, holding and using a person's name as an identifier calls for a clear basis, and consent given by an employee to an employer is not always treated as freely given. A company that keeps a former executive's name years after the exit, with no use for it and no agreement, is holding a liability.
### The company holds, the person has a right to it
The third arrangement often fits a hired executive. The company holds the name during the term of office, because the link to the business is strongest then and the company's custody is better. A short written agreement gives the person the right to have the token transferred to a wallet of their choice when they leave, on stated conditions. It joins the company's custody to the person's interest in their own name.
## The agreement that sits behind the holding
Whatever arrangement you choose, an onchain record shows only which wallet holds the name. It does not show why, on whose behalf, or on what terms. That gap is filled by a document, and without the document the wallet decides.
The agreement can be a clause set in the service contract or a short stand-alone deed. It should cover the following points in plain language.
- **Identification.** The exact names concerned, the registry and the wallet that holds each one.
- **Capacity.** Whether the holder holds for itself or for the other party, and who paid.
- **Consent.** The person's consent to the company holding and using the name, for which purposes, and how that consent can be withdrawn where local law requires that it can be.
- **Permitted use.** What the name may point at during the term, and what it may never be used for, by either side.
- **Departure.** What happens on each type of exit, who transfers what, to which wallet, within what period.
- **Death and incapacity.** Who may ask for the transfer if the person cannot.
- **Costs.** Who bears acquisition costs and any tax arising on a transfer.
- **Records after transfer.** That every record pointing at company systems or company wallets is cleared before the token moves.
Two drafting cautions. Do not write an obligation that the company cannot perform: if the name was issued under a third party's TLD, the company can only promise what the terms of that TLD allow. And do not let the agreement restrain a person from using their own name in later business beyond what local law permits; such restraints are closely examined in many countries and an overreaching clause can fail entirely.
## What happens when an executive leaves
Departures are where a file that looked tidy is tested. The handling depends on which of the five forms the name takes and on who holds it.
A name held personally leaves with the person, and the company's task is limited to its own side: removing the name from company materials and making sure it no longer appears as a company contact or payment destination. A name held by the company under an agreement is transferred as the agreement says. A TLD that is also the brand stays with the company, and the founder's consent to that, given earlier in writing, is what keeps the exit from becoming a dispute over the namespace.
Names issued under the company's own TLD need more care. If a name for the executive under `.yourbrand` was issued to a wallet the company controls, the company simply repoints or retires it. If it was issued to the executive's personal wallet, the position is less clear. Whether a TLD holder can withdraw or change a name once it has been issued is assessed case by case, and you should not assume it. The practical lesson is to issue names that denote a role or a person's function to company-controlled wallets from the start.
Handling an executive's names at departure
Pull the inventory entryList every name tied to the person, with its form, its holder and the agreement that governs it. Do this when notice is given, not on the last day.
Clear the recordsRemove payment addresses, links and any other record on those names that points to company wallets or company content. A name must not carry company destinations once it leaves company control.
Apply the agreementTransfer, keep or retire each name as the document provides. Where there is no document, agree the outcome in the exit paper before anything moves.
Confirm the receiving walletHave the person confirm the wallet address through a channel you already trust, and send to it once. A transfer to a wrong address is generally not reversible.
Update what the public seesRemove the name from the website, guidelines, supplier notices and any directory where the company published it.
File the resultRecord the transaction reference and the final state of each name in the departure file, next to the access revocations.
If a departure is hostile and the person controls a wallet holding something the company considers its own, the remedy is the contract and the courts of the relevant country, not anything the company can do onchain.
A successor inherits a name issued for the role and starts a fresh inventory entry for anything personal. Never reissue a departed person's name to someone else.
## When someone else already holds an executive's name
At some point the inventory will show that a name is taken. The first discipline is not to assume bad intent. Personal names are shared. Unrelated people carry the same surname or full name, and any of them can register it for their own reasons. Registration alone tells you nothing about purpose.
What matters is use. Look at what the name points to and how it presents itself. A name that carries no records and no content is a registration, not a use. A name that publishes a page presenting itself as the executive, or that is offered to others as a payment destination for the company, is a use that may mislead, and it engages the rights described in the first section, plus the acceptable use policies of the wallets, platforms and marketplaces that display it.
The options, in ascending order of weight, are these.
Leave it and watch it. For a common name with no misleading use, this is the correct answer and not a failure. Ongoing monitoring of this kind is what a [namespace watch](/namespace-watch) is for.
Report a misleading use to the platform that displays it. Platforms act on their own terms. A factual report from the person concerned, with evidence of the confusion, is the appropriate route.
Take local legal advice on the person's own rights. Where a use causes real harm, the executive, and possibly the company alongside, may have a claim under the law of a country where the user or the harm can be located. That is often difficult across borders.
Acquire the name by agreement. Where the name is scarce and the link to the company is strong, a quiet purchase is sometimes the simplest outcome for both sides. It is a commercial offer, made without legal threats the facts do not support: a holder using their own surname owes you nothing. Where the TLD matches the company's brand, the acquisition route is described under [brand namespace recovery](/brand-namespace-recovery).
## What an executive's name should point to, and what it should not
An onchain name can hold records, such as wallet addresses for receiving payments and a link to published content. For a brand, those records are the point. For an executive's personal name, restraint is usually the better policy.
A named individual with authority over payments is the classic figure that fraudsters imitate in messages to finance staff and suppliers. The defense is procedural: payment instructions are verified through an established channel, whoever appears to send them. Onchain names do not change that rule. If the company publishes that payments go to a name under its own TLD, such as `pay.yourbrand`, then it should say with equal clarity that no payment is ever requested to the personal name of an individual executive.
Holding a name with no records is a complete and respectable position. It keeps the name out of misleading use and makes no statement that could later be wrong. A Freename TLD held this way carries no annual renewal fee; for a name under someone else's TLD, check that registry's terms. Because support varies between wallets and browsers, an executive's name should never be the only way to reach or pay anyone. What works, and where, is set out on the page describing [what is live](/whats-live).
## Opening the file: a first review for counsel and the chief of staff
Start with a single sitting of four people: the general counsel or a delegate, the chief of staff, whoever is responsible for the company's wallets, and the person who owns the trademark portfolio.
Work through four items in order. Apply the three tests and write the short list of people. For each person, write down the forms of their name that matter and the state of each: free, held by the company, held by the person, or held by someone else. Pick a holding arrangement for each name and note which ones need an agreement that does not yet exist. Then check the departure procedure against the last senior exit the company had, and see what would have been missed.
The founders and executives themselves should be consulted before anything is registered or acquired in their name. An executive who learns after the fact that the company holds an identifier for them has a fair grievance, and in some countries a legal one.
Where the review shows that a name which matters is held by a third party, and the facts point to a purchase by agreement, Hush Partners can be mandated to approach the holder on the organization's behalf. Exchanges with the desk sit under a [standard mutual NDA](/nda), which matters more than usual when the subject is a named individual. The page for [brands and legal teams](/brands-and-legal-teams) describes how such a file runs, and the [contact form](/contact) is the way to open one.
## Questions people ask
### Can a company register its chief executive's name as a trademark to protect it?
In many countries a personal name can be registered as a mark if it is distinctive for the goods or services concerned, and offices often require the consent of the living person. A registration protects use of the name as a sign in trade for those goods and services. It does not give the company the person's own rights over their identity, and it does not by itself decide who holds an onchain name.
### Should a board member's name be treated like an executive's?
Apply the same three tests. Non-executive directors are often publicly identified with several organizations at once, which weakens any one company's claim to hold their name. For most, the appropriate treatment is monitoring and, where they wish, a personal registration that they hold themselves.
### What about nicknames and initials?
Treat them by function. A nickname or set of initials by which a founder is widely known in the market belongs in the inventory like the full name. The legal protection of an assumed name varies even more between countries than that of a legal name, so take local advice before relying on it.