SALT LAKE CITY — Often associated with porn, the letters "xxx" wouldn't seem right next to Disney, as in Disney.xxx.

Until now, Internet addresses generally have ended with .com, .net or .org. Approved in March, the newest web suffix — .xxx — may result in companies lining up to protect themselves. And Disney, Microsoft and Fox may feel they need to pay to keep .xxx, and the pornography associated with it, away from their valuable brands.

That's because there is a small window in which a company like Fox can buy up the rights to Fox.xxx. After that, someone else could buy that domain name and fill it with porn in an attempt to benefit from Fox's trademark.

The idea behind the new Internet domain is to establish an online red-light district. It's the same concept as the shady part of town where it's easy for someone to find strip clubs or pornography if they want it or avoid it if they don't, only for the Internet.

ICM registry, the company who created and advocated the new .xxx domain, claims it's a viable solution, but others say it isn't that simple.

Ralph Yarro, president and founder of the anti-pornography group CP80, believes .xxx has nothing to do with making the Internet safer. He claims .xxx is worthless if it isn't mandatory, and it is simply a "money-making initiative."

"Who gets to buy Mormon.xxx?" Yarro said. "You have to pay the 'porn tax' to avoid it."

ICM Registry, a Florida-based company, set the cost at up to $650 per trademark to lock up a .xxx domain name — or make sure no one else does. And because ICM Registry is in charge of .xxx, they can set the price. Mei-Lin Stark, senior vice president at Fox intellectual property, said in a recent congressional hearing they have 400 trademarks to defensively register. Therefore, Fox could to pay up to $260,000 dollars in what they could consider protection money. That's enough to buy a six-bedroom home in Orem.

Alan C. Drewsen, the executive director for the International Trademark Association said not all trademark holders have the number of marks as Fox, but the fee is a fairly substantial cost at a time when businesses are trying to avoid unnecessary costs. He said companies often sue based on regulations that prevent someone trying to use a company's trademarks on the Internet, but it isn't a very effective process because it's expensive and the defendants will often get away.

"You could imagine a system where ICM would allow companies to protect themselves at no cost," Drewsen said. "But, that's not the route they have taken."