Month: October 2009

Virginia Dept. of Health Gets Clever Domain to Promote H1N1 Vaccine

Posted on by jbourne

I was watching television the other night and a commercial came on about H1N1 flu vaccines.  H1N1, or Swine Flu as it is commonly referred to, has been a hot topic recently, especially as we move into flu season.  The advertisement mentioned the importance of good hygiene practices to prevent the spread of the flu, but what really caught my attention was the domain name announced at the end of the spot: h1n1get1.com.

I visited h1n1get1.com and found a simple Web site urging that the H1N1 vaccine is safe and works to prevent the flu, as well as tips on how to prevent spreading the disease and links to the Departments of Health in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.  Atop the page was the catchy little slogan, “It’s up to you to prevent the flu.”  But nowhere on the page was there any mention of an affiliation – I was expecting to see the logo of a health authority like the CDC.

After doing a little digging, I learned that h1n1get1.com is registered to Emily Greenwood, who, according to the email address listed in the WHOIS information, is an associate at Fultz Marketing, a marketing firm out of Richmond, VA.  As it turns out, the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) is a client of Fultz’s.  The connection between the two became more obvious when I followed the link to Twitter on h1n1get1.com and saw the account was named @VDH_H1N1.

This campaign is an interesting example of how domains can be used.  The domain h1n1get1.com is catchy and memorable (plus there is little chance that Internet users will think that the “ones” are written rather than numerical), and it can serve as a means for the VDH to inform the public about H1N1 and ways to treat and prevent it.  However, I think it would be better for the VDH to show that it is clearly behind the message and the Web site itself. Not including any reference to the VDH risks making the site appear illegitimate or amateur.  Any site can link to the CDC, and wary Internet users might be turned off if they cannot identify the site’s affiliation with a health authority.

The Virginia Department of Health and Fultz have all the tools they need: a catchy domain, a tie-in with social media, and even a TV advertisement for the site.  But in order for this campaign to really take off, they should focus on better Web site development in order to utilize the domain name to its full potential.

UDRP Gets Personal for Glenn Beck

Posted on by slevy

Playing off a joke made by Gilbert Gottfried during the comedic roast of Bob Saget that recently resurfaced in the Fark forums, Internet user Isaac Eiland-Hall registered the domain name glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com.  The Web site was set up as a parody meant to criticize television news host Glenn Beck’s interviewing and reporting tactics.  At the bottom of the site is a disclaimer that reads, “Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven’t yet seen proof that he didn’t. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.”

Days after Eiland-Hall had registered the domain Beck took action, filing an administrative complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  The complaint claimed that the site was improperly using a trademark and the domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.  Eiland-Hall’s lawyer responded that because the site is a legitimate criticism site, his client has legitimate rights to the domain name.

Beck’s complaint does not actually prove that he owns any trademark rights to his name and the response to Beck’s complaint notes that, unlike a trademark that is actually being used by its owner, an intent-to-use trademark application does not create any rights in the mark until it is fully registered (and the owner must prove actual use in order for it to register). However, UDRP allows alternatives to proving trademark registration. In a recent decision involving ashleyjudd.com, the panel found that it is “well-established that where an actor has a sufficient reputation for her professional work under her name or stage name, that name is a mark in which she has rights for the purpose of the UDRP.”

This qualification of reputation allowed the panel to find that the domain name ashleyjudd.com is confusingly similar to the famous persona of Ashley Judd. The difference here is that ashleyjudd.com is a domain solely comprised of the actress’s name, whereas the domain containing Beck’s name may not be considered sufficiently confusingly similar to grant him rights to the name.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of Beck’s complaint—the UDRP exists primarily to deal with cybersquatting, not matters of defamation or libel, so WIPO is an unusual forum for this type of domain dispute.