Month: November 2010

No Second Take Needed Here

Posted on by jbourne

Canon, the popular camera maker, has recently launched a project titled Your Second Shot.  The goal of the project is to recapture special moments that were “lost” – namely, that resulted in dark, blurry photographs because of low lighting.  The project centers around Canon’s new HS SYSTEM technology, which is designed to shoot high-quality photos in low-light settings and reduce blurring.

Canon

One story featured on the Your Second Shot website is called CBGB’s.  The Postelles, a rock band from New York, played their first real gig at the legendary CBGB’s, but the photos taken to commemorate the event didn’t come out well.  So Canon recreated the gig at the same venue (despite CBGB’s having closed down in October 2006) and photos were retaken using Canon cameras featuring the HS SYSTEM technology.  Now, the Postelles have quality photographs depicting them playing on the CBGB stage.

When I first saw a commercial for the project, I noticed it displayed a Canon.com URL that was not very user friendly or recallable: Usa.Canon.com/YourSecondShot.  But when I checked further, it turns out Canon owns both YourSecondShot.com and SecondShot.com, which both point to the project website.

Not only is the Your Second Shot project a pretty cool concept, it’s also very cool to see Canon using great domain names to support the campaign and make it easier for its audience to find when they practice direct navigation.

Generic Domains and the UDRP

Posted on by slevy

A controversial domain name dispute over ErgonomicDesigns.com recently came to my attention. Ergonomic Designs Limited, the Complainant, filed the complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against Stylish Solutions Limited, the Respondent. The result of the dispute was a transfer. As someone who is very familiar with and sees domain name disputes on a daily basis, the troubling part of this case is the glaring fact that the Complainant does not have a registered trademark for the term ERGONOMIC DESIGNS.

The Complainant claimed that it had acquired common law trademark rights, but the company was only created three years ago, which is likely not enough time to establish common law trademark rights in such a generic term. Despite this fact, the Panel found that the term ERGONOMIC DESIGNS had acquired secondary meaning based on the evidence provided, which included the Complainant’s business registration under that name; its primary domain, ErgonomicDesigns.co.uk; mentions of the Complainant in magazines; and web search statistics showing that 54,000 visitors had searched for the Complainant using those terms.

In my opinion, the Panel made an error by exceeding the scope of its mandate. This type of decision should have been left to the UK or EU Community trademark offices. The Complainant does not hold a trademark for the term ERGONOMIC DESIGNS, therefore, under the UDRP, the complaint should have been denied despite all of the evidence provided by the Complainant.

By single-handedly determining that the Complainant had developed secondary meaning in its arguably generic name and awarding a transfer of the domain, the Panel granted the Complainant a de facto trademark. In doing so, the Panel denied the Respondent ownership of a name which might very well have been rejected by a trademark office examiner since generic words can not gain trademark rights regardless of how extensively they are used. In the Respondent’s own words, the words ERGONOMIC DESIGNS “cannot be the subject of a trademark because they describe goods or services and do not serve to identify a particular brand … the term is wholly descriptive”.

It is unfortunate that the Panel did not pay more heed to the Respondent’s argument because, upon review of these facts, it is clear that this is a case of what has earned the names “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” (RDNH), which is an abuse of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This is not to say that the Complainant’s argument rose to the level of a false assertion of trademark rights, I simply think that it took a very long stretch of the imagination for the Panel to come to the decision that it did. It is my conclusion, therefore, that the Panel should have rejected the claim without prejudice and suggested that the Complainant re-file the complaint after it had passed muster with a trademark office and obtained a registration.

For another perspective on this decision, check out Michael Berkens’ post over at The Domains.

Sorry for Being Awesome

Posted on by jbourne

The McRib is back.  For the first time in 16 years, McDonald’s is offering its boneless pork patty sandwich at restaurants nationwide for approximately six weeks.  And people are thrilled.

McRib

The McRib was first introduced to the McDonald’s menu in 1981, but since 1994, it has not been offered at all restaurants at the same time.  According to McDonald’s USA President, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the McRib simply does not sell well throughout the year because people get tired of it.  But the scarcity created by having only certain restaurants serve the sandwich at certain times has created a base of die-hard fans who will travel substantial distances – sometimes even hundreds of miles – to munch on a McRib.  A meteorologist in Minnesota even developed a McRib Locator website, where users can peruse a map to see where the McRib has been spotted recently.  Here’s a screenshot of the site:

McRib Locator Site

The mystery of when or even whether the McRib will appear is a huge part of its appeal, and the sandwich has become somewhat of a cultural icon.  There are hundreds of Facebook groups dedicated to the McRib, including those demanding that it return permanently, and various McRib pages have thousands of “likes.”  McDonald’s couldn’t buy this kind of fan loyalty and fervor even if it wanted to, but the company clearly understands the McRib’s appeal – billboards with a photo of the sandwich carry the simple but sassy tagline, “Sorry for being awesome.”

Yet, despite the McRib’s huge following, McDonald’s owns McRib.com but does not point it to any content.  According to Alexa, traffic to McRib.com is up over 600 percent this month, so clearly people are going to the site looking for content.  Just think of what kind of marketing it could do if the domain resolved to a specialized site with all of the things McRib lovers use the Internet for: locator maps, social networking opportunities, McRib meet-ups, etc.  The only thing that would be better than that would be for McDonald’s to offer the McRib and the Shamrock Shake at the same time.

Cerf-ing Our Way into the Next 25 Years of the Internet: A (Steve) Case Study

Posted on by jbourne

Yesterday, Yvette Miller, Sam Demetriou and I ventured out to Tysons Corner, VA for an event titled “The Future of the Internet.”  Presented by business news company Bisnow, the event featured Vint Cerf, regarded as “the Father of the Internet” and now Chief Internet Evangelist at Google, and Steve Case, co-founder of AOL.

The event was laid back, and ran more as a conversation than formal presentation.  During the first half, moderator Tony Lupo, a Partner at Arent Fox, conducted a casual interview of Don Rippert, CTO at Accenture, and Vint Cerf.  For the second half, Mark Bisnow of Bisnow chatted with Steve Case.  The overarching theme of both discussions focused on the speakers’ insights into how the Internet continues to evolve, and the role it will play for users, businesses and society in the coming years.  It was an incredible opportunity to listen to what these men, who have been so influential in how the Internet has taken shape and become an integral part of our lives, think about the current state of the Internet and the vast possibilities for its future.

One of the most interesting parts of the discussion, I think, was Steve Case’s opinion about the way the Internet has changed democracy in our society. I won’t quote him, but generally, he does not believe the Internet has necessarily made the democratic process better, but rather that it has created more political “noise.”  Having to sift through this excess information of varying quality makes participating in the process more complicated.  This viewpoint contrasts with popular opinion that the digital age has made democracy more accessible to many Americans.

I penned a blog post on Election Day in 2008.  Two years later, I think most people would agree that the Internet has dramatically changed the way people look at politics and voting.  The 2008 presidential election will go down in history as a turning point in how candidates conduct their campaigns.  And beyond campaigning, the public can continue to track officeholders’ incumbencies via Twitter and Facebook.  To illustrate, a friend of mine works as the “New Media Director” for an Illinois Congressman.  Such a position did not exist even five years ago.  Good or bad, like it or not, the Internet is having, and will have, an impact on the democratic process.

Another part of yesterday’s event that really impressed me was Vint Cerf’s attitude.  He was genuinely impressed with the amazing ways developers have used the Internet’s capabilities to create new applications that make our lives better.

Overall, I found the event fascinating and was glad I had the chance to attend.  It reminded me of why I got into this business in the first place.