Matt Cutts, who leads Google’s efforts to root out spam from its search results, has some pertinent advice about the use of country code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs like .UK and .US) as a viable alternative to the .COM space.
In this video, from the website of media company Examiner.com, Cutts says that memorable .COM names can be hard to come by (unless you’re willing to come up with a new word) so web developers turn to ccTLD extensions. But Cutts says that Google “geotargets” domain names that end in a ccTLD, meaning Google assumes that the content on a ccTLD site is meant to serve the country represented by the ccTLD, therefore search result rankings are determined by how well the site serves that particular country.
So, should website developers bother to get creative with something like Google.It?
Maybe, maybe not; you just have to go in with your eyes open.
According to Cutts, if most of the domain names in a ccTLD pertain to that country, Google will assume that your domain name does too. It would be difficult to attain a high ranking in Google’s algorithm if the ccTLD is widely used for country specific information. For example, using an .LI domain name to indicate Long Island when the ccTLD is for Liechtenstein, and is widely used as such, would result in low Google rankings.
However, certain “generic” ccTLDs – such as .IO for the Indian Ocean – are widely acknowledged to be for worldwide use rather than for local, geographic use. Google lists these “generic” ccTLDs is here (halfway down the page).
Consider this an important resource if you’re thinking of a new marketing campaign, business, or personal site that uses a novelty domain. Maybe you’re a music buff and want to set up YourName.DJ to share your choice of great dance tracks. The Charleston, S.C., tourist bureau, for example, might buy Charleston.SC. And just think of the possibilities for cable and the network sites in .TV.
There are many possible issues to discuss in the New Jersey Turnpike Authority’s failed attempt to reclaim the domain names gardenstateparkway.com and njturnpike.com through a UDRP complaint. There’s the issue of laches: the domains were registered in 1998, and the complainant claims it only just learned of these domains in 2012 – 14 years later! Also, at one point, the Respondent’s websites showed a graphic of a hand pointing the middle finger as a protest against tolls on the roadways managed by the Complainant – so, this could have been claimed as fair use.
However, what ultimately doomed this case was that the Complainant failed to provide evidence that it owned trademark rights to the NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE and GARDEN STATE PARKWAY names in 1998 when the domains were first registered.
The Complainant had filed the appropriate U.S. trademark applications, but most of these were done in 2012 – certainly after the respondent registered the domains. However, since the Complainant had been managing these roadways for over 50 years, presumably it would have been possible for it to dig up some old materials showing that it had common-law (unregistered) trademark rights in the names and that the names were not merely geographic terms used by a state government to identify these roadways. This then, would show that the Complainant’s trademark rights existed when the domains were first registered, making it possible to prove that the Respondent acted in bad faith at that time, as is required by the UDRP.
Unfortunately for the Complainant, no proof of these common-law trademark rights was submitted into evidence.
So the bottom line here is that, either the Complainant’s lawyers didn’t advise putting in this evidence of common-law trademark rights or the Complainant wasn’t able to find enough material to prove that it had such rights back in 1998 when the domains were registered. Either way, it’s clear that this case shouldn’t have been brought under the UDRP and that Complainant should have considered more experienced domain enforcement counsel for this very challenging situation.
Photo credit - mimithorisson.com. Great food blog!
Online cooking blogs are where I get most of my inspiration: beautiful pictures of summer cakes happily studded with fruit (for the record, this one is a hit whenever I make it), luxurious sauces draped over entrees (this was a successful Father’s Day dinner), and homemade versions of fast-food favorites (yum) get my creative juices flowing.
I catch the occasional cooking show on PBS or the Food Network, and I have some lovely cookbooks, but it’s the gourmands of the online world that inspire me to tackle projects in the kitchen. I start to think, I can do that, too. And it’s not too long before I do and then start eyeing the more complicated recipes to try next.
“This campaign really hits on a food perspective that consumers always challenge themselves to do more. And we want to be a part of that,” Cynthia Soledad, senior director of KitchenAid’s brand and marketing division told Adweek. “We are celebrating their challenges and providing them with additional content that they can use for inspiration.”
KitchenAid, which makes, among many other things, the iconic baking mixer, is doubling its digital and traditional media advertising budget, but it’s the digital that interests me most.
According to Adweek, KitchenAid is “offering a bevy of cooking tips via a dedicated brand blog, 10 partner bloggers, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest.”
How will new gTLDs fit in with the mix(er)? KitchenAid certainly will have scores of new ways to advertise its wares. And cooks may gravitate towards a few select and intuitive sites for inspiration and content. Maybe I’ll build a profile such as CateredToMyTastes.COOKING, or find like minded cooks at StrawberryCake.FOOD. I’m getting hungry just thinking about how this new digital ingredient will help create a cyber feast for the eyes and imaginations of cooks everywhere.
Even though the result in this case ended in a transfer, we are reminded that just because a UDRP Respondent fails to submit a response doesn’t mean that a decision will automatically be made in favor of the complainant.
PayPal, Inc., filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against Daniel Benel over the domain name mypaypal.com.
In its complaint, PayPal, a well known website that prides itself on its ability to offer a fast, safe way to pay and get paid online, contended that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and corporate name, that Benel does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain, and that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Benel failed to reply, yet this does not mean that the WIPO panel was willing to simply award ownership of the domain name to PayPal without properly assessing whether its case was solid or not (except in the case of exceptional circumstances).
The consensus view is that a respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant and that the complainant must establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) paragraph 4.6).
In proceeding with its assessment of this complaint, the panel did find that PayPal was able to satisfy all three elements of the UDRP policy and that the domain name should be transferred. Potential complainants should take note, though, of the panel’s strict adherence to the rules and, no matter what kind of respondent they may be dealing with, they must always be prepared to make their case and meet all requirements set forth by the UDRP.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) issued its traditional communiqué at the conclusion of ICANN’s public meeting in Durban, but the most sought-after information was absent.
The GAC has not published a definitive list of strings it plans to review for additional safeguards – because the strings may be sensitive, relate to consumer protection, or involve regulated industries – so the list remains non-exhaustive.
The GAC also did not produce definitive recommendations on whether applicants for closed generic extensions such as .BOOK or .SHOP may operate them exclusively or must allow the public to register second-level domains within them.
Without greater clarification on these two points, many applications cannot move forward and will not progress through the evaluation or contracting process.
Other tidbits from the GAC’s Durban Communiqué:
The signs have been pointing to this all week, but the GAC formally announced that it would advise the ICANN Board to reject the applications for .AMAZON (and its translated equivalents) and .THAI based on potential conflicts with their geographic significance
The applications for .DATE and .PERSIANGULF, originally flagged as potentially problematic, will now proceed without objections from the GAC. The GAC could not reach a consensus on objecting to .PERSIANGULF (Iran originally raised its concerns about the string) and the Japanese government, which originally objected to .DATE, reached an agreement with the applicant and rescinded its objection
The GAC has noted concerns expressed by its new representative from the government of India over the strings .INDIANS and .RAM, so we can expect to see more about these strings in future communications from the GAC
Clearly the GAC is holding on to its right to comment on all aspects of new gTLDs and the New gTLD Program. In fact, the gTLD applicants who have already signed contracts with ICANN for their new gTLDs have also agreed to sign a supplemental document allowing ICANN to unilaterally change provisions of the contract to implement current or perhaps future GAC Advice.
Of the three dispute providers selected by ICANN, WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) is the first out of the gates to hand down decisions against legal rights objections to gTLDs and in favor of applicants.
Of note, WIPO recently rejected objections against the .Limited gTLD, which was applied for by Donuts, and an objection against .RightAtHome, which was applied for by S.C. Johnson.
In the case of .RightAtHome, the objector was unable to prove that the gTLD would create an unfair likelihood of confusion with its own RIGHT AT HOME trademark. The use of the word “unfair” in this standard means that it must be proven that the applicant exhibits some improper motive in applying for and using its .RightAtHome gTLD.
While the Panelist acknowledges that the trademarks of the parties are identical in sound and very close in appearance, the Panelist agreed with the applicant’s assertion that different businesses can each use the identical trademark for different industries where each has legitimate rights to their respective mark.
The Panelist also agreed that the “peaceful coexistence of the parties’ respective marks” over the past few years and the fact that the listed gTLD applicant has permission [from its parent company, SC Johnson] to use the RIGHT@HOME mark for purposes of this gTLD application should allow the application for .RightAtHome to continue.
In the case of .Limited, Limited Stores filed an objection against Donuts on the grounds that “the mark THE LIMITED has been registered in numerous countries and jurisdictions to identify and distinguish its clothing and accessories.” Donuts’ response was the “limited” is a generic term and “its second level names will be attractive to a variety of Internet users.”
The WIPO Panelist decided that Donuts can continue with its .Limited application since, ultimately, the extension doesn’t have the article “The” before the word “Limited”. The panelist noted that the “[New gTLD Applicant] Guidebook suggests that there must be something more than mere advantage gained, or mere impairment, or mere likelihood of confusion for an Objection to succeed under the Procedure. It seems, rather, that there must be something untoward – even if not to the level of bad faith – in the conduct or motives of Applicant, or something intolerable in the state of affairs which would obtain if Applicant were permitted to keep the String in dispute.”
So far, it looks like the rubric in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook is producing unambiguous results and the WIPO Panelists are taking a rather conservative approach that favors gTLD applicants and the ICANN process. Will that continue? We can only wait and see.
The Mayor of New York City recently announced that .NYC had been approved as a new, geographic top-level domain (TLD) by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). As Mayor Bloomberg explained in a press release, “Having our own unique, top-level domain – .NYC – puts New York City at the front of the digital landscape and creates new opportunities for our small businesses.”
Consulting firm NYC & Company subsequently released a report on the economic significance of the tourism industry in New York City. As Newsday reported, “George Fertitta, NYC & Company’s CEO, said his team created the report not only to show the candidates how important tourism is for the city’s economy — it got a boost of $55.3 billion last year from the industry — but also to cultivate ideas for how to expand it.”
Good timing? I think so.
As a hotbed of creativity and productivity, the setting of countless novels, plays, and movies, home to the United Nations, not to mention the world’s financial, publishing, art, dance, theater, and fashion centers, New York City is more than a city – it’s a brand (as the I ♥ NY campaign by Milton Glaser has both proved and solidified). Or, as E.B. White puts it in his classic 1949 essay “Here is New York”, the Big Apple is “nothing like Paris; it is nothing like London; and its not Spokane multiplied by sixty, or Detroit multiplied by four. It is by all odds the loftiest of cities.”
.NYC is coming!
New York City is famous for its Chinatown, but also boasts communities of immigrants from all over the world. Now a range of communities and ethnic groups – from Jamaicans in Brooklyn to Greeks in Queens to Orthodox Jews in the Bronx – can establish space within the cyber melting pot of .NYC. In terms of the impact on tourism, according to Newsday’s article, “The largest increase in tourists came from international visitors, with 11 million non-Americans coming into the city last year versus 7.26 million in 2006.” Within .NYC, the city has endless opportunities to tailor websites to specific nationalities of both residents and visitors.
Then, of course, there are the various districts and streets of Manhattan, each associated with its own industry:
MADISON AVENUE: ADVERTISING GARMENT DISTRICT: FASHION TIMES SQUARE: THEATER MEATPACKING DISTRICT: CLUBS, GALLERIES SOHO: RESTAURANT WEEK
And, finally, there are the institutions, from the United Nations to New York University, the 92nd Street Y to The Metropolitan Museum of Art. For .NYC, the possibilities for innovative communication, promotion, and community engagement are endless. Perhaps best of all, though, with the open frontier of .NYC comes extra assurance that Internet users will reach legitimate New York City-related content.
Why?
In order to receive a .NYC domain name, organizations and businesses will need to have a New York City address and individuals must be residents; in addition, .NYC has trademark and cybersquatting safeguards in place. The Mets, Yankees, and Knicks could redirect their existing .COM domains to .NYC, where fans could be sure that they’re reaching legitimate content and purchasing original gear (and anyone who’s walked around near Canal Street knows that consumers in the city could use some extra protection when it comes to trademarks).
Again, E.B. White summed up the city best: “New York is the concentrate of art and commerce and sport and religion and entertainment and finance, bringing to a single compact arena the gladiator, the evangelist, the promoter, the actor, the trader and the merchant.” The .NYC TLD has the potential to – and very likely will – become the cyber concentrate of White’s New York City.
Interested in learning more? Visit mydotnyc.com. Have questions about new gTLDs and registering your business’ websites within one? Contact us and a consultant will get back to you within 24 hours.
At the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) public meeting in Durban, the ICANN Board held a session with its Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and covered the following major topics:
ICANN’s Proposed Strategic Planning Panels
These panels will be convened to tackle five issues that, ICANN’s CEO Fadi Chehadé stated, were determined at ICANN’s last public meeting in Beijing and need to be discussed and resolved as a community.
GAC members pushed Mr. Chehadé for additional information about how these panels will interact with other parts of the community, how transparency will be ensured, and how governments can be closely involved. Mr. Chehadé stressed that government input would be welcome either through membership on these panels, or through feedback throughout the discussion process. These panels will conduct its business transparently, holding public town hall meetings (either virtually or live) and publishing documents for comment.
Category 1 Safeguards, Singular/Plural Versions of .EXTENSIONS, and Dotless Domains
The GAC and ICANN Board discussed Category 1 Safeguards (.EXTENSIONS relating to consumer protection, sensitive strings, and strings linked to regulated markets); the GAC’s ongoing concerns over applications for potentially confusing singular and plural .EXTENSIONS, and the GAC’s concerns about dotless domains, which could allow, for example, http://search to resolve to content in .SEARCH. No conclusions have been reached as of yet, but the Board does expect to advance discussions in August, when a commissioned report on the issue will be completed.
The New gTLD Registry Agreement (RA) and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
The European Commission highlighted the fact that certain provisions in the RA and RAA may violate national privacy laws and this will create certain inherent disadvantages in contracting. The Board acknowledged this concern but did not have much to say in reply.
Internationalization and Outreach
Multiple GAC representatives brought up the need for increased outreach to developing countries and inquired about the Board’s intentions to further “internationalize” ICANN through new engagement centers, particularly in Geneva. Mr. Chehadé stated that many international organizations have a presence Geneva, and ICANN has until now been absent from that city and from the dialogue that takes place there. He went on to note that ICANN’s office in Geneva is about investing time to engage with international organizations and foster an understanding and appreciate of ICANN’s multistakeholder model of Internet governance.
Keeping the organization transparent
Heather Dryden, chair of the GAC, stated that the group is working on a code of conduct, and that the group needs to be transparent about its discussions and decisions in the same way as other parts of the ICANN community. Mr. Chehadé brought up new transparency measures enacted for ICANN’s project management team; each project is assigned a budget number and real-time status updates so that the public can keep track of the progress and costs of ICANN’s efforts.
The Internet community is witnessing the beginning stages of a paradigm transition of WHOIS, and the focus is on who needs what data – and why. The consensus/messaging was that the “Status quo is not an option” (which, if one wants to speculate, could mean more record keeping and other additional responsibilities for registries).
Balancing privacy concerns with law enforcement concerns (like jurisdiction) – while also improving data accuracy and ensuring accountability – are the key issues to be discussed and resolved through this “paradigm shift”.
EWG acknowledges that some committees in the Internet Community, like the GAC, may be wary of certain proposed changes to WHOIS.
During the discussion phase of the meeting, participants voiced concerns over a wide variety of issues – from how the central repository would create a “single point of failure” and the possibility of additional contractual responsibilities for registries, to concerns regarding multiple jurisdictions and Aggregated RDS (ARDS).
However, all concerns raised during the meeting can be traced back to the need and desire to improve privacy, accuracy, and accountability of WHOIS. While arriving at and implementing a new WHOIS (such as defining what “accountability” means in the WHOIS context) will be challenging, the EWG’s Initial Report on gTLD Directory Services and the follow-up discussion with the community that occurred today are steps in the right direction.
Conference room in Durban taken by our colleagues on the ground at ICANN 47.
Buzz regarding the latest development in ICANN’s new gTLD Program interrupted the pre-holiday hush of more than one corporate office this morning: the ICANN Board has given ICANN President Fadi Chehadé the authority to proceed with the New gTLD Program based upon the approved version of the Registry Agreement (RA), which can be found here.
FairWinds expects a lively debate about the new RA at meetings ICANN has scheduled at its conference in Durban, South Africa July 14-18. Stakeholders – except applicants for open .GENERIC gTLDs, who got a green light from the ICANN Board – are eager to learn more about ICANN’s decisions, voice their remaining concerns, and advocate for solutions.
Fortunately, ICANN is aware of the impact the RA will have on its stakeholders and has scheduled meetings in Durban with .BRANDs to discuss provisions they want and need to operate closed gTLDs. ICANN also has scheduled meetings in Durban with the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to discuss the delegation of sensitive strings and strings linked to regulated markets.
As FairWinds CEO Nao Matsukata explained: “This is a significant step toward delegation but significant problems still remain. The important point is that ICANN hasn’t rejected any strings, and discussions are ongoing about closed generic-term gTLDs. Clearly ICANN is committed to finding a way to get those strings delegated.”
For more information regarding how brands are impacted by the new gTLD program, please contact us. To stay informed about developments in the new gTLD program that could impact your company and consumers like you, please visit our blogs and follow us on Twitter @fairwinds.
Because I grew up in New England, right outside of Boston, the Boston Globe has always been a staple in my life. I can still picture it perfectly, folded up in its clear plastic bag, waiting at the end of the driveway to be picked up with the mail. To this day, whenever I go home to visit my family, I still sit in the kitchen with my parents and try to solve the Sunday crossword.
So, I was interested when I heard the Globe is up for sale, along with its Internet counterpart, Boston.com, a website providing 24-hour breaking news and sports with coverage from the Globe, and The Hive, a tech and innovation blog covering the Boston start-up, venture, and research communities
As Michael Morisy of Inside the Hive points out, most of the public focus has been on who the new owner may be and the value of the physical property the Globe occupies in Dorchester, MA. He raises the question of what the new owner might do with the domain names Boston.com, BostonGlobe.com, and Globe.com, which it will also come into possession of.
The Globe’s domain names are known as “keyword” domain names and can be extremely valuable, with estimated values reaching into the tens of millions. The domain name Sex.com was sold in 2010 for a record-breaking $13 million. While it is unlikely that the new owner will sell BostonGlobe.com, the other two domain names could be sold off for a nice profit.
Cameron Gordon from DigitalDNA, a domain name brokerage firm, estimates that Boston.com could easily be worth between $5-10 million, noting the elements of its value: “Boston.com garners over 2.5 million unique visitors per month and is a single word .COM and the succinct digital representation of a popular U.S. city with very loyal citizens.”
The backstory on how the Globe initially acquired the domain name is another story in and of itself. Morisy’s post describes how Au Bon Pain was the original owner of Boston.com, but struck a deal with the Globe’s then-executive vice president to hand over the domain name in exchange for “four quarter-page ads for charities of [its] choice and an agreement that Boston.com would produce and host the Au Bon Pain [website]”.
What Morisy doesn’t mention, is that the Globe was also one of a few hundred businesses to apply for a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) – in this case .BOSTON. While the application is still pending, the value of .BOSTON as a digital asset should be taken into consideration by the new owner.
The new owner could sell .BOSTON to another interested party or business. Or, it could bet on turning the new gTLD into a cash cow. The Globe applied for .BOSTON as an “open” registry, meaning anyone may purchase second-level domain names in .BOSTON. The Globe’s new owner could profit handsomely by selling a near limitless number of second-level domains – if the new gTLDs take off in popularity.
Regardless of what ends up happening, I do hope that the .BOSTON gTLD becomes active. I’m already imagining the possibilities – sending visitors to Tourism.BOSTON for the must see sights and vacation itineraries, typing in UnionOysterHouse.BOSTON to make a reservation, or of course navigating to RedSox.BOSTON for a season schedule.
The outcome of a recent UDRP complaint filed by RevZilla Motorsports LLC (Complainant) with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) hinged on how identical and/or confusingly similar the Panel would find the words REVZILLA and PARTZILLA.
The complaint was filed against Tom Dazevedo (Respondent) over the domain name partzilla.com. The Complainant, who sells motorcycle gear through the domain name revzilla.com and owns the trademark registration REVZILLA, argued that the Respondent’s use of partzilla.com to sell identical goods was intentionally done to create confusion and disrupt the Complainant’s business.
In response, the Respondent pointed out that there are over 240 active trademark registrations and applications in the US which have the suffix –ZILLA, including three others registered for motorsports parts and accessories. He also denies that he is a competitor of the Complainant’s business, highlighting the differences in the types of items they each sell.
In the end, the NAF Panel didn’t even need to address issues relating to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name, or the possibility of him having registered or used it in bad faith after finding that the domain name was not identical and/or confusingly similar. The Panel references the decisions that resulted from two other cases that it believes were relevant to this case:
The case of HomeVestors of America, Inc. v. Cristino Chico FA904273 (NAF April 2, 2007) was one in which the Complainant owned the name WE BUY UGLY HOUSES and the disputed domain name was I SELL UGLY HOUSES. The Panel held that the common part of both names, namely “ugly houses”, was generic and similarity was denied.
Also, it was said in Tire Discounters, Inc. v. Tirediscounter.com FA 679485 (NAF 14,2006) that “because the mark is merely descriptive, small differences matter. In the Internet context, consumers are aware that domain names for different websites are often quite similar and that small differences matter.”
In its final decision, the Panel states that it is not unreasonable to find no confusing similarity in a case where two domain names have a suffix in common, but no similarity in the prefixes. In this case the difference between REV and PART was too great for the Panel to find a case of confusing similarity, and given that a Complainant must meet all three elements of the UDRP, the Panel concluded that the complaint must be denied.
