Ben Edelman, (who, I am happy to say, is brought in to consult our firm’s clients on ‘computer forensic’ matters on occasion), responds to my previous item about the value of a generic domain name, specifically ailine-tickets.com:

When a domain name is a single word, or when multiple words of a domain name
are separated by hyphens, experience shows that Google treats the domain
favorably for ranking purposes.  For example, all else equal,
airline-tickets.com would rate well for a search on “airline tickets” (no
quotes).  Not so for domains that consist of multiple words without hyphens,
though — then Google seems to offer no reward (or at most a minimal reward)
for the fact that the domain exactly matches the search term.

Same for filenames and directories, except that acceptable word delimiters
in filenames and directories include underscores and perhaps other
characters too, in addition to hyphens.

Notice buy-discount-airline-tickets.com in position #8 on “airline tickets”
as well as airline-tickets.travelwand.com in #9, and
sunfinder-vacations.com/airline_tickets.htm in #10.

Interestingly, the hyphens-in-domains theory cuts against the usual
valuation of domains: Hyphens make domains more valuable for search engine
ranking purposes, but nonetheless less valuable for memorability/type-in
purposes.

Dan Tobias, who is another regular reader of the Blog (that makes at least two), writes in to point out:

Of course, the search-engine advantages (if there are any) of hyphenated
domain names including generic words don’t actually require that anybody
actually register any new domains to take advantage of them; the use of
subdomains in your existing domains is just as effective (as shown in
fact by some of the examples cited in the article).  The snake-oil
merchants of the domain industry sometimes use this search engine stuff
to encourage people to purchase needless domain names for an effect they
can achieve for free with subdomains (or, in fact, subdirectories).

 

 

A recent article from the Times has been making the rounds reporting that several domain names, such as TRUCK.COM and BEEF.COM have sold for high amounts.

Coincidentally, I recently discovered that LookSmart has posted online an article I wrote for Brandweek in February 2000 entitled “Why The Splurge On Generic Domain Names.”  Re-reading it, I find that my view that generic domain names make for bad brands, remains largely unchanged since 2000, with cases such as that of RX.COM proving my point that the PTO would not look kindly on such names.  The rise of search engines probably dim generic domain names’ usefulness as traffic generators as well (although the Times article suggests in the last grafs that search engine contextual advertising may help some of these names – although how is not immediately apparent to me.  The name AIRLINETICKETS.COM has no apparent advantage in a Google search for the term AIRLINE TICKETS).

Interesting article on the history of shopping malls in America, via The New Yorker.  Blog readers following the development of the law of ‘brand as navigator’ (the catchphrase I apply to domain name, meta-tag and keyword cases), know that an implicit question in these cases is: who owns the traffic?  Two bits in the article may be of particular interest.  The first is the discussion of ‘adjacencies,’ the practice of placing competitors close to each other, in the belief that there is a mutually beneficial result.  The other is the following passage:

. . . well-run department stores are the engines of malls. They have powerful brand names, advertise heavily, and carry extensive cosmetics lines (shopping malls are, at bottom, delivery systems for lipstick)—all of which generate enormous shopping traffic. The point of a mall—the reason so many stores are clustered together in one building—is to allow smaller, less powerful retailers to share in that traffic. A shopping center is an exercise in coöperative capitalism. It is considered successful (and the mall owner makes the most money) when the maximum number of department-store customers are lured into the mall.

Essay question: Does this observation suggest a policy argument with regard to how Initial Interest Confusion docitrine should be applied in Brand as Navigator cases?

 

Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal in California denies Sony’s motion to strike an action brought against it for fabricating quotes by fictitious reviewers in its movie ads.  Sony argued that because its movies receive First Amendment protection, that the ads for the movies do as well.  The Court held that while movies are non-commercial speech with First Amendment protections, ads for said movies are subject to, among other things, false advertising regulation.