.co Why .CO will will not do well

[adinfinite]

well maybe the title of the thread is a little harsh. I dunno. But I had an experience recently where I was helping my gf to organize a fundraiser. She wanted a website set up but the name we wanted was taken in all good extensions except .co, &.tel. So i decided to go with .CO. To make an otherwise long story short, we had pamphlets and invitations made for the event. Then a series of things happened that made me really question the usefulness and value of .co domains:

1) The guy at the printing shop who was making the promo material called to ask " are you sure the website is coorect? It seems to be missing the letter m at the end" lol

2) When we finally got them printed and handed out to over 700 people we kept getting calls about whether or not the website address was correct. I had to keep telling people to "jut type it in, it works"

3) At the event we had a guess speaker who kept encouraging people to go to www.nameof charity.com ( instead of .co ) and donate. Lol

Now I must admit that it might not have been a good idea to put up a charity site on a .co. But I thought that since the actual charity has its own .org already and this entity and site was created for the sole purpose of raising money for the charity in a one off event, then it wouldnt be much of a problem.

I know we sent a lot of traffic to the .com because the 700 in attendance were told to "tell their friends and family" LOL.

I am thinking that only domainers and people close to the industry ( registrars etc) see value in .co. My experience is that the man on the street who constitutes the "traffic" we all crave is totally confused by it. It will take a lot to get regular everyday people to accept it. Probably way more than a superbowl commercial as Godaddy is planning.

I am not saying it doesnt have some value. But for those dreaming of a .co/.com parity situation I say dream on!

I know many people are gonna point to the fact that overstock bought and is currently using o.co. thats fine. I wonder how much type ins O.co gets that are not from domainers? lol. Besides they have O.com to back it up. LOL

 

[emjohn]

Smart idea? It didn't seem so at first. Some people, used to old habits, got it confused. Then McDonalds sued him. He went out of business and he was forgotten. End of story.

Interesting. The last I heard from the personal name bureau is that you had a right to your last name. Are you implying .com should sue .co?

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------

Can you imagine that you are talking on the phone with a client and you are trying to explain to go and visit - alphadesign.co. -

What you will going to say:

you - not "C", "O", "M" - but "C", "O" - ...
he - sorry can you repeat..
not "C", "O", "M" - but "C", "O"...
he - what...yes i understand - alphadesign.com
you - not "C", "O", "M" - but "C", "O" - ...
and so on :D

If you are not interested in informing or explaining something to someone, I see you point. But not everyone is like that.

 

[bmugford]

Interesting. The last I heard from the personal name bureau is that you had a right to your last name. Are you implying .com should sue .co?

Of course you are able to use your last name, within reason. However, if your name was David Coke and you released a new soft drink called "Coke" after your last name that it isn't going to fly.

Brad

 

[emjohn]

Of course you are able to use your last name, within reason. However, if your name was David Coke and you released a new soft drink called "Coke" after your last name that it isn't going to fly.

Brad

OK. I am far from being a TM guru, but does that mean if my last name is McDonald, I can't open a steakhouse called McDonald?

 

[bmugford]

OK. I am far from being a TM guru, but does that mean if my last name is McDonald, I can't open a steakhouse called McDonald?

Most TM law is more gray than black & white. However, a steakhouse called McDonald or McDonald's is not confusingly similar to the fast food restaurant IMO.

TM = Trade + Mark. The mark is the name you use, and the trade is the product or service you offer.

It really comes down to intent and usage. Is the person using the term in a confusingly similar manner?

Brad

 

[emjohn]

Most TM law is more gray than black & white. However, a steakhouse called McDonald or McDonald's is not confusingly similar to the fast food restaurant IMO.

It really comes down to intent and usage. Is the person using the term in a confusingly similar manner?

Brad

That's interesting. Obviously it may be confusing to some but not to others. The intent would be to have a Steakhouse with my last name, that's it.

I suppose that there seems to be a lot of gaffs at WIPO for this very reason.

 

[bmugford]

That's interesting. Obviously it may be confusing to some but not to others. The intent would be to have a Steakhouse with my last name, that's it.

I suppose that there seems to be a lot of gaffs at WIPO for this very reason.

Like I said, most of this stuff can be a gray area.

In general made up terms like Google, Yahoo, etc. have more protection than generic terms.

Generic terms are generally only enforceable if used in a non generic way.

For instance you can't trademark "Candy" to sell Candy. But you can TM "Candy" for another use other than the generic use.

Brad

 

[dragtastic]

good write up - .CO is way too new and millions of people have no idea what the heck it is.

I gurantee you that MANY of those same people also do not know much about other extensions outside .COM - some people might not even know what .NET is - the matter of the fact is - EVERYONE knows about .com - however there is a crap load of marketing and money being invested into .CO
As soon as people start becoming aware of .CO, then they will start to adapt it.
Your trial run with .CO did not work out because no one knows about it.
Godaddy is airing a super bowl commercial featuring .CO so that should help people realize there is a new extension.

 

[DU]

That's interesting. Obviously it may be confusing to some but not to others. The intent would be to have a Steakhouse with my last name, that's it.

I suppose that there seems to be a lot of gaffs at WIPO for this very reason.

McDonald is also the name of a clown figure (Ronald).. hope that wasn't his backup plan after his restaurant fared venture fared badly.

As an FYI - Sedo will not allow you to add McDonald.tld to their parked pages. As the thread subject changed to TM's I will just say that last names are a gray area and I'm just waiting for the Nissan post to arrive here.....

On the subject though I think .co has a future more as Colombian TLD than say .TV as Tuvalu.. I say this because Colombia is a legitimate and sustainable sized market and doesn't need that "marketed" factor. TV exists purely as that niche domain segment. It does seem though, that even there in Colombia, the com.co is retaining superiority as the commercial domain of choice. .co doesn't provide or convey, imho, anything "special".

BUT I do wish anyone hoping to make some money luck. I don't begrudge or resent anyone's fervent support or anti-fandom. I'm sort of on the fence but uninvested

To deny the existence of confusion though, it a huge stretch.... as the OP points out.

 

[hawkeye]

...Godaddy is airing a super bowl commercial featuring .CO so that should help people realize there is a new extension.

The reality of what will happen is: GD running a SB add will probably generate a lot of new .co regs. They will make a bunch of reg money. And all the .co supporters will go "YEAH! See!"

What won't happen, is that all the big corps and biz's that spend massive $$'s on advertising 'won't' be changing their branded extensions; 'will still' keep buying, renewing and advertising their .com's; and without the 'needed' major consistent advertising of .co, general public awareness will be naught, and the drops in 1,2 and 3 years will be plentiful.

And by then, .co will be just another also ran extension, GD will be promoting the next cash-cow new extension, and the newbie cheerleaders will again be drumming the same tired this is why 'This Is The One' chants.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

..and the band played on.. :music:

 

[ctbon]

who cares what the detractors say...sales are warming up and that's why we're here

 

[DU]

Godaddy is airing a super bowl commercial featuring .CO so that should help people realize there is a new extension.

I don't think that Mr Parson's has actually promised anything about anything regarding .co other than "keep your eyes open".

He has mentioned a "SURPRISE" Godaddy Girl.

Shakira anyone?

It could be that you have to go to GoDaddy to see the "HOT" ending and that hot ending might be on a .co... or have something like that.

I wouldn't get too excited. .CO has been advertising on Twitter for months and no one noticed....

 

[Reppy]

It will take time for people to understand. But if it's for charity I would have opted for .org. Or the .org for your country code, eg: .org.uk, .org.au, etc.

 

[the_poet]

I don't want to add anything to what has already been stated, it's pretty clear everyone has their firm opinions. Only thing I'd like to share is the growing number of developed .co's from all around the world (among them even some huge brands like Armani, Fender and Laney and the official website of Charlotte Church - first on Google). Honestly, I can't see any other new (some like to define it 'vanity') extension having been used by popular brands in the past beside .com (and the home country's TLD, like .co.uk. for a British brand for example).

 

[hawkeye]

..I can't see any other new (some like to define it 'vanity') extension having been used by popular brands in the past beside .com (and the home country's TLD, like .co.uk. for a British brand for example).

I guess you didn't follow .mobi craze where BankOfAmerica, Fox, BMW, Ralph Lauren Polo, etc. popular brand, etc. popular brand, built sites on that extension too! It's now 3+ years later; want to buy some .mobi domains??

You're right, there's nothing more to be added.

 

[the_poet]

I guess you didn't follow .mobi craze where BankOfAmerica, Fox, BMW, Ralph Lauren Polo, etc. popular brand, etc. popular brand, built sites on that extension too! It's now 3+ years later; want to buy some .mobi domains??

You're right, there's nothing more to be added.

.mobi is a limited tld, like .tel (though this one is much more limited). Nobody would build a website on a .mobi without owning a 'regular' TLD. What I can see is in fact a growing number of small/medium sized companies that are building their websites on .co without owning the .com or their ccTLD (you can find many of them with a quick search on big G). It looks like .co makes more sense to them than .mobi.

 

[hawkeye]

.mobi is a limited tld, like .tel (though this one is much more limited)

No .mobi is not a 'limited' tld. It's a gtld.

And, as you seem to conveniently forget, .co is, and always will be, a 'cctld'!!

Nobody would build a website on a .mobi without owning a 'regular' TLD.

And Armani, Fender and Laney don't own a 'regular tld'?

What I can see is in fact a growing number of small/medium sized companies that are building their websites on .co without owning the .com or their ccTLD

And companies didn't/don't build on other tlds without owning the .com or their cctld?

Any argument can be made, if one is only going to point out 'one sided' references.

 

[the_poet]

No .mobi is not a 'limited' tld. It's a gtld.

And, as you seem to conveniently forget, .co is, and always will be, a 'cctld'!!

It's limited because the registry enforces adherence to mobile compatibility, otherwise your names could be seized any moment. How could you expect it to be acquired and developed by the general public with such limitations?

I'm not forgetting at all .co is technically a ccTLD, but as long as Google treats it like a gTLD and people mentally associate '.co' to 'company', it's ok for me to market it as a gTLD.

And Armani, Fender and Laney don't own a 'regular tld'?

With 'regular' I mean without any limitations/requirements such as mobi's. Huge brands who own the .co, surely own the .com. But I'm saying that you can find on Google more and more small companies who own only the .co.

And companies didn't/don't build on other tlds without owning the .com or their cctld?

How many companies own only the .mobi (particularly with a mobi-compliant website looking like bmw.mobi)?

Any argument can be made, if one is only going to point out 'one sided' references.

Aren't you doing that?

 

[hawkeye]

It's limited because the registry enforces adherence to mobile compatibility, otherwise your names could be seized any moment.

With 'regular' I mean without any limitations/requirements such as mobi's.

Yeah, you know. Those requirements were dropped a long time ago.

Huge brands who own the .co, surely own the .com. But I'm saying that you can find on Google more and more small companies who own only the .co.

Examples please, and not just a 'few'.

How many companies own only the .mobi ..

Don't know. How many 'only own' the .co?

Aren't you doing that?

No.

 

[the_poet]

Yeah, you know. Those requirements were dropped a long time ago.

Please provide an official source because the registry doesn't say that (in fact provides a tool - ready.mobi - to check a website's compliance to mobi).

Examples please, and not just a 'few'.

I have listed many of them in the .CO thread, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If you want some more, Google is your friend.

Don't know. How many 'only own' the .co?

A good percentage of those that I listed above. You know why? Because among them there many small-sized and startup companies that can't afford or simply aren't interested in getting the .com . As a sidenote, Charlotte Church has her official website on .co only (I don't know if she even owns the .com and the .co.uk, anyway she's using the .co).

No.

Don't think so.

 

[NPer]

Firstly, .co has to prove itself.
Those who are pushing the extension have invested too much of their cash into this extension and do not want anybody to say anything against it-whether it be the truth, or just an opinion based on experience.

Dot co is not proving itself with all the .co fanboys (and girls) pushing the extension instead of the names and whether or not the keywords they regged make sense in the .co ccTLD.

The fanboys are so pro-dot-co, that they do not care how poor their keywords are in the .co extension, rather they belive that the extension will turn their poor and mediocre keywords in dot co into jewels... just because the extension is .co... which supposedly stands for company, .eg. cash.co... but does it stand for .co with sex.co? a company dealing in sex?! Dot com never boasted what it could stand for, it just proved it self... and if you 90 mill regges are alot... think again-I see .COM registrations going way above 200 million... or do you disagree? It could even go higher.

Nubiano