To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39122525,00.htm

Will's Web Watch: Do firms still know 'squat' about domains?
What's still available out there?

By Will Sturgeon

Published: Friday 23 July 2004

The issue of domain names is a thorny one. From celebrities to major companies there have been countless incidences of cybersquatting in recent years.

Chancers will register a domain name in the hope of selling it to the rightful owner for a large sum of money. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

When the web first hit the mainstream, incidences of cybersquatting were commonplace. Many large companies failed to spot the moment when they should have been registering domain names and many were already taken by the time they had woken up.

But even now companies are failing to register domains effectively - a task which becomes increasingly complicated with every new domain extension. This is despite the best advice of their lawyers, who typically recommend pre-emptive action, meaning registering everything they can think of.

Take the titans of world business - the big brands. I'll pick on Starbucks because I can see one from my window and there's a mug on my desk.

Starbucks Coffee is one company that has clearly given this some thought. It's covered most of the 'Starbucks' bases. But it missed the boat when the new TLD .name was introduced. As new domain extensions come along companies are urged to consider all possibilities but many fail to heed that advice.

That is owned by one Han Kyung-Su in South Korea who perhaps hopes the caffeine-peddler will cough up some cash to reclaim this domain. (Perhaps if they pay enough he will even be able to buy a large cappuccino from one of their stores.)

As for the combinations of Starbucks-Coffee (the name, minus the hyphen, which appears on store-fronts and cups and all merchandise) - right now you could still buy most of them. And this isn't stretching the issue beyond the realms of logic. Lawyers will often advise clients to buy all variations of their name and possible domain extensions to safeguard against future problems. Letsbuyit.com famously even registered Letsbuyshit.com to avoid some enterprising detractor buying it and using it to the company's detriment.

Interesting then that StarbucksSucks - which paints the coffee giant in a bad light and rather neatly rhymes - is available in its .co.uk, .net, .info, .biz and .name variations. Those domains would cost around $20 per year each - Starbucks' market cap is $18.7bn.

And it's not uncommon. Take a random smattering of other brands. Adidas.name is also registered in the Far East, this time China, which has become a haven in recent years for those wishing to make some money in the grey-areas of internet law. Any smugness on the part of rivals would be misplaced however. Nike.name has also fallen into alien hands, while Lee Hyun Joo, also of South Korea, is squatting on Reebok.name.

PepsiCo.name is available while Coca-Cola.name has already been registered by somebody outside the Coke empire, as has Disney.name. The list is endless.

Similarly, are companies prepared for future expansion? Take Virgin, which has fingers in most pies. What areas are left? Clothing perhaps?

Virgin already owns VirginClothing.com and its .co.uk, .net, .info and .biz extensions, safeguarding future use of those domains.

Similarly it owns VirginCasino.com, .co.uk, .net and .info to mention just another example of domain 'safe-harbouring'. They may never be used but at least if they are it will be by the rightful owner.

But do all companies have such foresight?

Virgin wannabe Easy Group, which already owns an airline, car hire and finance units as well as a successful internet café business wasn't as forward looking. By the time it registered EasyCasino.biz it had already missed out on the .com and .co.uk variations.

Registering domain names should be an active part of a business' legal planning and brand development. Once one is gone the process of getting back and proving 'rightful ownership' can be complex, especially when disputes cross borders and especially when an existing domain is detracting from a brand the whole time it is live.

Companies can quantify the cost of a few pounds or dollars, multiplied by a hundred or so domains. They can't necessarily quantify the cost of not registering a domain.