ChaCha lodges formal protest over KGB's mark '542 542'

Ok, I'm far from a legal expert, and please chime in if I'm wrong, but from what I gather, information on the USPTO database indicates that last week the Office received a 'letter of protest' from ChaCha's lawyers regarding KGB's application for the servicemark '542 542,' which incidentally was initially refused by the Office in February. ChaCha brought attention to its own mark and objected to KGB's mark (application) apparently because of infringement (it is confusingly similar to ChaCha's mark of '242242'). The USPTO notices indicate that ChaCha's letter was 'accepted' - because ChaCha's evidence 'established a reasonable case for refusal, requirement or suspension' - and the Examining Attorney is going to mull it over. Since the 'letter of protest' was received prior to the timeframe for 'publication' (for objection by protestors) the decision lies within the EA's jurisdiction.

Does this mean that ChaCha didn't want to wait until the 'publication' timeframe, if kgb's application went that far, and sent its objection early on to accelerate the 'refusal, requirement or suspension' of kbg's application?

The images of the USPTO public notices and internal correspondence are below:

KGB's trademark '542 542' initially refused by USPTO

On January 13, 2009, the examining attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sent a non-final notice to KGB initially refusing their application for the service mark of '542 542.' The text of the notice mailed to KGB in mid-January is below, copied in part.

What does this all mean? Well, it appears that KGB hasn't adequately established in the marketplace the association of '542 542' with its text-answer service (kgb_text) nor have they adequately established the association of the mark (542 542) with KGB. Uh oh! The USPTO charges that 542 542 has been marketed (and viewed as purchasers) as a telephone number (i.e., SMS code) and 'not used as a source-indicator for services as identified in the application.'

A quick look at ChaCha's 'prosecution history' with the USPTO shows that their mark application was never subjected to initial refusal; four days after ChaCha's mark was assigned to an examiner, the mark was approved for publication and well along the way in the process towards successful registration. However, the day after KGB's mark was assigned to an examiner, the non-final action was written and mailed. Uh oh!

What did ChaCha do right that KGB did wrong? For starters, ChaCha decided to create a mark of a continuous string of numbers ('242242') whereas KBG created a mark consisting of two '542's ('542 542') broken apart by a space. KGB's mark may appear to some as an incompletely written U.S. telephone number. ChaCha, obviously, avoided that confusion. Two, it appears that ChaCha did a better job leading up to its application for its '242242' mark by plastering '242242' everywhere ChaCha President Brad Bostic blogged and spoke, and of course in ChaCha's advertising. In contrast, KGB jumped the gun by filing its mark application well before they established '542 542' as an 'identifier' for its 'kgbkgb' text-services AND as a mark associated with KGB.

What's next? KGB will have to submit proof (specimens) to convince the examining attorney in their 'case' to reconsider. But at least KGB cleared the first hurdle of the 'similarly confusing' mark test. The examining USPTO attorney conducted a number of mark searches to determine if there are 'similar registered or pending marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02' to '542 542' and he/she found no such marks. It's not clear if USPTO examining attorneys look for confusingly similar registered marks (that correspond to SMS codes) using a phone keypad as a frame of reference; it appears they don't by the looks of the 'XSearch Search Summary' e-file for KGB's 'case'. This is something that ChaCha can bring up when they oppose KGB's mark for '542 542' after, if, it becomes published.

[Emphases ours]

FAILURE TO FUNCTION AS A SERVICE MARK

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the specimen of record, does not function as a service mark to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; see In re Moody’s Investors Serv., Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2043 (TTAB 1989); In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956 (TTAB 1986); In re Hughes Aircraft Co., 222 USPQ 263 (TTAB 1984); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1301.02 et seq.

The applied-for mark, as shown on the specimen, does not function as a service mark because it shows the mark used as a telephone number and not used as a source-indicator for services as identified in the application.

The specimen of record, along with any other relevant evidence of record, is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a service mark. In re Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1458 (TTAB 1998). Not every word, design, symbol or slogan used in the sale or advertising of goods and/or services functions as a mark, even though it may have been adopted with the intent to do so. A designation cannot be registered unless purchasers would be likely to regard it as a source-indicator for the services. TMEP §1301.02; see In re Moody’s Investors Serv. Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2043, 2047-49 (TTAB 1989).

Applicant may respond to this refusal by submitting the following:

(1) A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for the services specified in the application; and

(2) The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33: “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.” 37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05,. If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.

Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services. See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.

If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use in commerce basis under Trademark Act Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), and the refusal will be withdrawn. See TMEP §806.03(c). However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen. See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103. If the same specimen is submitted with an allegation of use, the same refusal will issue.

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33: “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.” 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1).

View ChaCha's specimen (and the Firefox browser 'bookmarks toolbar' links and Windows system tray icons used by one of ChaCha's legal executives!) used in their mark application here

'It only takes one 542 to see that 242242 is best. And free.'

If I were the CEO of ChaCha and saw that my only competitor, KGB, just 'happened' to have chosen a SMS code that is 80-90% similar to mine, I'd be miffed.

It's obvious that KGB acted opportunistically when its top-brass realized the wordnumber for 'kgb kgb' was strikingly close to that of 'ChaCha.'

The rest is history: apply for the trademark, get the shortcode, buy the dotcom domain, ad spots with TV actors, press releases (and the NY Times blogs about you), and voila, everything's starting to look great.

'Ladies and gentlemen, on this side of the ring, our lightweight challenger, ChaCha aka '242242!' And, on this side, our heavy-weight, 'KGB,' is [laughter] wearing...is wearing what seems to be ChaCha's outfit! It looks like KGB is mocking ChaCha's wardrobe, down to the robe, boxers and all. Our challengers, gents and germs, look nearly the same! And ChaCha's, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew, is not happy, and....'

If ChaCha wants to win the first round against their better trained opponent, they should give their opponent a dose of their own medicine. And so, why not do what KGB is doing to you: reverse the tide by eating at KGB's traffic! Why not register common shortcodes and domains that both you and KGB's customers might type by accident!

Here's a few shortcodes* that are available at the time of press that no one can argue against you registering for preservation of your brand:
242542 AVAILABLE
542242 AVAILABLE
54224 AVAILABLE
24254 AVAILABLE

* I'm not sure if the CSCA will approve shortcodes for this purpose, but it doesn't hurt to find out.

And here's a few domains:
542242.com AVAILABLE
242542.com AVAILABLE

Heck, why not go the extra mile. Call up the Giorgio Armani company and forge some marketing alliance with them for their GA 542 designer glasses. They're a less bulky version than the one 'Hunter' uses for KGB's spots. Why not get a few actors to do a series of ads all wearing these 'stunner' '542' glasses.

Your ad's tagline can be:

'It only takes one 542 to see that 242242 is best. And free.'

Is KGB infringing on ChaCha's trademark?

In July 2008, ChaCha, the first human-powered search engine, began attaching a trademark designation in its web communications to the numeric string '242242,' which spells ChaCha and is the company's official SMS code. The Indiana-based company filed for a trademark for 242 242 in February 2008 that was successfully registered in September 2008.

It seemed that by late 2008 ChaCha was fully protected from infringements from other mobile services, cybersquatters, and others attempting to mooch off its brands. ChaCha's fortress of protection included its trademark and dozens of defensively registered typo-variants of 242242.com and registrations of 242242 in various tlds and ccTLDs.

Then came the Knowledge Generation Bureau, better known as 'KGB.'

Neither ChaCha nor we at Jamptap anticipated that 542542.com was a typo-variant worthy of registering. Had we, ChaCha's current troubles might have been lessened.

But KGB did go ahead and pick a strikingly similar SMS code to ChaCha's and register its corresponding domain. And, so, we have to first ask: why did KGB elect to choose a SMS code so similar to ChaCha's 242242 when it could have come up with a bunch of SMS codes that spell commonsense phrases like KGB-HQ, KGB-SPY, KGB-411, KGB-IQ, KGB-247, etc...? Is it because KGB wanted to mimic ChaCha's business model down to the 'T'' and didn't want to take any chances with a SMS code of different length and appearance from ChaCha's? (U.S. common shortcodes come in 5 or 6 digits.)

What can ChaCha do now? The first step is defining the issue at hand, which is that its new competitor, KGB, may be confusing ChaCha's existing and prospective customers with the SMS code of 542542 and the corresponding domain of 542542.com. (To make matters worse for ChaCha, KGB has deeper pockets, much more advertising, and the advantage of being a 'new' service.)

The second step is defining its options and the best option is defending itself via its trademark of 242 242. What ChaCha can do is OPPOSE the registration for the service mark of '542 542' filed by Grape Technology Group, Inc. (aka KGB) on October 10, 2008. That mark was for 'Telecommunication services namely two way sms messaging for search inquiries.' (KGB's filing, by the way, occurred four days before KGB registered the domain 542542.com.) ChaCha can oppose KGB's mark when it becomes 'published' [in the Official Gazette, a weekly publication of the US Patent and Trademark Office] and that may occur sometime in this spring (2009). source

If that fails, ChaCha certainly can file a suit in the federal courts and do the job there. The argument would simply be that another company picked a strikingly similar service mark for a very similar service. If ICANN's rulings provide any guidance here, if (usually) a typosquatter's domain is one character off from a domain protected by a trademark, then the complainant (trademark holder) prevails. One can argue that KGB's mark is one-character off from ChaCha's mark. That's the first part. The second part is proving that KGB provides the same or similar 'goods and services' as ChaCha. That is quite clear, even from their respective trademark filings: both marks pertain to providing 'search engine services' (ChaCha)/'search services' (KGB) via 'text messaging' (ChaCha)/'SMS messaging' (KGB).

ChaCha's survival is threatened and that wouldn't be anything unusual in the realm of business if everyone was playing fair. But KGB isn't playing fair.

ChaCha has KGB hot on their trail

In January 2009, a company called 'KGB' launched a premium text answer service that is so similar to ChaCha's that I doubt you'll be able to tell the two apart by the time you finish reading this post. The only difference between KGB and ChaCha's text services is that instead of inserting ads in text responses (as ChaCha does), KGB charges a $.50 fee per search.

So, what are the similarities?

1. Both are human-powered mobile search engines; instead of 'guides,' KGB uses 'Special Agents'

2. KGB also employs a catchy SMS code, but KGB's code spells the name of their company twice: 542542 for KGBKGB.

3. Both companies' SMS codes are repetitions of a three-character word (although only one SMS code spells the full brand name of a company)

4. Like ChaCha, KGB bought and forwarded the dotcom wordnumber for KGBKGB - 542542.com - to its website; KGB registered the domain via an entity called Tenpenny Group, Inc.

The indictment:

I seem to recall that ChaCha's text code is 242 242 and that numeric string seems awfully similar to 542 542. Is it coincidence or sleezy marketing? Any of ChaCha's customers for its text service simply need to slip their thumb down a notch - accidentally or purposely - when spelling out 'Cha' twice on a keypad and *somehow* arrive at their competitor's service. How convenient!

I'm not the first one to point out the coincidences behind KGB's 'offering.' 'Stephen' at forums.online-sweepstakes.com wrote on January 4:

I think they are trying to rip off ChaCha, personally.

They are charging 30-70cent per answer though.

Also, how can 542542 and 242242 be a coincidence?

ChaCha should get 'em for infringement I believe..

I think I'll start a company called BIL and launch a text answer service using the SMS code of 245 245 for BILBIL. All my agents/guides will go by the name of 'Bill' and, of course, I'll forward 245245.com to my site. And maybe, or perhaps very likely, I'll get some of the (texting) type-in traffic from both ChaCha and KGB.

Related post: ChaCha ventures into uncharted trademark territory

ChaCha ventures into uncharted trademark territory; revised

Jamptap recently noticed that ChaCha has been attaching the 'TM' (trademark) designation to the phrase '242242' on its website and press communications. Similarly, trademark protection for '242242' and '24224' is mentioned on ChaCha.com's 'Term of Use' page:

CHACHA, the CHACHA logo, SEARCH + BRAINPOWER, YOUR PARTNER IN SEARCH, WANNA CHACHA?, CHACHA CHING, ARE YOU READY TO CHACHA?, CHACHA RESEARCH, TEAMRANK, WEBGEMS, CHACHA CONNECT, 242242 or 24224 as well as other trademarks and logos and other names of ChaCha's products and services referenced on the Site are exclusively owned by ChaCha. All other products, services, and company names mentioned on the Site are the trademarks of their respective owners. By placing them on the Site, ChaCha does not grant to you any license or other authorization to copy, reproduce, or use the trademarks or logos, except as provided herein.

What's going on? Well, the alternative search engine company filed for a trademark of the number '242242' on February 13, 2008. The mark was a 'standard character' trademark registration not restricted to a specific graphical representation - meaning not for any particular style or font. ChaCha's type of mark is called a servicemark, which is the same thing as a trademark but is a designation used by companies that market services when they don't have a package to put their mark on. Why ChaCha isn't using the SM designation, and 'TM' instead, is unknown.

ChaCha's servicemark was published for opposition on July 8 and any potential opponents have thirty days to file their opposition. If there is no opposition, or any opposition is overcome, the registration will be issued in a few short months.

You may be thinking, 'Wait a second. You CAN'T trademark numbers.'

Not true.

Many companies have brands that they registered trademarks for, such as Levi's 501 Jeans and Boeing's 747.

For these companies and ChaCha, the trademarked number pertains to marketing use within a specific realm of services. So, any other company outside of ChaCha's realm of services, like meatpackers or an airline company or an apparel firm, can use and register for the mark '242242'. However a company that provides search engine services - related to interactivity on wireless devices, etc... - cannot market its services using '242242'. That would infringe on ChaCha's mark.

This isn't the first time that a web company sought a service mark for its wordnumber. 4INFO, a competitor of ChaCha that provides a similar type of text message search service, has a registered servicemark for '44636', which spells 4INFO on a cell phone keypad. That mark was filed in May 2006 and registered in February 2007. 4INFO doesn't attach the SM/TM designation to its '44636' mark, most likely because its wordnumber isn't a key component of its marketing/product strategy, unlike ChaCha which plasters the term '242242' everywhere you see the word ChaCha or wherever its CEO Brad Bostic speaks or goes.

Still confused? Generic words and numbers may be registered as trademarks however only for a very narrow category of goods and services. A generic word mark can be used if it isn't used generically within the business you're in. For instance, a text messaging company named 'mobile' wouldn't be able to register that word for its mark. The litmus test for trademarking numbers is if the relevant consuming public has developed a strong mental association between the number and the products the company sells. Almost 100% of the time, a numeric trademark is granted when the public has already established a link between the number brand and your company. For ChaCha, the USPTO believed that the public easily associates the number '242242' with ChaCha.

Houston there's a problem: Registering wordmarks for numbers that 'act' as wordnumbers might be a problem. What if we see a new mobile company emerge whose brand coincides with the numbers 2-4-2-2-4-2 on a phone keypad. There are thousands of letter combinations that can be created using the wordnumber 242242, including generic words like Bibbia ('Bible' in Italian), or a new word/brand such as 'Cicaga'. If a few folks get together and want to brand 'Bibbia' or 'Cicaga' as a text message search service and promote the corresponding wordnumber 242242, then what will happen? Well, for the next month or so, they can oppose ChaCha's application. Beyond, that would be a very interesting trademark confrontation for ChaCha's lawyers.

ChaCha aka 242242 aka ChaCha aka 242242 is the Best Alt Search Engine in February '08

ChaCha was selected as the Search Engine of the Month by AltSearchEngines.com, a top-ranked blog that aspires to be 'the definitive destination for everything related to alternative search engines.' AltSearchEngines.com selects the monthly winner after compiling its ranking of the top 100 Alternative Search Engines at the beginning of each month. And that's no easy task. AltSearchEngines' editor, Charles Knight, tracks no fewer than 1,000 search contenders in all search engine categories (general or meta search, jobs, health, MP3s, people, games, charity, etc...).

ChaCha, which was AltSearchEngine's Search Engine of the Year for 2006, was chosen for the February 2008 title for their mobile phone text service launched last month that features the catchy SMS code, 242242. Other 'guided' or 'human powered' alternative search engines listed in the Top 100 Alternative Search Engines for February 2008 include Mahalo.com and Bessed.com.

ChaCha's SMS code, 242242, has taken on a life of its own since ChaCha's mobile answer service launched in early January. (In late January, ChaCha completed an aggressive round of defensively registering a multitude of typo-variants of 242242.com. That ChaCha-owned domain - 242242.com - redirects to ChaCha.com.) The 242242 moniker is now omnipresent in the world of ChaCha. On the blog of ChaCha's President and co-founder Brad Bostic, it is difficult to discern which is really the brand of his company, 242242 or ChaCha. 242242 is plastered everywhere Brad blogs and speaks and that's no different on blogs that report on trends in numeric domains. NuDom bloggers are wondering when will Brian - I mean Brad - make the bold marketing move of announcing 242242.com as the alternative web address for ChaCha.com on mobile phones or the PC. THAT move would guarantee ChaCha's place as the Top Alternative Search Engine for 2008, at least in our book.

ChaCha's dotcom wordnumber typo-variants go live too; 242242.mobi joins the mix

Pursuant to our posts over the past 48 hours about ChaCha Search, Inc., titled 'A first: ChaCha invests in its dotcom wordnumber variants' and 'ChaCha's 242242.com goes live', Jamptap has learned that over the past 2 days, in addition to resolving 242242.com to ChaCha.com, ChaCha Search, Inc., is also resolving - with two exceptions - 242242 in all other TLDs and ccTLDs as well as its entire known portfolio of typo-variants of 242242.com to its website.

All of these domains, listed below, were not resolving ('Problem loading page' error) earlier this week.

242242.com
242242.net
242242.org doesn't resolve
242242.info
242242.biz
242242.mobi
242242.co.uk

2242242.com

2422422.com

224242.com
224242.net
224242.org

242422.com
242422.net
242422.org

244242.com
244242.net
244242.org goes to a parking page, yet it is owned by ChaCha Search, Inc.

242224.com
242224.net
242224.org

422242.com
422242.net
422242.org

The information provided about the above links may change at any time, however was accurate at the time of posting. Also, more numeric domain typo-variants, not listed here, may exist.

ChaCha's 242242.com goes live

When we checked yesterday, 242242.com didn't resolve.

We checked today and that changed.

242242.com now resolves to a webpage at ChaCha.com at the following URL, http://www.chacha.com/textchacha, which discusses the basics of ChaCha's 'mobile answer service' and its shortcode, 242242.

Although ChaCha has not yet launched its mobile website and so no pages on the ChaCha website are optimized for mobile, ChaCha's decision to finally resolve 242242.com - its dotcom wordnumber - to its website further demonstrates that ChaCha intends to incorporate its dotcom wordnumber into its overall mobile strategy. It is quickly becoming more believable that when ChaCha Mobile launches any cell phone user anywhere will be able to enter 242242.com into their cell browser and be connected directly to ChaCha's mobile web site. 242242 is a 50% 'savings' in taps over the word 'ChaCha' and, pending adoption of the wordnumber idea among its users, ChaCha stands a chance of leveraging its dotcom wordnumber to catch up to its competitors.

How much more market share ChaCha can gain through its incorporation and implementation of the wordnumber concept is the million dollar question. Two of ChaCha's competitors, Live and Yahoo, are at the mercy of WordDial, which owns their dotcom wordnumbers and apparently will perpetually insist on resolving those domains to one of its portals. Therefore, both search engines' users will always be an extra screen away from any mobile destination. That is a somewhat significant disadvantage when compared to Google, for instance, which owns its own dotcom wordnumber, 466453.com, which has resolved directly to Google.com (and its mobile version) for many years.

When ChaCha.com goes mobile, ChaCha's 242242.com will stand toe-to-toe, tapwise, to Google's 466453.com. Although Google has more experience as a search engine company, a mobile search engine service and as innovator of mobile tools such as Google Number Search, ChaCha has two advantages over Google. ChaCha, as a young organization whose founders are playing an active, daily role in its growth, is nimble; it can react more quickly to demands and forces in the marketplace. Second, ChaCha is more apt to take risks since it has less to lose than the search engine juggernauts. Not weighed down by fears of tarnishing its reputation or eroding shareholder confidence, ChaCha can take risks and do what Google hasn't done in more than six years: advertise its dotcom wordnumber. Although 466453.com resolves to Google, that is a fact not advertised by Google for many reasons including one we discussed in May 2007 that 'It's a daring move to associate a nearly billion dollar asset to a string of un-trademarkable numbers.'

Associating a brand with a string of numbers that is a shortcode is one thing, to tell the world that your online property IS a set of numbers is another. ChaCha may not be burdened by these 'large cap' internet company concerns and so has all the trappings of the little search engine that could climb to the top of the mobile search world. Having decided to purchase and resolve its dotcom wordnumber and also register a near-complete set of numeric domain variants, ChaCha's next step is to navigate the dance floor with the daring move of marketing 242242.com to the masses.

A first: ChaCha invests in its dotcom wordnumber variants

ChaCha Search, Inc., the internet corporation known for its human-powered search engine at ChaCha.com, which recently launched a 'mobile answer service,' appears to be the first company to apply the traditional corporate domain acquisition strategy of registering trademark-domain variants to dotcom wordnumbers.

The dotcom wordnumber for ChaCha is 242242.com (242242 spells ChaCha on a phone keypad), which Scott Smith of numericdomains.com said earlier this month on his blog was owned by a family member who received an anonymous offer through a broker late last year. Smith believed, at the time, that the broker was the proxy for ChaCha, and made the decision to sell. Smith turned out to be right - it was a broker for ChaCha - and ChaCha added 242242.com to its portfolio of numeric domains relating to its wordnumber that it had been building that included 242242 in 'TLD and CC extensions including .net, .org, .co.uk, .info, .biz, .mobi -and potentially others.'

Jamptap has just discovered that last week ChaCha Search, Inc., bought two typo-variants of 242242.com. Those domains include 2242242.com and 2422422.com, which were registered on January 14, 2008. While researching domain registrations, we also learned that in October 2007 ChaCha registered 224242, 242422, 244242, 242224 and 422242 in the following TLD extensions: .com, .net and .org. Other permutations may exist.

Also, we found that last week ChaCha registered 8002242242 (800-2-ChaCha) in at least 5 TLDs, which may indicate that ChaCha is considering providing a breed of toll-free voice-activated search in the future.

What does this all mean? As we learned from the happenings of New Zealand-based WordDial, when a company realizes that a domainer/company/investor beat it to its own dotcom wordnumber, then they tend to over-react. When Yahoo, Inc., discovered that WordDial registered (before it did) the domain 92466.com , which spells among other things 'Yahoo' (which has several definitions in the dictionary, not just 'a leading search engine'), Yahoo, Inc., proceeded to buy 92466 in every other TLD and an incredible array of ccTLDs as well.

Our impression is that ChaCha reacted in a similar fashion. ChaCha even succeeded in purchasing its dotcom wordnumber. Yahoo didn't but has a continuing content partnership with WordDial.

The difference between the ChaCha and Yahoo 'case studies' is that ChaCha bought not only its dotcom wordnumber in various TLDs but also mistypes of its numeric domain. This is a development in the numeric domain field that is significant for two reasons. First, by registering the many typo-variants of 242242.com whereas no other company is known to have done this (with dotcom wordnumbers), ChaCha is demonstrating an elevated intention of actually using 242242.com as a mobile portal since the company is apparently concerned with redirecting (type-in) traffic from mistyped URLs to its mobile webpage. Second, and perhaps most interesting, this new piece of information may mean that since ChaCha is registering these typo-variants, then there could be a market for dotcom wordnumber mistypes in the foreseeable future.

ChaCha's actions indicate that its dotcom wordnumber is not some 'crazy' idea but that it is serious about using 242242.com as a key part of its mobile strategy. ChaCha's actions, therefore, may serve as a catalyst to the numeric domain land rush and inspire investors and internet companies alike to not only put their money into numeric domains but, like ChaCha has done, also numeric domain variants.

ChaCha launches mobile answer service

ChaCha, the 'human-powered search engine', has launched a SMS search utility, an unique twist on mobile search that SearchEngineLand calls a 'mobile answer engine.' The difference between ChaCha's SMS search tool and Yahoo's, Google's, 4Info's, etc... is that users can send full search phrase (natural language) text messages using ChaCha. ChaCha's competitors still require their texters to construct search phrases using formatting rules and text shortcuts that don't give the user much search flexibility. What's more is that ChaCha uses live search experts to tackle the challenges of mobile searching with a small mobile device. Those challenges include input - abbreviated search phrases, spelling errors ('wiat color's the gr8 wall of china?) - and output - very few (one or two) results fill up a mobile screen. ChaCha can solve both problems with a live person who can understand what the heck the user is trying to say and also sift through the web to find the best-suited web snippet for the user's needs. Google SMS has a 'web snippets' function but that is poorly rated.

ChaCha is also lucky to have a very attractive shortcode, 242242, and ChaCha owns its dotcom wordnumber 242242.com, which it purchased a year ago in late 2007 and doesn't currently resolve; it isn't forwarded to a website or a parking page. ChaCha's ownership of its dotcom wordnumber might not be a tell-tale sign that the mobile search company will use it as its future mobile web domain. It may have been ChaCha's knee-jerk reaction to numeric domain speculators who have been grabbing up all easy to type numeric patterns (i.e., 123123.com) that usually don't mean anything. Or not. Whichever the case may be, ChaCha has the ability to establish 242242.com as its mobile web portal and give their customers a near tapless, text-messaging-cost-less, barrier-free method of mobile searching.