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:

Domains get snagged up in 'text-answer service wars'

Last month we blogged about two available (at the time) domains, 542242.com and 242542.com, both hybrids and mistypes of the dotcom wordnumbers for both ChaCha and kgbkgb. On February 18, they both got snagged up by the same person; the time stamps for both domain registrations are identical.

So by whom? They're hiding behind an anonymous whois (Moniker Privacy) and the owner's apparently not going to tell us anything at all: the domains don't resolve anywhere, not to kgbkgb nor ChaCha, and not even a parking page. So, who do you think bought them? Could it be a domainer? But would an observant domain investor buy these domains and not park them? Unlikely. So what do you think: is it Kgb or ChaCha?

kgbkgb's Smart Car or ChaCha's unpaid Voice-Over Gig = tough choice

I don't know about you, but I think ChaCha is going to lose this one. Both ChaCha and its new competitor, kgbkgb, have recently launched sweepstakes promotions that will grant a single grand prize to the lucky winner.

What are the prizes? Well, kgbkgb is offering a Smart Car. Not too shabby.

And ChaCha? The winner will have their voice recorded to be 'part' of the 'welcome message for users on the 1.800.2CHACHA voice service.' How long will your sweet voice be on the outgoing voice message? Oh, about one week. After that, the voice of the 'lady... on vacation' will replace yours. It gets better. ChaCha won't pay for a thing: you have to haul your butt to a recording studio at an undisclosed location (in Indiana? or the nearest one to the winner?) at your own expense - and pay for a rent-a-car, taxi, or your own gas, and maybe even hotel - and still not get any compensation for your voice-over work. Maybe you can put on your resume that you were the voice of ChaCha's voice service for just one-week, but how much in hotel and transportation costs are you willing to pay for that accolade if you win?

No thanks. I'll take the Smart Car.

Friday Humor

A CEO texted kgb asking 'How do I successfully register a trademark?'

kgb answered: 'Do not know, text ChaCha.'

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

Confusion and anger befall KGB target audience

I'm not making this up. Here's a selection of keyword activity over the past 24 hours for Jamptap visitors:

'What are those commercials about that say text 542 or kgb?'

'Why is KGB trying to rip off ChaCha?'

Maybe it is best that ChaCha's executive board just sit back and watch KGB confuse and anger their own demographic. Then wait some more, at least until KGB's customers open their March 2009 cell phone bill...

I don't know about all you KGB fans, but doesn't it seem that you'd be EARNING 50 cents each time you use ChaCha over KGB? Try that for a search term (on a free search engine).

'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

Target now owns its wordnumber in 4 TLDs

Target, the popular retailer known for its red and white bullseye logo, has registered various TLDs - including the .net and .org versions - of its wordnumber 827438. WordDial, the New Zealand-based pioneer of wordnumber domaining, owns the dotcom version. Interestingly, that domain, 827438.com, does not resolve at all, unlike most of WordDial's domains which forward to the company's vast portal network.

The domains 827438.net/org/info/biz, owned by Target, resolve to Target.com. The registrant of those domains is DNStination, Inc., which owns other alpha-domains of the retailer including TGT.com, which also goes to Target.com. Target joins a growing number of brands, such as Expedia, Yahoo, Amazon and ChaCha, that own several TLDs of their brand wordnumber numeric domain.

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.

Masterlist of dotTLD wordnumbers

Masterlist of dotTLD (com/net/mobi/co.uk) brand wordnumbers owned by internet companies; only hyperlinked TLDs are set to resolve:

ChaCha - 242242.com/net/mobi/co.uk
3663 First For Foodservice - 3663.co.uk
Expedia - 3973342.net
4Info - 44636.com/net/mobi
Gmail - 46245.com - doesn't resolve
Google - 466453.com
GoogleMail- 4664536245.com/net - doesn't resolve
Sony - 47669.com/mobi
Reuters - 7388377.mobi - doesn't resolve
Yahoo - 92466.mobi/.net/co.uk
Where 411 - 94373.net
WordDial - 96733425.com

This list - currently under construction - is for informational use only and comprises soley brand (non-generics) wordnumbers.

Indiana-based ChaCha has plans for ChaCha India? UPDATE1

Warning: you may be occasionally tongue-tied when reading the below blogpost

ChaCha's mobile answer service, textChaCha, is currently provided on a free trial basis to consumers in the U.S. only. Although plans for launching textChaCha in other markets haven't been announced, that isn't stopping some bloggers from speculating. The folks at WatBlog.com - an India-centered Web 2.0 blog - are quite excited about the possibility of a future launch of textChaCha in India.

ChaCha Search, Inc., headquartered in Indiana, already has a presence in India. In addition to its 60 employees in Carmel, Indiana, ChaCha Search, Inc., has 'two support sites in India,' according to WatBlog contributor Rupesh Mandal. This idea of a textChaCha India launch isn't, however, mere speculation. ChaCha apparently has plans to launch ChaCha India at some point - it owns the domains ChaCha.co.in and ChaCha.in, which presently redirect to ChaCha.com in its English language version, the only such version known to exist. We didn't find ChaCha in other ccTLDs during a quick search of other international domain registrations.

Our readers are well aware of the fact that ChaCha's shortcode '242242' is registered across many tlds and that ChaCha Search, Inc., also registered various typo-variants of 242242.com, which redirects to and is the unannounced mobile portal for ChaCha.com. We now are pleased - although others may not be so pleased - to announce the fact - get your domain registrar passwords ready - that 242242.co.in and 242242.in are available. Those numeric domains would be good companions to ChaCha.co.in and ChaCha.in when ChaCha Mobile - the mobile browser version of ChaCha.com - is launched in India.

Update: ChaCha Search, Inc., registered 242242.in on February 7, 2008. The domain 242242.co.in may be in the process of being 'requested' by Key-Systems GmbH, ChaCha's choice of registrar.

$20 Amazon card in the offing for selected ChaCha mobile customers

Over the next few days, a percentage of ChaCha's mobile users will be given the opportunity to take a customer survey over the phone in exchange for a $20 Amazon gift card. This is according to Chacha's Guide Blog, which is open for the public to peruse.

ChaCha's survey of a 'statistically significant' number of users this week (and possibly next) could help the company's statisticians figure out the following question: How much would a typical mobile user pay for ChaCha's mobile answer service? Some survey-takers might veer slightly off the road upon hearing this question since many users of textChaCha, as the mobile answer service is also called, don't know that the service won't stay free. In fact, ChaCha's mobile answer service will go 'premium' later in 2008, available for a monthly subscription.

The survey will help ChaCha's experts hone in on a better price expectation for their mobile answer service than they currently have pegged, which is somewhere between $5 and $10. ChaCha's Director of Guide Management, Esther Friend, wrote today on the Guide Blog: "The surveys are being conducted to gather useful feedback and relevant pricing information to guide us in the coming months on our strategy and priorities for a successful commercial launch."

Nearly all of ChaCha's competitors in the mobile search market offer free mobile search via SMS. ChaCha, however, is the only such SMS search service that is not based on automated search. Freelance 'guides' hired by ChaCha search the internet and various databases for customers who are away from their PC computers and need assistance. Cell phone users can send a text message - in the form of a natural language query - to 242242 and receive an answer in seconds or minutes. Currently no ads are presented on the service.

While a $20 gift card on Amazon.com is a perfect 'price point' for successfully luring in just about any customer to take a survey, ChaCha's executives may find that users will think that that price point of $5-10/month is a bit much for premium textChaCha, at least for now. During this nascent phase of mobile search, users are finding that no service, Google included, is the undisputed leader in mobile search. In this kind of market condition, users will be mostly 'test driving' services and not buying. They'll wait until a highly trusted source (in the non-mobile search market, examples include Consumer Reports, Car and Driver, New York Times Book Review, etc...) reviews, ranks, and rates the range of products and services. Until that happens with mobile search, it is unlikely that people will flock in signficant numbers to one specific 'dealer' and sign on the dotted line.

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.

Numeric domain properties: the next 5th Avenue

If registration of a plurality of TLDs - for a brand, word, name, phrase, etc... - is any indicator of the perceived value of a domain, then numeric domains that spell common brands and words have been growing in value over the past decade and skyrocketing over the past 2 years.

A few years ago, only a fraction of the dotcom wordnumbers for the top ranked websites in the U.S. were registered. The past 48 months or so has seen the registration of the .com and slowly the .net, and in some cases .mobi and other TLDs, for the wordnumbers of the top 10 and many of the top 100 most visited websites in the U.S.

Below is the list of the top 10 most popular websites in the U.S. per the ranking company Alexa. Next to the brand name is the number of TLDs (com/net/org/info/biz/us) that the corresponding wordnumber has been registered (including the .com).

Google 4
Yahoo 6
Myspace 2
Youtube 3
Facebook 3
Live [Windows] 4
Ebay 5
Wikipedia 2
MSN 6
Craigslist 2

For the top 10 websites in the U.S. per Alexa, each brand's wordnumber is registered at least in the .com and .net, and in some cases registered 'across the board' of TLDs, as is the case with 92466, Yahoo's wordnumber.

If we expanded this analysis beyond the top 10 websites, it would yield few surprises. We know that well over a thousand wordnumbers for brands and many tens of thousands of wordnumbers for generic words have been registered in the .com TLD and that it's rare to see more than that (the .com) registered. So, when we learned that ChaCha owned its wordnumber in the .com TLD, 242242.com, as well as all other common TLDs and also a few dozen typo-variants of 242242.com, we thought that was a special item to report, especially since ChaCha.com isn't a very popular website. Today, Alexa gives it a rank of 27,317. By most accounts, that ranking is a pretty disappointing one for an alternative search engine that is trying to break out of the pack. And it is probably deserved too. I tried ChaCha this past week for the first time. My inaugural query was a simple one: what is the toll for the Tappan Zee Bridge? The answer came back within 45 seconds and stated that the toll was $4.00. I'm glad I didn't count exact change before leaving to get in my car because when I arrived at the toll both, I learned the toll was $4.50.

ChaCha registered 242242.net/org/info/etc... late last year and bought the 242242.com domain not from us, but from a relative of Scott Smith, who is CEO and President of NumericDomains.com.

A numeric domain typo generator?

This past week on Jamptap, we have been discussing the fact that ChaCha Search, Inc., has been defensively registering a multitude of typographical mistakes of its numeric domain, 242242.com, to benefit from future type-in mobile traffic. We wondered if there was a way to develop a tool to help with such a task. A numeric domain typo generator hasn't yet been developed but good, ordinary domain typo generators exist on the net and tweaking them for the purposes of discovering numeric domain typo-variants works pretty well.

We used the domain typo generator at DomainTools.com and created this five step process that should take under five minutes to complete:

1. Convert your dotcom wordnumber to the alpha representation of the wordnumber; 242242.com becomes agaaga.com
2. Enter this - 'agaaga.com' - as a search term and unclick only the one box next to 'QWERTY typos' since users will likely be switched to numeric mode on their mobile phone when typing dotcom wordnumbers.
3. Copy the results and paste into a program like Excel where you can carry out a 'replace' function
4. Replace the letters with numbers again
5. Weed out the results that include the original domain, and also its plural - i.e., 242242s.com - and the typos generated for the 'dot' - i.e., wwwl242242.com. There may be other results to weed out including ones with the suffix 'co6' (i.e., NNNNNco6.com).

And there you have it: a list of typo-variants of a dotcom wordnumber for cell phone users who have sticky keys, and problems with letter swapping and letter doubling.

So, how did ChaCha do so far by this method? They currently own 8 out of 21 typos, which is a 38% success rate (provided our typo generator tweak method is a viable one). (We placed a 'Y' next to the domain property currently owned by ChaCha Search, Inc., and omitted the '.com')

24242
42242
22242
24224
24222
242-242
422242 Y
2422242
www242242 Y
ww242242
2242242 Y
242224 Y
2442242
242422 Y
2422442
w242242
2422422 Y
242242com Y
224242 Y
www-242242
www242242com

We must take into consideration, however, that these NNNNN.com's are pretty scarce these days and the current registrants probably won't let them go very easily, especially since a good portion are zip codes and set up as portals for that purpose. Furthermore, buying up typos for usage with the 'www' prefix isn't necessary since cell phone users - most of them - know that 'www' is not required.

Reducing the field according to these restrictions brings the total number of typo-variants to 11 domain names, which are below. ChaCha finally gets a passing grade (at least in our book), with a 'D' at 63%.

242-242
422242 Y
2422242
2242242 Y
242224 Y
2442242
242422 Y
2422442
2422422 Y
242242com Y
224242 Y

Certainly the prized typo-variant of 242242.com is the five-digit domain 24242.com, and what a happy person that Dutch domainer will be in the future...

Obviously, enhancements need to be made for designing a better numeric domain typo generator, especially to address keypad slips unique to a numeric keypad; a finger (a thumb, for instance) can easily slide up or down while moving right or left, and vice versa and miss certain keys or add other numbers. Also, the 'sticky keys' issue is different on a numeric keypad than a QWERTY one, so when the key '2' sticks, for instance, then the 'c' and the 'a' both stick and, likewise, you get double the trouble. A reliable numeric domain typo generator is a long way off, and good old fashioned manual tweaking and experimentation may do the trick in the meanwhile.

'Tis a good time to be a domain registrar

Jamptap discovered a new 'round' of typo-variants of the domain 242242.com that ChaCha Search, Inc., registered during this past week. They include the following: ask242242.com, ask242242.net, ask242242.org, text242242.com, text242242.net, text242242.org, www242242.com, www242242.net, 242242com.com, 242242net.net, 244442.net, and 424424.net.

While we were searching domains relating to 242242.com, we noticed several active and deleted URLs relating to the phrase '2424Milk.' 2424Milk.com was a consumer education website launched in 2004 about the nutritional value of, you got it, milk. The site was also the 2-year home of the popular Milk Mustache celebrity campaign, which began years before. In 2006, the site offered a sweepstakes to win 1 of 24 trips to the Bahamas.

The domain, 2424Milk.com, marketed as 24/24milk.com, was so named to emphasize the claim that having 24 ounces of milk every 24 hours while dieting would help. The campaign's platform was 'Milk Your Diet. Lose Weight! 24 ounces in 24 hours.' Apparently 24 ounces in a day seemed a bit too much milk, or mustache, for most people and in 2007 the domain 2424milk.com began forwarding to the domain WhyMilk.com, the new official home of the milk mustache hall of fame. Perhaps it was the number '24' that sounded like a lot of (ounces of) milk. The message on WhyMilk.com is still the same, however they just use a smaller number. They advise people to drink 3 glasses/day, which seems like less milk but, of course, really isn't. Per WhyMilk.com: 'Studies suggest the nutrients in 3 glasses of lowfat or fat free milk a day can help maintain a healthy weight, plus the protein helps build muscle for a lean body.' Both websites were launched by the Milk PEP (Milk Processor Education Program), which is funded by America's milk processors.

ChaCha Search, Inc., probably has noticed in their domain registration frenzy over the past month that a lot of domains with 2's and 4's and the word milk are still hanging around with parking pages. Our favorite is 24224milk.com, which is the URL that a user would type in to get to ChaCha when, suddenly, they realize they haven't had their 24 ounces today and hash out the word 'milk.' It's unbelievable that domain is still registered.

Update on ChaCha's 242242.com

Our blog post from Thursday - ChaCha's 242242.com goes live - is already outdated on Saturday. Although ChaCha's typo-variants of 242242.com all seem to still be forwarded to ChaCha.com, we have noticed that the main attraction, 242242.com, is no longer resolving.

Oh well. Here's one theory: one of ChaCha's execs or technicians set the domain to resolve earlier this week, added the URL to search engines, waited until the domain was spidered and then abruptly ended the URL redirection, waiting until a future date when application of that numeric domain will be made official (via a press release). As such, searching '242242.com' on Google now reveals a new result - ChaCha.com/textchacha - that will help, although in a very small way and probably just among Jamptap readers, to boost ChaCha's stream of visitors. The big benefit will be when, and if, ChaCha launches a mobile initiative while simultaneously announcing 242242.com as a mobile 'feature'. Since '242242.com' is indexed by Google, users will see immediately that there's an association in the search results of 242242.com to ChaCha.com.

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.