|O No! O-verstock Pays $350,000. for O.co! Is O-verstock O-verdosing on "O"?|
Could building a brand around a single letter domain be a move that backfires at some point?
Overstock.com press release here: [investors.overstock.com ]
|Overstock.com Announces Purchase of O.CO Domain Name |
SALT LAKE CITY, July 20, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ --
Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK) today announced it has purchased the domain name O.CO from .CO Internet S.A.S . . . The new web address will enhance Overstock.com's brand recognition and retention, align with current marketing initiatives, and make it easier for shoppers to find the company's products and services online.
Overstock.com purchased the registration rights to secure the iconic, single-letter domain O.CO and related URLs for $350,000 USD. Once launched, the O.CO website will carry all of the same products and have the same features as Overstock.com.
'The O is such an important and recognizable part of our brand," said Overstock.com Chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne. "In the new era of the Internet, where short and memorable web addresses are critical for capturing the attention of mobile and socially connected Internet users, our O.CO web address will help to reinforce our brand and expand our business among these audiences.
So, is the 'O' "such an important and recognizable part of (their) brand"?
So much so that throwing $350K, at a .Co domain, makes sense?
Positioning the company to claim O.com should/when it becomes available?
Should a single letter be subject to the exclusionary powers of global trademark registrations?
Didn't the "big O" carry a fair bit of meaning before Overstock went on a buying spree? Do you think their marketing guys and gals didn't see the connection (of the pre-existing meaning) when they decided to go after "O" as brand?
O really?! O No! O! what a bargain! I'm so excited! I think I'm experiencing . . . O! Ooooooooooooooooo!
Wonder if I'm gonna get a C&D, for excessive use of their . . mark. :P
Oprah probably has more claim to the "O" then Overstock.
When I think of the O as a brandable letter I think of Opera first.
I notice they got 0.CO (zero) while they were at it.
|Should a single letter be subject to the exclusionary powers of global trademark registrations? |
No, the letter itself shouldn't, but artwork they create based on the letter might be.
Oprah and Overstock won't tread on each other's ground as long as their O's are distinct enough that we can tell one from another.
The phrase "best buy" is not trademarked, but the Best Buy store chain's distinctive sales-tag image containing those words is trademarked.
The obvious response: O.my!
(But it's already registered by someone in Malaysia.)
Nyuk, nyuk LIA. :P
Interesing, no record of O.no @ [norid.no...]
Question: Would registering O.no or O.my be "good for the brand"?
What about a farce or satirical site at O.no? Fair play? Hmmmm . .
I'm waiting for someone to point out the meaning of "OCO". I checked one source which suggested it may stand for "Oh come on!" Too funny if such secondary meaning is soon ascribed to Overstock's O.co.
"It's a fine mess you've gotten us into this time, Ollie!" [en.wikipedia.org...]
Some might say it's a bold move while others might say it's a move positioned to aid Overstock detractors at some point. LOTS of potential for humor.
O - O!
They also registered O.biz a while back - they're using it for b2b merchandise (office furniture, restaurant, hotel, janitorial, wholesale).
A pity they'll not be able to write an o.de to it with it already being used.