Hey! Get Off My Name. Username disputes are the domain squatting of the future.

On the heels of WIPO‘s announcement that domain disputes increased to a record 2,329 cases in 2008 (8% increase from 2007) a much more interesting question is starting to be raised. What rights do brands have to their usernames on social services such as MySpace, Twitter, and YouTube. As most of the major companies have already secured their URLs, the most valuable real estate for them to cultivate these days is their persistent space within these social communities. And today it’s the wild west with each service arriving at its own set of principles mixing various legal arguments with their own business objectives and user protection.

Take Apple for example – one of the world’s most powerful and loved brands. Of course Apple.com is their corporate website but what about their social presence? Let’s see what the username “Apple” yields on these four prominent social spaces:

MySpace (/apple) = DJ Apple. Brand Fail.
Twitter (/apple) = Squatter. Brand Fail.
YouTube (/apple) = Some user named Apple. Brand Fail.

Wow, so Apple fails to occupy the real estate associated with their brand on three of the most important social publishing and community tools of the Web2 era. You think they’d want to address this, yes? But how? There’s no clear WIPO-like rules in place for service usernames. And none of these users are violating Apple’s trademark or creating brand confusion so it’s unclear that Apple has any legal right to the usernames since “Apple” is a generic term. For clear trademarks or impersonations it’s easier to claim your brand.

Basically in this case brands are left with two choices:

1) Negotiate directly with the user and try to purchase the namespace a la buying a domain name.

2) Contact the service provider and try to get them to reclaim the name on behalf of the brand, sometimes using the carrot or stick of advertising spend. This often happens under the cover of darkness when the user account is inactive but what happens when the user has a vibrant community around them? Does the service provider really want to set off blogosphere shitstorm and be accused of selling out their users?

So what’s a potential best practice for this new reality?

A) Free market + easy account transfer. Service providers such as MySpace could support the ability to transfer an account and its history to a new user name along with a payment to the account holder negotiated between the brand and the user. Make the transfer option available with a minimum payment of $5k in order to minimize the number of account transfers. Once transferred on the legacy account, support a ” has relocated to ” for a 90 day period.

B) Separate official namespaces for brands – /brand/name as opposed to /user. Is this part of the Twitter revenue strategy?

Does anyone know of services or communities that are elegantly handling the username issue? (I’ll offer up that it’s a challenge for us here at YouTube).

Note: I haven’t included Facebook because as a Real Name system there really isn’t a /apple equivalent. The issue of whether user-created fan pages are being embraced by brands or shut down is a separate post. Coke at least did something very novel with their user-started fan page.

8 thoughts on “Hey! Get Off My Name. Username disputes are the domain squatting of the future.

  1. small point, but the WIPO announcement fails to disclose that a) in the last 10 years, 50% of the time, the number of disputes has actually fallen, that this past year, disputes with its competitor, NAF, have fallen and finally, that the number of names registered, has gone through the roof yet again, so in fact, the number of disputes/domain registered, has also fallen. WIPO’s announcement is essentially garbage.

  2. As I pointed out November 3 in Twitter Squatting ( http://threatchaos.com/2008/11/twitter-squatting-squitting/ ) There is already a land grab for Twitter names. Check out /panera to see an example. All the short Twitter names are already taken. Twitter seems to have a workable policy. Unused accounts time out after nine months I heard. If you are the brand holder just contact Twitter and they turn it over to you.

  3. …or did you mean ‘apple’ a piece of fruit? Do Apple Computer Inc have the world rights to this word? Shouldn’t they be using /applecomputerinc ?A good discussion but /brand/name seems to be going down the TLD route… so we could have /store/name, /edu/name, /info/name and /gov/name when we all know of course /name is the best!And what about Brand Ltd and Brand Inc?

  4. I think your general thesis is interesting but I can’t imagine a worse example than Apple.“Apple fails to occupy the real estate associated with their brand on three of the most important social publishing and community tools of the Web2 era. You think they’d want to address this, yes?” — actually no. I don’t think they care about this at all since this isn’t how they choose to engage their customers and hasn’t ever been.Pepsi, Travelocity, Google, Toyota, YouTube… all good examples. Apple, not so much imo.

  5. I think in Apple’s case, this is just another example that Apple is really, really behind when it comes to embracing the web.

  6. Hmm it appears like your website ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so
    I guess I’ll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.
    I too am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to everything. Do you have any points for newbie blog writers? I’d really appreciate it.

Comments are closed.