Slashdot Mirror


Graduate Student Defends Right To Own Chicago2016.com

An anonymous reader points to a story in the Chicago Tribune about another domain-name battle. Quoting the article: "As Chicago wages its battle to host the 2016 Olympics, it also finds itself scrapping over a valuable piece of cyberspace: the domain name of Chicago2016.com. The bid team along with the U.S. Olympic Committee are trying to wrest that online address from Stephen Frayne Jr., a 29-year-old MBA student. Frayne snagged it back in 2004, about two years before the bid was launched. ... 'We certainly see Chicago2016.com as the logical default domain for our site, and we believe having someone else control it is misleading for people seeking information about Chicago's bid,' said Patrick Sandusky, a spokesman for Chicago 2016, a moniker protected by trademark."

16 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. Looks Legit by SolarStorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This does not a case of someone trying to make a buck on the name. It looks like someone smart who registered a domain name for the purpose of discussion. The domain is not parked, not defamitory and is in use. Case closed. If this he looses his domain name, then who is next?

    1. Re:Looks Legit by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, they would have a right. You yourself admitted that the Mc-prefix is a common pattern among McDonald's trademarks. In effect, the "Mc" brand itself is their mark. You have no more right to infringe upon their "Mc" mark than I have a right to create a program called "Microsoft Birdhouse". Both instances would be seen as bad faith and an attempt to hang your agenda off someone else's trademark.

      There is no "in effect." Trademarks must be registered. "Mc" is not a registered trademark, Microsoft is.

      Post above should be modded redundant... Don't know what happened there.

    2. Re:Looks Legit by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Though apparently American courts have ruled in favor of McDonalds several times over "Mc$WORD" businesses. While other countries appear to have (rightly) laughed them out of court. Wow our justice system is fucked.

    3. Re:Looks Legit by bane2571 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You would have a very valid point, except that the guy made the site into an Olympics discussion site. If it was his neighborhood watch group (ZIP CODE 2016*) I can't imagine there would be any argument that he should keep it.

      *Go to Australia, 4 digit zip codes. Trivia: Sydney has an area with zip code 2000

    4. Re:Looks Legit by EveLibertine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you're right, but according to the article he only launched the website with content a month ago. It's "in use" now, but maybe that's only as a result of Sandusky receiving communications from the Olympic Committee expressing interest in the domain name. He apparently also owns Tokyo2016, and is "in the process" of launching a discussion site there as well. And as per the article, Sandusky is claiming to have no knowledge of the lawsuit. This really smacks of domain squatting, albeit with Sandusky scrambling to cover his ass before the lawsuits start flying. It'd be interesting to sit in on the arbitration for this to see what kind of communications have actually been going on behind the scenes.

      I mean, if the Olympic Committee gave him and inkling of an idea that they might try to wrestle control of the site from him around a month ago, and all of the sudden a site pops up at that address to show that the domain is "in use" in preparation for whatever legal action might come about. Well, let's just say that I'm a bit skeptical. Besides, I haven't met a Kellogg MBA student that wasn't out looking for a quick buck (not that there's anything wrong with that per se), and I've met quite a few. I guess that's an admission of my being biased here. (Fucking Evanstonians) ::shakes fist::

    5. Re:Looks Legit by milamber3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you even go and look at the site? This guy did not know they would definitely want this domain, he wanted to start a site that was for discussion of the economics behind a bid for the Olympics. He's a student at a very good business school and that seems like a perfectly reasonable site for him to have created. Just because you think he wanted it for no good reason doesn't make it so.

    6. Re:Looks Legit by alecwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also used in Scottish naming conventions?!?!

      It is a Scottish naming convention, that's where it comes from. Mc or Mac = Son of

      McDonald = Son of Donald and exists as the name of a million or so people who have nothing to do with beef patties, or any other form of biological warfare

      How can you argue that a word in a language which pre-dates English can become the property of a US corporation to the exclusion of the speakers of that language and/or their descendants

      --
      Real happiness lies in the completion of work using your own brains and skills.
  2. Disconcerting. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can understand the notion that people who snipe domains associated with trademarks generally can't hold on to them. The idea that one can seize a domain that has been owned longer than a given trademark has existed seems downright dangerous, however.

    The notion is awfully close to essentially saying that anybody who can't afford a stable of relevant lawyers can have domain names taken at the whim of those who can, which is rather an ugly idea.

    1. Re:Disconcerting. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea that one can seize a domain that has been owned longer than a given trademark has existed seems downright dangerous, however.

      Not necessarily. Let's say I participated in a survey from a company attempting to decide on a new product name. (My wife actually does surveys like this, so it's not far-fetched.) Let's also say that some unscrupulous individual notes all the names, then goes to register ALL of them. The company then chooses a name based on the survey feedback, only to find that every one of their choices has been locked out. Does the company have a right to demand their domain back? (Especially if we're talking about made-up words here.) Do they have a right to demand it back if the person starts a "discussion site" on the upcoming product?

      You can see the difficulty.

      Nearly the same sort of issue happened here. This MBA speculatively registered a whole bunch of (city)(olympic year).com combinations. Unsurprisingly, he got lucky on one of them. Does that make what he did right? Does it make it right because he added a "discussion site"?

      Food for thought, anyway.

    2. Re:Disconcerting. by _generica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmm.

      Datsun became Nissan in 1983. If someone managed to register nissan.com "long before" then, then I say he and his flux capacitor deserve the domain name.

  3. guess they should have investigated the trademark by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a spokesman for Chicago 2016, a moniker protected by trademark.

    Awww, isn't it too bad that trademarks don't give you retroactive ownership of whatever you like? Next time, check BEFORE you secure the trademark to see if it's already available. In fact, I bet they did- and just assumed they could take it over, just like how the IOC and USOC shut down everything named "olympic", even stuff that was named because said business was near a (different) Mount Olympus.

    Raise your hand if you're completely fed up with the Olympics. Raise your hand if you think it's time that the IOC/USOC-bought legislation "protecting" the Olympic "trademark" was repealed.

  4. chicago2016.org by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    chicago2016.org already contains an official site, so I cannot understand why they have to have the .com site as well. I am not a fan of domain squatters, but I am only for kicking someone off of their domain when there is blatant demonstrated abuse of the system and when no other alternatives are available. This does not appear to be the case here.

  5. It's Corporatism by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since when can someone snatch a trade name (which is basically what a domain name is), just because it "fits"??

    The old rules basically were: if you registered a name first, it was yours, unless it could be construed as misleading or confusing to consumers (i.e., confusing one product for another), based on someone else's EXISTING name.

    This might not be the best example, but a rocket and a tennis shoe could both be called "Nike", even though they were otherwise unrelated, because there was little possibility of confusion.

    Chicago did not have the name first. If the goddamned business people would have some foresight, they would have grabbed such names when they started thinking about bidding for the Olympics... not years later after someone beat them to it. I do not see where there is any legal principle that says, "We didn't think of it then, but it obviously should be ours, so we want to take it now!"

    I call "sour grapes". They fucked up, and now want to take advantage of someone who was smarter than they were. That does not a legal case make. If they want to make money on the name, then grab the name first! Why should they take precedence over someone with more business-savvy then they have?

  6. We'll fix it in post production by GuNgA-DiN · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear Marketing Wonks:

    The next time you come up with some brilliant idea or name the FIRST thing you should do is perform a domain name lookup to see if your name is already taken. If it isn't then you should register it immediately! Do not wait until you make the presentation. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Trying to retroactively take a domain name from some guy who snatched it up because you were too lazy to register it makes no sense. If you have some brilliant idea then chance are there are about 2,000 people out there with the same idea. Cover your ass and do your homework. That is all.

    Signed,

    The Internet

  7. Re:A fair middle ground solution by hejish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why shouldn't the olympics take the .org and leave him with the .com? Are the olympics listed officially as a for-profit business?

  8. Solution by Miseph · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The IOC or Chicago 2016 should hire this kid. He's clearly quicker than their people, and if he's getting an MBA he's probably qualified to do _something_ in their organization (like "supervise" a project completely outside his realm of competence). Make one of the conditions of his ludicrously high contract payments that he surrenders the domain, everybody wins (except for people who want the Olympics to be about something other than corruption and greed, but that's already a lost cause).

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.