Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Graduate Student Defends Right To Own Chicago2016.com

Posted by timothy on from the but-all-he-did-was-think-of-it-first-and-register-it dept.

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."

8 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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    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.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.