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."
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?
I could get a great look an MBA by sticking my head up his ass, but I'd rather take Chicago2016.com word for it.
i forget
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.
2016 is just a suggestion. Maybe it could be chicago.olympics?
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 Raise your hand if you think it's time that the IOC/USOC-bought legislation "protecting" the Olympic "trademark" was repealed.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.
It's an under-appreciated punctuation mark anyway.
Fixed. Sorry, I just couldn't resist. ;-)
What's next, grant the patent to the large organizations simply because they're large?
Watch yourself, son. You're dangerously close to infringing my patent on "a method for granting patents to entities using a relative comparison of the size of entities."
i forget
ChicagOlympics.com
Cube On! (http://stores.ebay.com/PuzzleProz)
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.
*raises both hands*
...and the idea of mounting olympus is raising my wood.
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
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?
.. Would be to give him the .org and they take the .com
.org *should* go to the organisation I think a .org that is a forum for discussion on the bid is actually quite in line with what you often get on a .org.
.com atall and I am in agreement with you, however, I think we all know that he's going to get the shaft and I'm just pointing out a genuine solution whereby he gets to keep a legit domain for his forum).
Whilst it is true that
(I realise some will say he doesn't deserve to lose the
I record my sleeptalking
IANAL, but I fail to see how the Olympics have been financially damaged (financially being a key word) by this guy having a piece of prime cyber real estate. How can they prove that they made less money without that domain? In property lawsuits, often objective proof of damage is required. Anything less is not proof. And on the side, if they want this prime real estate so bad, they should stop being cheapskates and cough up, just like in the physical world.
2016 certainly wouldn't...
a) We move the Olympics year!
b) Chicago gets a new name!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
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
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.
Dear City of Chicago,
We regret to inform you that we have voted our 2016 Olympic Games be held at the fine city of Amsterdam, and not Chicago, IL.
Our decision was based on many factors, and your city scored quite well on all criteria of the selection process.
But when it came down to it, Amsterdam2016.com was actually registered to the right people.
Sincereley,
The Olympic Planning Task Force
-David
Comment removed based on user account deletion
. . . . is what will kill America.
Meh... it's 2008. Who manually types in domain names anymore?
I'll admit, it took me a while to start omitting the "http://www..." part, but as soon as I switched to Firefox, I very quickly gave up on typing out full or even partial domain names. I fully abuse Firefox's "awesome bar" to get me where I want without having to remember whether the site I need used a .org, .cc, .com, or .net, whether there were deliberate misspellings or additional words in the domain name, or other such arbitrary designations.
Here's my point. If you type "Chicago 2016" into a search bar (Firefox uses Google by default), you will find relevant Olympic information *in context*, if not an official website! There is a much lower chance of stumbling onto a misleading page, designed by someone who managed to snag an arbitrary domain name first, because a search will show you a community consensus of what the "real" sites are ("Google bombs" and the like notwithstanding, though they remain an important counter-argument to my case).
Hopefully you already know this stuff, but show it to a non-techie friend or a family member sometime. It'll blow their minds ("Are you hungry? Why don't you type 'Pizza hut' into this bar here...). Plus it'll save you from having to clean all the adware and pornware they would have otherwise got by wandering onto onto the wrong page and clicking one too many false links (try pizzahut.net).
There's no reason to randomly try domain names when half the Internet is already indexed for you. Cybersquatting should be obsolete.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Interesting, but irrelevant. In this case, the "CityYEAR" family does not belong to a single entity. Each one is associated with an entity in each city. I doubt they are associated in any legal sense, since many are or were bitter rivals. So there is a "family" of names, but who they are presumed to belong to is not obvious.
when you're talking about famous marks.
Again irrelvant, as these are certainly not "famous". I never knew that Chicago was contending for the 2016 Olympics till today, for instance.
Bizarrely (and I'm sure no one will believe this), my friend is working for this particular grad student doing translation for one of his other sites. He does seem to be legitimately trying to build them into actual discussion forums on the pros and cons of the Olympic bid cities.
I believe that. I work in internet marketing company and know MFA (Made For Adsense) along with other kinds of ad-sites pretty well. I expected to see that site coated with AdSense, iSell or something that most people (even most slashdotters, from what I've seen) don't recognize as ads. Pay-Per-Post articles, Tradedoubler text links, etc...
I know that if I had that domain, I could propably have earned some 30k just from this slashdot link alone, no problem. And then all other news sources that must have linked to it? This domain could be used to make A LOT of money. After everything, it could be sold for tens of thousands of more just because it would have massive pagerank.
But what? The site is actually active and has none of these. He can't be just "Waiting and missing 100k profits for some good PR...". If earning money was his main goal, he would either not be waiting or he would be really stupid.
I've got no sympathy for either side in this one. The guy is clearly an asshat who is a hair's-breadth short of being a pure domain-squatting subhuman scum. The fact that he went out and registered a bunch of {city}{olympic-year} domains makes that clear. His only minor possible redeeming feature is that he doesn't appear to be in this for the money. But if he gets away with this crap, the next one will be!
And in this corner, weighing in at the proverbial 2000 pounds, we have the extremely offensive, litigious bastards at the IOC who deserve to lose every trademark they can for dumping all over the Special Oly^H^H^HGames, among many, many other things. If they win, it's going to be a tragedy for everyone who has a legitimate, established domain that happens to conflict with some brand-new just-imagined trademark.
I only see one way out. We have to kill everyone involved. The IOC, the Chicago bidders, the guy with the domain, ICANN, the rest of the population of Chicago, everyone who lives in a city that has or will ever bid on the Olympics, everyone with a computer, everyone with a trademark, everyone with a name...kill 'em all! It's the only way to be sure! :)
STOP!
you know the next line
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
They would be forced to change the name in the UK (and possibly elsewhere) as Mccain is an established company selling potato products including frozen fries.
Now if you created a parody site called "mcchocolatecake.com" and testified that you had used the term with the belief that it was so outlandish that McDonald's would never use it AND that any onlooker would see the name as a parody rather than a legitimate name, then you might have a case. But if McDonald's did come out with a McChocolateCake, you might be screwed anyway. It would be up to the ICANN panel to decide.
Not necessarily.
There was a very similar situation with Malcolm McBratney, who's nickname is McBrat. He sponsored a Rugby team an put his nickname on the shorts. McDonalds tried to sue him, partially based on their plans for a childrens clothing range. Although their planned name was McKids, NOT McBrats.
Anyway, they lost. It probably didn't help them that Malcom is an IP lawyer.
You can read more at: http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/articles/McBrats-wins-in-IP-lawyer-vs-Maccas-case_z68530.htm
Ever stop to think
I do not see where you get that he is a domain squatter? As has already been stated here, he registered the domain two years before they even announced the bid and he also seems to be legitimately using the site as a forum to discuss the pros and cons of the Olympics.
So really, your two face comment makes no sense. This is a case of Slashdotters actually reading the article and looking at the evidence before them instead of automatically crying foul one way or the other.
Anyone got a light for my sig?
Well that would be me. To avoid being slashdotted to hell I'm not posting the link to my blog but you can figure it out if you try hard enough.
In 2000 I purchased the .net domain of my site intentionally avoiding the .com since I'm not a commerce site. Fast forward to 2005 when some wrestler named Raige came into being. On top of that I was sent a notice to immediately surrender my domain to this douche bag.
I actually was lucky enough to have college legal resources available to me and brought the issue to them. Fact is, since he didn't exist when I purchased the domain he had no standing what so ever. I replied to the letter with some legal mumbo jumbo and they replied with a threat of a lawsuit. I told them to go ahead but that I was willing to fight all the way.
The issues that come with this guys site are the following .com site... that means it commerce... if it's not he might be in trouble. However all that he would have to do is sell a T-shirt through www.geekstuff.com or something.
1) Did he create the site knowingly of previous site names the olympics used?
Does NOT matter. You cannot trademark a naming scheme. You CAN trademark a name. So while a symbol, or McChicken can be trademarked... "Mc" cannot. It could be argued in court if someone made a McChickenWafer...
2) Is this guy a commercial entity? He has a
3) Does he actively use the site? If he didn't... he would be viewed as a squatter and smished. However, the site is actively in use... meaning that this isn't a problem.
In short, ICANN will not be able to take the name and the Olympics will have to create another site or purchase it from him.
Basically, McDonalds is considered to have a "family" of marks; short of an actual Scottish name (and even, perhaps, then, if associated with fast food), putting "Mc-" in front of your business name is a good way to bring an army of red-shoed lawyers down on yourself. Doubly so if the "Mc-" is in front of food names.
It was the same with the european sweets factory Ferrero. They had a milk chocolate specially marketed to german children called "kinderSchokolade" (I guess since about 35 years now). Later one they sold more "kinder-" labelled chocolate products: "kinderUeberraschung" (kinder surprise), kinderPingui and what not. In several countries they got a trademark on "kinder-" in front of product names.
Then the dotcom boom came, and in Austria a marketing agency launched kinder.at. Ferrero sent the lawyers, argueing that this was domain squatting. They lost. They had all the trademark rights, they could prove they were defending kinder- in all variations. Nothing helped.
The judge wrote in his finding of fact: "Kinder sind nicht in erster Linie Lebensmittel" (children aren't food in the first place).
As has also been stated here, he did so with a large collection of $CITY_NAME+$DATE combinations. Shotgunning makes him a domain squatter.
Ad farms and link farms related to the topic name on the link are equally legitimate, and universally condemned here.
Actually, there is no evidence that Slashdot judged the evidence (as I show above) - but ample evidence that they decided that, even though this is a hated domain squatter, it is a little guy seemingly under attack by a the big guy... And so long as the little guy isn't a pedophile Slashdot supports the little guy automatically and without regards to any of the actual merits of the case.
What a total Kroc!
[UID-HeinzIntel]
This case will almost certainly come to a question of "good faith registration," and the fact that the registrant registered a large number of likely Olympic sites followed by Olympic years
To me all that implies is that he evidently intended to run a site related to those olympics, and like the rest of us has no idea where the olympics will be. That's not bad faith; that's common sense.
The fact that he's used the particular pattern the olympics has favored recently is the ONLY issue. But, frankly I'm not satisfied that city-year as a PATTERN is specific enough to assert trademark over.
After all, Expo uses it too... Zaragoza2008.com, as does the Canadian Ultimate Championships (Calgary2008.com), as does the World Science Fiction Convention (Denver2008.com)...
Jakarta2008.com is being used for some massive religious convention...
Washington2008.com belongs to the Barack Obama campaign.
Plus the innumerable cities that own their own name-year domains that redirect to their page of current events. And nevermind the dogpile of domains used by those pointless advertising directories.
I just don't think the olympics can claim they own a trademark on the pattern here.