Green Bay Packers and Microsoft Win Domain Name Fight After Family Sought Cash, Tickets and Tablets (geekwire.com)

theodp writes: Last fall, Microsoft and the Green Bay Packers announced a $10 million partnership to build TitletownTech, "an innovation center focused on developing and advancing scalable, technology-enabled ventures," which aims to bring an economic boost to the area near Lambeau Field (Microsoft President Brad Smith hails from the region). Unfortunately for them, they failed to secure their venture's namesake domain name ahead of time. GeekWire reports on the fate of a Wisconsin family that was sitting on the coveted titletowntech.com domain name and offered to give it up in exchange for $750,000 cash, 8 lifetime Packers season tickets, 2 parking passes, and 8 Microsoft Surface Pro tablets (with lifetime MS-Office licenses). The family said the admittedly-ridiculous demand wasn't meant to be taken seriously but was intended to send a message after they received a suspicious $5,000 buyout offer from an anonymous "service" that the Packers engaged to try to recover the fumbled domain. Not amused, Green Bay Packers, Inc. flexed its legal muscle, filing a domain dispute complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which ordered the disputed domain name to be transferred to the team shortly after the USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance to the NFL team for a trademark on TitletownTech, leaving the Wisconsin family with zilch. And so the old titletowntech.com ("TitleTown Tech Solutions") was just a bad memory by the time Microsoft returned to Green Bay last week to give an update on the joint venture, including the news that Microsoft will play a key role in the leadership team at TitletownTech, which will also house its TEALS program employees. [...] And as for the domain name, the NFL franchise with more titles than any other team ultimately did what it has done for years -- win.

Comments

Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[TFlan91]

They received 0 compensation? Really? Did they get their domain registration fees back at least?

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They are not corporations, they're just people. They should be happy they were allowed to continue to live after a stunt like that.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Anonymous Coward]

I had something similar happen years back, essentially they throw their $500/hr attorneys at you because an hour or two of billable "cease and desist" orders is nothing to take what they want and its not worth it for you to fight.

The family should have taken the $5K.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Did they get their domain registration fees back at least?

They got an offer far in excess of their domain registration fees.

They got greedy and threw the dice.

If a cybersquatter can just take a free roll at the big bucks and still get a guaranteed minimum if they lose, economically rational cybersquatters will do exactly that and the overall cybersquatting "tax" will go up.

Your feelings about that outcome will doubtless vary depending on your feelings about cybersquatting in general.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[UnknowingFool]

How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[NicknameUnavailable]

They weren't squatters, you moron. They ran a small business called TitleTown Tech Solutions and that was their actual website. This was theft, plain and simple.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[SlaveToTheGrind]

How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.

The WIPO panel decision goes into this in great length. TL;DR: GBP Inc. filed a trademark registration for "TitletownTech" the day before they announced the expansion initiative. The domain name was created about a month before that. The timing in combination with the attempted shakedown suggests they registered in response to a leak.

As an initial matter, the Panel finds of no relevance Respondent's reference to other businesses that use "TITLETOWN" in their names, given that it is unclear from the record whether any of these businesses use the TITLETOWN Trademark as a trademark and whether any of these businesses have a license from Complainant to use the TITLETOWN Trademark. Further, even if some of these businesses use the TITLETOWN Trademark as a trademark without a license from Complainant to do so, third-party uses of a trademark are no defense to bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-0834; and Custom Bilt Metals v. Conquest Consulting, WIPO Case No. D2004-0023.

The Panel is struck by at least two important facts, each of which is an indicator of bad faith: First, the Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 18, 2017, only one month before Complainant announced the TitletownTech technology and innovation center and filed its application to register the TITLETOWNTECH Trademark. Although it is unclear whether Respondent had advance knowledge of this application, the timing is suspicious. See, e.g., Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Technology, Inc. v. Paul James, WIPO Case No. D2014-1847 ("a close time correlation" between the registration date of disputed domain names and a related announcement by a complainant "cannot reasonably be considered to be coincidental or serendipitous); and Bancolombia S.A. v. Elpidia Finance Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2000-0545 ("[a]bsent 'miraculous coincidences', the Panel considers that the Respondent moved fast to register a domain name identical of confusingly similar to the service mark of the Complainant, after the Respondent acquired notice of the fact that the Complainant would be using the trade- and corporate name in which the Complainant had rights").

Second, Respondent's offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant for USD 750,000 plus, among other things, eight lifetime Green Bay Packers box seats, is clearly "for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name," which is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy – a paragraph that includes no exception for an offer that a respondent, as here, later claims "was not meant as a serious counteroffer." Allowing a respondent to excuse such an offer in this manner would undermine the relevance of this paragraph of the Policy.

In any event, "[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith." WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Here, the Panel finds that the TITLETOWN Trademark is famous or widely known given Complainant's use of the trademark for more than 50 years and its protection by at least eight federal trademark registrations.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Archtech]

They got an offer far in excess of their domain registration fees.

Apparently you don't believe in capitalism or the free market, do you? In a free market, sellers charge what the market will bear. The price asked bears no relationship to what the product cost to make - just ask Apple.

So if you had bought Apple stock when it was first issued, you would now be content to accept the same price for it, would you?

Thought not.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[SlaveToTheGrind]

My last post (and the WIPO panel opinion, if you could bother yourself to read it), lays out the timeline. There's not a shred of evidence such a "business" ever existed beyond the shell website parked at the disputed domain name, and they registered it barely a month before the GBP announcement.

Maybe try swapping the invective for some intellectual curiosity next time.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Archtech]

The timing in combination with the attempted shakedown suggests they registered in response to a leak.

My God! You mean they engaged in ***insider trading***? How frightful!

As we know, if any regular person takes advantage of inside information to make money, they are wicked criminals and must be sent to prison. It's only banks and other corporations that routinely make billions out of insider trading.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Apparently you don't believe in capitalism or the free market, do you?

I think the more apt corollary here is "never try to extort someone for more than the cost to have you killed."

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[sabri]

The WIPO panel

Except, that if you actually read it, it says:

Douglas M. Isenberg
Sole Panelist

And interestingly, this same "judge" also "prosecutes" at the same "court": http://world-intellectual-prop...

So yeah, sure this is independent. If I would that family, I'd sue in a regular court. WIPO is a farce.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they?

If I buy a piece of land on the coastline it's mine.

I can use it once a year put a lawn chair on it and watch the fireworks.

Just picked up some Casino comes in and wants to use my land, doesn't give them the right to do it.

If the government wants to use eminent domain, they can do that for their own purposes, but I don't think they can do it for corporate purposes.

A domain is just online real estate.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[thegarbz]

The devil is often in the details as you say. The timeline smells of cyber squatting. If it didn't they may very well have ended up the new Nissan Computers

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I take it the ad hominem is in lieu of any specific disagreements with the facts and opinions laid out in the decision.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[llamalad]

Wait, what?

Help me understand this.

So if I want a domain name for a business (I do) and that domain is currently owned by a squatter (it is) and that squatter wants $2k for it (he does)...

I can just register trademark the name and force it to be transferred to me without compensating the troll?

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Aighearach]

How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.

If I have a Trademark, and you own the domain, and you don't turn it over to me, you're cybersquatting. That is the system in place.

If you weren't cybersquatting, your use of the domain, by definition, would preempt my trademark application. If in fact I was using the name in trade before you, then I am the one with the claim to the name. That is true if you accidentally had the same name for a non-trade use before I engaged in trade, or if, as in this case, you heard about me doing trade under the name and tried to win a race with me to register it first.

If other sports teams were using the name "Titletown" in their business communications, they should talk to their lawyers to figure out who used it first. If it was just a phrase that local TV sports anchors sometimes used casually, then no luck. Or if fans uttered it, who cares. Or if a bragging player said it unofficially, who cares?

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[psm321]

If the government wants to use eminent domain, they can do that for their own purposes, but I don't think they can do it for corporate purposes.

True, according to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believes otherwise.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Aighearach]

There is a difference though between "insider trading," as happens in the stock market, and an "inside job" which is closer to this case.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Aighearach]

They would not make it to a trial, or even to discovery. They would only make it to a show cause hearing, where the judge would decide to punish their lawyer for filing the case, or just toss it out.

You have to have cause to sue somebody. If they want to take to take this to a "real" court, they need a real claim that they think they're the trademark holder. They don't have that. All they have is an extortionate demand based on trademarks they cannot and have not disputed.

This would be a different situation if they were some company who had also actually been using the trademark as a trademark! Without that part, they were on thin ice just plotting the scheme.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[UnknowingFool]

Green Bay Packers do not own the trademark "Titletown Tech". They only have "Titletown" and other variations of it but not "Titletown Tech" specifically. If Green Bay is allowed to do that then they are allowed to take Titletown Brewing which is located in Green Bay and as far as I know has no affiliation with the Packers.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[SlaveToTheGrind]

It's more nuanced than that, of course. Here, GBP Inc. already had a trademark on "TITLETOWN," and the trademark-related analysis was based on that trademark and not the one on "TITLETOWNTECH," which as the opinion notes, hadn't yet been issued. The latter registration was important, though, to establishing proper diligence on GBP's part and lack of good faith of the squatter. Reading through the opinion probably would help clear up a lot of high-level questions like this -- I promise it won't bite.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Crashmarik]

Why should they?

If I buy a piece of land on the coastline it's mine.

I can use it once a year put a lawn chair on it and watch the fireworks.

Just picked up some Casino comes in and wants to use my land, doesn't give them the right to do it.

If the government wants to use eminent domain, they can do that for their own purposes, but I don't think they can do it for corporate purposes.

A domain is just online real estate.

Kelo vs New London disagrees with you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Anonymous Coward]

If I buy a piece of land on the coastline it's mine.

It might not be. It depends on what your state and local laws are. The land you buy might come with legally-mandated easements. That is, you do not own the beach itself, and you are required to not block access to the beach.

A domain is just online real estate.

A domain is an agreement between parties that a name means a number. It is not property.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[meerling]

My question I haven't yet found the answer to is this:

Did they register the domain before word of Microsoft &the Green Bay Packers plans leaked?

If so, it's a company using lawyers to steal something they want but aren't entitled to.
If not, then it's probably a case of cybersquatters getting squashed like they deserve.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[Darinbob]

Are they really cybersquatters? The story is unclear how long the family owned this. Did they have it before the NFL and Microsoft had plans with that goofy name.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[jpaine619]

You don't buy a domain name.. At best you lease it.. Miss your payments, just once, and it goes back into the pool.

I you bought it, you wouldn't have to keep making payments on it.

When you buy a house, at some point, you send the bank a final check... Then no more payments...

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[jpaine619]

You still own the land in an easement. An easement just gives another party the right to access the land, most often to pass through it..

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[jpaine619]

What "regular" court can overrule the WIPO?

I'll wait while you try to think of one.....

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[jpaine619]

Good luck to the Packer's.. Case law and Federal law make a distinction between companies that have the same/similar trademarks but are not engaged in similar business.

e.g, Apple Computers and Apple Music (Beatles).

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[jpaine619]

big corporations with expensive lawyers cant steal my bitcoin

Care to share what you've been smoking? Ask that Silk Road guy how much bitcoin the government was able to get from him.... (Hint: The answer isn't zero).

I don't know what's more delusional... Your faith in bitcoin or your belief that the government can't take your bitcoins if it decides it wants them.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[NicBenjamin]

According to the decision, which is quoted in the comments, they registered the domain a month before the Packers announced the initiative. No evidence was presented to the 'panel' (which was one guy) that their business ever existed. So according to the arbitrator, technically they had it before the Titletown initiative was launched but it seemed like somebody leaked the initiative to to them and they were cybersquatting.

Whether this was because Titletown Tech was a family business with no lawyers to show up at the meeting with a bunch of tax documents indicating Dad ha been trying to make a go of his computer business for 15 years...

That's another question.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[elrous0]

Anyone who would voluntarily be a Packers fan deserves to live in misery.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[El Cubano]

True, according to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believes otherwise.

True. But did you happen to look at which justices were in the majority on that decision? "Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer" (from the same Wikipedia article you linked)

Even better was the executive order President George W. Bush issued the year after the ruling, including this text:

...for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Granted, as noted in the Wikipedia article, the federal government does not use eminent domain nearly as much as state and local governments. Still, it is interesting since Bush is frequently accused being a corporatist, for the rich, and having no respect for the constitution.

Better still was the legislation which was introduced, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, co-sponsored by 30 (yes, 30) Republicans (you know, the party of the rich) and 2 (yes, only 2) Democrats (you know, the party of the little guy). Sadly, it never made it out of committee while the Republicans had the majority and it appears the Democrats had no interest in fixing this when they took the majority.

It just goes to show. Republicans have their occasional good day and Democrats have their occasional bad day.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[dgatwood]

Second, Respondent's offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant for USD 750,000 plus, among other things, eight lifetime Green Bay Packers box seats, is clearly "for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name," which is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy – a paragraph that includes no exception for an offer that a respondent, as here, later claims "was not meant as a serious counteroffer."

The policy in question also doesn't seem to cover this situation unless the request came prior to their announcement. After all, if it came after the announcement, then it seems reasonable for them (as Packers fans) to have assumed that the company was a shadow broker for the Packers, in which case given the obvious value of the domain to such a franchise, I would argue that that wasn't an outrageous counter.

More to the point, by interpreting that regulation in such manner, this will strongly discourage people from making counteroffers, as any counteroffer could potentially be interpreted as acting in bad faith. That is probably not what ICANN had in mind when they wrote that policy. Just saying. I think the UDRP needs to be revised.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying there wasn't bad faith. The timing is at the very least suspect. But bad faith must be proven, such as proving that the people in question had family or friends who would have known about the Packers' plans. If there isn't any plausible way for them to have found out, then as far as I'm concerned, the Packers just stole someone's domain name.

Either way, if 20th Century Fox really wanted to win the hearts and minds of every geek everywhere, they could file a claim against the domain, win it back, and give it back to the family in question. That would really shine some much need sunshine on UDRP abuse by big businesses.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[NicknameUnavailable]

What was the alternative? Because of Bush's abuse of the system there were folks in other countries that were no longer wanting to have their domain names registered with a body that answered to the US.

Who the fuck cares? It's the American internet.

Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[NicknameUnavailable]

The shitcoin pumpers are going to do a 180 in a few years when quantum computer break Shor's algorithm and destroy the entire market just by existing. The post-quantum signature protocols with the security required to construct a cryptocurrency from are too bloated to be of use (think ~30KB per transaction and unable to be condensed to a per-block overhead as it's required for every single sender,) and would take several years (already beyond the cutoff for that given the current rate of quantum computing advancement) to be implemented as a cutover would have to be initiated from each individual wallet-holder prior to the development of such quantum computers. There's literally nobody in shitcoin development at this point who both knows how computer security works and isn't lying.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[drewsup]

Oh really now ?
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/0...

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[TRRosen]

Actually that was not the ruling. The court affirmed that eminent domain can only be used for public purposes. But SCOTUS made it clear in a state matter, the state courts had sole jurisdiction of defining "public purposes". and the state court had already ruled.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[TRRosen]

All of them. WIPO is a private organization no different that any business. Their rulings are just their decision, they have no standing in a court of law.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[jpaine619]

Uh.. No...c'mon.. It's a part of the United Nations... The UN was formed by treaty...

2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution is pretty clear that no judge can interfere with treaties, period..

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[jpaine619]

I had to go back and do a double take.. Where the heck do you get that the WIPO is a private organization?

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the 15 specialized agencies of the United Nations (UN).
WIPO currently has 191 member states, administers 26 international treaties, and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
WIPO was formally created by the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, which entered into force on 26 April 1970.

Not only is the WIPO part of a treaty organization, it was, itself, created by treaty. The Constitution forbids any judge in any state from interfering with it. It declares treaties to be the supreme law of the land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, I'll ask again... What regular court do you suggest this family goes to, where they won't be laughed out of the building?

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[TRRosen]

WIPO isn't a treaty. its simply organized under one. and all the parties are under US law. Courts can and have reversed WIPO decisions.

Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses

[TRRosen]

The court doesn't need to concern itself with WIPO. Both parties are under US jurisdiction. a court can force the packers to return the domain or to compensate the owners.

A treaty in and of itself does not automatically create domestic law. In fact many "treaties" have no more authority than a gentleman's agreement. The Geneva Convention is a UN treaty and the courts have ruled it does not overrule state law.

The UN is not a government nor does it operate under any individual governmental authority. it exists solely through the cooperation of its members. While its members may be nations it is not a public organization. It is no different than 6 guys named Bob starting the Bob club.

The interesting factor here is the Packers ARE a public organization wholly owned by the government making this bizarrely an actual Eminent Domain case making WIPOs ruling a violation of the Fifth Amendment since no compensation was made and its use would seem not to be for public benefit.

This is a combination of international law, constitutional law, and intellectual property law. That makes it the most muddied, non-black and white, just depends on how loud you yell argument of all time. And it all means nothing because no one is going to fight it.

so, then,...

[cellocgw]

Everyone involved is an asshole.
Domain sitters -- assholes.
Absurd compensation request -- assholes.
GBPackers going for a clearly non-football business -- assholes
Microsoft -- say no more.
Federal Trademark Law which allows someone to trademark a phrase already in use by others - assholes.

Re: so, then,...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen.

Re: so, then,...

[olsmeister]

Na, they registered the domain 2 weeks before Microsoft tried to, they claim they were thinking about starting a business but my guess is they had some inside information from the Packers organization about what was going on and tried to take advantage. There is no actual 'local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company' that used that domain name.

Re: so, then,...

[TFlan91]

^ This

It's even linked in the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Re:so, then,...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the Domain "Sitters" A-holes? If I go out and buy 100 acres of land next to a farmer and don't use the land, that's my business and no one else's. If the farmer wants to expand his farm and doesn't want to pay me, that's theft.

Apparently you don't understand private property.

Re: so, then,...

[markdavis]

>"Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen."

Well, not so much so. Their "site" was just a basic template, and it looks to me like it was registered around the press release time specifically as a domain squat. Doesn't matter how big or small the company was.

I would love info to the contrary- like it having been their actual trade name for years prior (and with no other trade names), or their physical location being in "Title Town", or the name actually having something to do with their business other than the word "Tech" in it, or registered years earlier...

Re: so, then,...

[UnknowingFool]

It doesn't matter. The problem with Green Bay's claim is that they should own the name "Titletown". Many sports teams can claim that name.

Re:so, then,...

[FilmedInNoir]

Don't forgot the Trolls that will contact the new company asking for services provided by the old company.

Re:so, then,...

[NicknameUnavailable]

They registered the domain 7 years before it was stolen from them and ran a PC repair business by that name from the website.

Re: so, then,...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Thanks for the link. Yes, I agree. It sure looks like a template with no real details filled out. I have never seen such a generic looking and uninformative website by an actual business ever.

Re:so, then,...

[Archtech]

Everyone involved is an asshole.

You're too modest - you left out yourself.

Re: so, then,...

[Archtech]

Ahhh, slashdot. Fabrication gets modded +5 Insightful. Factual correction gets nothing. I wonder why all the smart people no longer come back here

It's because most of the commenters here are regular people - not too smart, prejudiced to the gunwales, and always ready to sound off about things they don't know much about.

Re:so, then,...

[Archtech]

Why are the Domain "Sitters" A-holes? If I go out and buy 100 acres of land next to a farmer and don't use the land, that's my business and no one else's. If the farmer wants to expand his farm and doesn't want to pay me, that's theft.

Apparently you don't understand private property.

Ah, but he does understand ***business***. Money talks, and enough of it can buy you absolutely anything in the good ol' USA. Senators and Presidents included.

Re: so, then,...

[thegarbz]

Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen.

Of course they were. What kind of an amateur hour cybersquatter doesn't pretend to be a local family-run PC repair business that didn't exist before the announcement and popped up out of nowhere with a fancy domain.

Re: so, then,...

[Anubis IV]

not too smart, prejudiced to the gunwales, and always ready to sound off about things they don't know much about.

Oh, so true. But I suppose it's to be expected. After all, millennials are scientifically proven to be lazy with a strong sense of entitlement, so you can't blame them for being exactly how nature made them. Plus, the harm done by the outrageous antics and flagrant bias of the other political party has spread far beyond the bubble where those people cluster together like the vermin they are. Sites like Slashdot sadly aren't immune to their influences.

</tongue planted very firmly in cheek>

Re:so, then,...

[Aighearach]

And the guy who calls cyber-squatters "cyber-sitters," too. Don't forget him.

News flash: They were not hired to take care of the domain while its parents went out for the evening.

Re: so, then,...

[Aighearach]

Trademarks require actually conducting business activities, not just pretending to on the internet.

Re: so, then,...

[UnknowingFool]

Green Bay doesn't own "Titletown Tech". If they did that would be another discussion.

Re: so, then,...

[jpaine619]

Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen.

Why do you keep repeating this lie? It's been stated several times before that ALL they had was a website.. There was no functioning business.

What is it with you people and reality?

Seriously?

[argStyopa]

"Unfortunately for them, they failed to secure their venture's namesake domain name ahead of time."

Seriously, in 2018, how does this happen? What sort of a dumbshit in 2018 for any business (to say nothing of a tech-specific venture between two NATIONAL corporations) doesn't check if the domain name is available?

Whoever said "hey let's use this name" and didn't check should be fired yesterday.

Re:Seriously?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

What if, in spite of NDAs, the name mysteriously gets registered two weeks earlier?

Re:Seriously?

[PPH]

Registered by whom? Someone who signed the NDA or provably had a business/personal relationship with them? Stand by to get your ass sued off.

If it was a lucky guess (or the first applicant was good at covering their tracks), that's the breaks.

Re:Seriously?

[PPH]

Seriously, in 2018, how does this happen?

Because Microsoft.

I seem to recall an incident back in the last century where they forgot to make a registration payment for microsoft.com. Name resolution failed, but within a few hours one of their admins noticed the mistake, called the registry and put the $35 dollar fee (or whatever it was back then) on his personal credit card to reactivate the name.

Re: Seriously?

[UnknowingFool]

Worse than that was it wasn't the first incident that MS didn't renew their registration on time. I remember another story where a 3rd party developer saw it had lapsed and registered it but promptly gave it back to MS.

Re:Seriously?

[thegarbz]

Seriously, in 2018, how does this happen?

Easy. Decisions like this are not made in isolation. Contracts like this aren't a simple 30 second job + signature. There were likely a large number of people (especially legal people) involved in this project with a todo list that felled entire forests in order to get printed on paper.

Things get missed all the time. The more people involved, the bigger the players, the more likely it is something gets missed.

Shakedown

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually RTFA (I know, I know), and it makes clear that the family agreed to the initial $5k purchase price, only to renege upon finding out that the purchasers have deep pockets. They're not the little guys doing business in good faith; they're trying to take advantage of happening to register a domain two weeks before MSFT/GBPC. Thatâ(TM)s not worth $750k.

They deserve nothing. Probably got the name from overhearing something at a coffee/cheese shop, too.

Re: Shakedown

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't deserve $750k for the equivalent of driving straight into a parking spot while someone else was backing in. Same as the Bell/Gray debacle with the telephone patent. Fortunately, in this case, the car backing up was an unrelenting big rig and the assholes lost this time.

If you think otherwise, you're probably a disgrace to mankind and might want to consider going back to preschool for some morality lessons.

Re:Shakedown

[squiggleslash]

Probably got the name from overhearing something at a coffee/cheese shop, too.

No, it's the domain they'd been using for years for their own business.

I'm also entirely happy with the notion that they held out because the purchasers had deep pockets. I think that's entirely reasonable when you're talking about what's essentially a luxury item - get a domain name that matches your preferred branding. The proposed buyers could easily have backed out, said the proposed price was too high, and picked a different name. There was literally NOTHING about that domain name and branding that meant they had to use it or that it would have created massive barriers to what they wanted to do to choose a different one.

This is legally sanctioned thievery.

Re:Shakedown

[Hognoxious]

Your logic means someone can come take whatever from whoever as long as they are bigger. I'm not sure I'm down with that.

Why do you hate America?

Re:Shakedown

[lactose99]

They bought the domain TWO WEEKS before the announcement, and there was no "business", just a shill website they put up to appear that way.

Re:Shakedown

[thegarbz]

Your logic means someone can come take whatever from whoever as long as they are bigger.

No, his logic is that that being quick and greedy is not a defense against trademark claims. The devil is in the details. If you want a legitimate claim at a trademark name then you need to show that you legitimately do something with it. Like Nissan Computers.

Re:Shakedown

[Areyoukiddingme]

No, they owned the domain *SEVEN YEARS* before it was expropriated.

Liar.

Looks like squatters

[drew_kime]

According to the Wayback link, they put up a really basic template site last fall. When I say "basic template" I mean they didn't even update the button text from "Call to action". They saw the press release and jumped on it to try to get a payout. They should have taken the $5k and called it a win.

Re:Looks like squatters

[vakuona]

That's not fraud. That is just sensible business practice.Where does it say that every time you want to buy something, you first have to advertise how much money you have in the bank?

Re:Looks like squatters

[JaredOfEuropa]

The domain wasn’t worth more than $5000, they only thought it was because the Packers intended to use it.

And no, this won’t happen to any domain. It happens if you are obviously engaging in cybersquatting.

Re:Looks like squatters

[lactose99]

They registered it, they owned it.

You have no idea how domains work do you? You don't "own" anything when you register a domain, just like you don't "own" IP addresses when you register through ARIN.

Re:Looks like squatters

[vakuona]

No it isn't fraud. Buying through intermediaries happens all the time. If Grandma thinks the price is too low, she should not sell, or sell to someone else.

When I go into a supermarket to buy something, I don't expect to be charged more if I am wealthier than average.

If you are selling something and think it is worth more than you have been offered, then you hold out until the buyer matches your valuation.

ipso facto

[PopeRatzo]

Microsoft and the Green Bay Packers announced a $10 million partnership

That's the last straw. It's not quite as bad as if they'd gone with New England, but it's plenty bad.

Re:ipso facto

[lactose99]

I hope the Pats try something like this, just so I can register the name first and earn the right to punch Tom Brady in his fat punchable face, I'll take that over $5k any day.

Greenbay isn't Titletown

[dwillden]

That would be Pittsburgh! 6 Super bowls. Conference championships aren't titles.

Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown

[Anonymous Coward]

you are aware that there was a NFL before the Super Bowl existed, you insensitive clod

Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown

[Anonymous Coward]

Green Bay has 13 NFL titles. Pittsburgh has 6. There were titles before the Super Bowl ya know.

Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown

[Nidi62]

That would be Pittsburgh! 6 Super bowls.

Can't claim "titletown" when you can't even beat Cleveland.

Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown

[Anonymous Coward]

The best team that dirty money can buy year in, year out

how come they did not keep it?

[Ubi_NL]

If I look at the website, it seems that they used the domain for a legitimate business before MS registered their company. Doesnt sound like a domain squatter to me, but then why are they forced to give the domain to MS? Is that legal in the US?

Re:how come they did not keep it?

[markdavis]

>"If I look at the website, it seems that they used the domain for a legitimate business before MS registered their company"

They could be a legitimate business, but that doesn't make it not a domain squatting situation. Their "site" was just a basic template, and it looks to me like it was registered around the press release time specifically as a domain squat. Doesn't matter how big or small the company was.

Here are some things that would REALLY make it not a domain squat- having been their actual trade name for years prior (and with no other trade names), or their physical location being in "Title Town", or the name actually having something to do with their business or product other than the word "Tech" in it, or registered years earlier. I kinda doubt any of those were in play, but I don't know (just speculating).

Greedy Indeed

[Kludge]

They got an offer far in excess of their domain registration fees.
They got greedy and threw the dice.

Greedy indeed! They asked for 8 lifetime Packers season tickets! They may as well have asked for Bill Gate's liver.

Re:Greedy Indeed

[SlaveToTheGrind]

They asked for 8 lifetime Packers season tickets!

I think you may have forgotten to mention the $750k in cash, among other things.

Re:Greedy Indeed

[jbengt]

I don't think you realize how valuable a lifetime season ticket to the Packers home games is.

And

[BenBoy]

And as for the domain name, the NFL franchise with more titles than any other team ultimately did what it has done for years -- win.

And as for the domain name, the entitled wealthy with more dollars than any small business ultimately did what it has done for years -- take what they wanted without compensation. Honestly, the chutzpah, asking for a price that the rich entities didn't wish to pay ... I, too, am outraged at the small businessman.

How to lose a domain

[comrade1]

If you offer the domain for sale then you will lose the domain in arbitration. However, if the family first went to a lawyer to contact the NFL lawyer to negotiate then the family would have been fine. I went through this with Sony years ago for a domain I had been using for a few years for a game that Sony later registered a trademark for. They tried to buy it anonymously which I ignored. They then sent me a threatening letter. I got a lawyer and the lawyer negotiated a sale to Sony. I could have kept the domain if I wanted with minimal outlay to my lawyer, but I could not use it for commerce after Sony registered their trademark. I could have challenged the trademark but my lawyer said it could cost up to $250K to challenge it and I wouldn't be guaranteed of winning. But if I wanted I could keep the domain and continue using it but I could never use it for commerce. So, I decided to give it up to Sony for some ok money.

Re:How to lose a domain

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I could not use it for commerce after Sony registered their trademark

If you had been using it in business, you could have continued to use it. And if your business was clearly in a different space, you probably could as well. (E.g. Sonic the Hedgehog vs. Sonic the fast-food chain or Apple Music vs. Apple Computer).

That said, IANAL. But I do know that while potentially expensive, trademark law tends to make sense.

My live.net experience

[jtara]

I have some experience with this.

I was the original registrant of live.net. Original registration cost: $0. It was registered by email. (I later had to start paying $35/year to maintain the registration.) Sadly, live.com had been taken a few months prior, but live.net would do, and I wrote a convincing argument for the use of the .net. (At the time, .net domains had to justify some use related to "network infrastructure".)

At the time, I was operating the San Diego Baycam as a hobby. It was hosted at a local ISP gratis and was just using a subdomain of the ISP. It ran on a spare Spark 5 that they had.

At some point, I was contacted by a nice guy named Howard. Howard had backed some early satellite broadcasting venture that didn't make it. Howard had lots of ideas, which tended to be a just bit too early for the times or technology. He now had an idea to create a network of outdoor cams world wide. We talked, we met, we shook hands.

I registered live.net under a gentleman's agreement on behalf of a business to-be-formed with Howard, and moved the Baycam to live.net. The gentleman's agreement was vague. We would do some exploration, and set up a company at some time in the future with some kind of equity split. In the mean time, I would continue to develop the feeder and server software I'd written for the Baycam. (I thought it pretty clever at the time - the server used a circular shared memory buffer, so that multiple viewers were just pulling frames from the buffer. The "video" was motion JPEG using now-obsolete "server push". But no thoughts of how it might scale beyond one server, LOL.)

I registered the domain myself, since the business hadn't been formed. Of course, this is where a LOT of domain registrations go bad! Become a ticking time-bomb, actually. My advice to anyone who needs to register a domain has always been: 1. Don't let anybody register a domain for you - do it yourself. 2. Registrar, DNS, and hosting have to be with separate companies.

The business-to-be never happened. Howard went on to do other things (vegas.com). The Baycam hummed along.

One day, I got an offer out of the blue to buy the domain live.net for $28,000. No idea where they got that figure from - you'd think a buyer would start lower than that... The buyer had a bunch of ski-related travel sites, all registered under disparate domain names. He said he wanted to integrate his ski cams and ski sites under a single domain. It seemed odd to me, because the name live.net had nothing to do with skiing, but whatever....

So, I contacted Howard and asked if he was interested in selling the domain, and splitting the profit. (I'm a nice guy, he's a nice guy...)

We did, escrowing it through escrow.com flawlessly. escrow.com disbursed equal checks to myself and Howard. So, so far, I'm a nice guy, Howard's a nice guy, escrow.com are nice guys.

The buyer put up his ski sites and ski cams, and as part of our agreement, I continued to operate the San Diego Baycam on a subdomain.

Fast forward a year, and I was checking the site. My browser was redirected to Microsoft. I sent off a panicked email to the buyer that his domain had somehow been "hijacked", and the hijacker was forwarding to Microsoft! The domain registration had been changed, and it had private registration.

The buyer emailed me back, no there was no hijacking! He's sold the domain to Microsoft. For how much, I know not.

Shortly thereafter, Microsoft announced their Live rebranding...

Had the buyer known a year in advance of the Live rebranding? I've often wondered. It was a year, and they actually had a network of ski sites and ski cams. It wasn't the best name for a network of ski sites and ski cams. I imagine he did not know. live.com was the primary domain for the rebranding, live.net was presumably "protective" to catch mis-types of TLD. The big question mark has always been the generosity of the unsolicited offer. (This was long enough ago that $28,000 was a lot for

Re:My live.net experience

[sootman]

> live.com was the primary domain for the rebranding, live.net
> was presumably "protective" to catch mis-types of TLD.

$28k is a lot in that case, since no one in the history of the WWW has ever mis-typed '.net' when they meant '.com'. :-)

Re:My live.net experience

[jtara]

>$28k is a lot in that case, since no one in the history of the WWW has ever mis-typed '.net' when they meant '.com'. :-)

Actually, I was wrong, it was $36K. I split it 50/50 with Howard, so I got $18K, the 8 stuck in my mind...

Presumably, Microsoft paid more than $36K a year later.

It's certainly POSSIBLE that the buyer knew there were plans in the works. I was and still am baffled why they paid $36K to put ski cams on a domain that doesn't suggest ski cams. ;)

Still, I think fair for all. I can't imagine the buyer made a huge windfall given that it's just a secondary protective domain for Microsoft.

Re:My live.net experience

[jtara]

>Does Microsoft still let you use your sub-domain?

No, and they never did.

To be clear, I sold the domain to a third party (for $36K, now that I recall, not $28K - I split the $36K 50/50 with my handshake partner), and then a year later they sold it to Microsoft for an undisclosed sum.

I hadn't thought to ask Microsoft to let me continue to use the subdomain! I just went ahead and registered sandiegobaycam.org. Microsoft bought live.net from the party I sold it to, I didn't feel I had any right to it. While the ski sites guy had it, it was a good mutual agreement that helped draw users. The site was rated very highly "above the fold" for "San Diego" for a number of years - typically just below the San Diego Zoo.

Fun fact: the camera "went dead" right after 9/11. I figured it wasn't a good idea at the time to try to revive or replace it. Howard had paid for a nice Panasonic PTZ camera and dome, and viewers could manipulate the camera to look around San Diego Bay, including aircraft carriers, North Island Naval Air Station, Lindbergh Field, etc. etc. I didn't want to buy a new camera, Howard was out of the deal, I just let it ride.

It was fun to have the camera while it lasted. I got "fan mail" from employees at the Naval Oceanic Systems Center, who couldn't see outside from their cubicles. And always appreciation from Navy families who could watch the carriers when they came in and out of the bay.

Subsequently, I've moved, and no longer have that expansive view of San Diego Bay. :(

Re:My live.net experience

[jtara]

Hmmmm... false memories, the Wayback Machine says I'm wrong, and the cam continued to operate through mid-2004 when the domain was sold and then after for I think a couple years.

WTF war did we have around that time? Scheduling that Alzheimer's screening....

Anyway, the camera "went dead" right after we got into some major conflict... The timing was close enough, I just said to myself "maybe not a good idea to give the world a PTZ view of San Diego Bay right now..."

( But, then, I've heard rumors about a Russian spy who lived on Pt. Loma that the sailors would wave to anyway... Probably had something to do with this: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/... )

Wayback only has the static views that were served if you weren't using Netscape browser. :(

WIPOut

[thunderclees]

I hate domain trolls but its nice to see the oligarchy taking care of its own.
A large connected and money interest always beats out the little guy.

Re:so, then,...Stealing.

[Archtech]

Stealing! Like the phone company taking the number they originally gave you and giving it to someone else? Or the state giving the license plate number they originally gave you to someone else? That kind of stealing?

Actually not. But then you were just joking, weren't you? As the examples you give have absolutely no relationship to what actually happened.

Request for service

[Johnberg]

I'll let you all know how well Titletown Tech responds to my request for help keeping my "forward facing servers fast and clean." I also let them know their 'contact' button doesn't work.

Just a template, no business, the panel ruled

[raymorris]

The ruling was that there was NO evidence of any actual business or any intent to have a business. They spent 20 minutes filling in an online template to make that slightly less obvious.

I haven't investigated the evidence personally, but that's what the hearing officer said after hearing the evidence and arguments.

Deja vu

[Alworx]

This already happened before. Do not mock the corporations with "insane" demands...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:so, then,...Stealing.

[Aighearach]

Stealing! Like the phone company taking the number they originally gave you and giving it to someone else? Or the state giving the license plate number they originally gave you to someone else? That kind of stealing?

Right, if I fill out the forms for a vanity license plate, but I use trademarked terms, then I might end up losing the plate. And whatever I paid the State to give it to me.

You don't have a right to pretend your car is work vehicle from Brandybrand(TM).

Phone numbers are trickier; if there is no evidence of bad faith, and you're only using it as a number, then you can keep it. But if it spells out a trademark, and your practice is to tell people to dial that trademark to get ahold of you, you're probably going to lose the number.

Also, if you don't pay property taxes, they eventually take your property. If you want to call that "stealing," then this is the same. But be advised, you'll be unable to have fruitful discussions with people who understand how the rules work if you choose to use different words than everybody else.

Kelo disagrees...

[syn3rg]

...and should be overturned.

Then there's peta.org

[Mike Van Pelt]

Way back in the paleolithic era of the World Wide Web, some wiseacre registered peta.org. People Eating Tasty Animals. The site was a compendium of links to meat companies, leather goods, animal testing laboratories ... basicially, if it ticked PeTA off, he'd have a link to it.

Grumbling from those quarters for years. But they didn't have any web presence, other than news articles about their antics.

Then, at some point "that" PeTA filed a complaint and stole the domain that had existed for several years. It's still owned by the crazies. For a while, the guy who did the original page had it up as a link off of his main page...Hey, it's still there, mtd.com/tasty. I thought I'd looked a while back and it was gone, but it's still there as of now.

Re:so, then,...Stealing.

[mlyle]

> Right, if I fill out the forms for a vanity license plate, but I use trademarked terms, then I might end up losing the plate. And whatever I paid the State to give it to me.

What about if you register a domain, use it in commerce, and someone else registers an overlapping trademark years later and takes the domain from you, like happened here?

This is corporate bully

[sentiblue]

I think fighting the domain owner and strip them of what they own is such bullshit!!! Besides the cash, the fact that they want season tickets and MS tablets is because they are fans of both MS and the football team.. what they ask may seem like lots of money to individuals but to MS and the team is breakfast change. Why did they spend way more than that in legal fees to rob something from someone who legitimately owns it?

Re:so, then,...Stealing.

[NicBenjamin]

There's no evidence they used it for years. Geekwire says it was a "website and planned business called TitleTown Tech Solutions about a month before the Packers’ announcement."

If you actually use it for years, like the Nissan Computer guy you have a much better case.

Re:Finally! Rape is (still) Legal

[Jerry]

Typo: 3 Duke Lacrosse players.

Definite squatters.

[ChoGGi]

It's supposed to be a "local" business website, but the contact us page has no phone number...

They still registered it before any official announcement from the Packers or MS, so I'd say it's theirs to sell.
I mean it's what 35 bucks to register a domain, and you wait a month or so beforehand to register the domain? If you have 5K to offer I think you could've registered a few maybes earlier on in the process.

Re:so, then,...Stealing.

[TRRosen]

Actually not. But then you were just joking, weren't you? As the examples you give have absolutely no relationship to what actually happened.

Actually it's exactly the same. A domain name is a telephone number. If you have a number and the phone company gives it to someone else you can sue for damages.