Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

domainnamewire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#21

Post by ds9 »

It would be a very bad precedent if an owner of a domain name can gain rights to the same name in another tld just by his own site becoming popular.

US trademark law is limited to (a) commercial context and (b) possibility of confusion. If you aren't selling anything, or even if you are commercial but are in a different line of business, you should never be troubled by any trademark claims. This is how the old Beatles record label and the computer company can coexist with the 'Apple' name.

Probably many of us here are in similar situations - I have a domain name for example in .net and .org, but someone else has the .com. I don't want to take the .com from whoever it is (not without their consent, that is), and I shouldn't to have to pay for lawyers to fight them off if they make the name better known for their unrelated site.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#22

Post by iLoch »

rplnt wrote: post #18
binarymax wrote: post #2

Is the name 4chan trademarked? It doesn't seem to be. Would it be easier to secure the .com if they trademarked the name first, then went after oversee?

I think it's really stupid to get domain like this, whether the name is trademarked or not. They didn't steal the domain, they just registered it (or bought it) because it was available. 4chan.org has absolutely no right to it. But since .com TLD is not really international, who knows what will happen.

TLDs are not distributed by ICANN on a first come, first serve basis. Those with rights to the name (ie. a trademark) have priority access to the TLD.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#23

Post by jamestnz »

theOnliest wrote: post #19
Perdition wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also legally yours if you use it and no one challenges for a long period of time. Trademarks are based on use. Massive corporate behemoths have lost local TM use because some mom-and-pop store was using a trademark first.

My favorite example of this is the Waffle House (24-hour dive). In Indiana, "Waffle House" was already taken, so the national chain had to use "Waffle & Steak" instead. Of course, since we used to call the Waffle House "WaHo," this leads to the MUCH better name "WaSte"! [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_house#Waffle_.26_Steak

Another interesting example is the fact that Burger King is known ubiquitously as "Hungry Jack's" within Australia (but here in New Zealand we get the real BK branding).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack's#History_of_.22Bur...

"When Burger King moved to expand its operations into Australia, it found that its business name was already trademarked by a takeaway food shop in Adelaide. As a result, Burger King provided the Australian franchisee, Jack Cowin, with a list of possible alternative names derived from pre-existing trademarks already registered by Burger King and its then corporate parent Pillsbury that could be used to name the Australian restaurants. Cowin selected the "Hungry Jack" brand name, one of Pillsbury's U.S. pancake mixture products..."

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#24

Post by Shinkei »

Let's say I run a town with shopping centers. Both are called Main Street Shopping but one is located on Main St and 1st and the other is located at Main St and 120th. When you show up at Main St and 1st, is it a bussling shopping center filled with stores of all kinds. When you GPS Main Street Shopping Center and accidentally arrive at the other location, you just find a parking lot with an empty field with a "coming soon" sign that's been up for 5 years. The site is undeveloped, commercially zoned and represents essentially a burden for the community from both the unrealized tax revenue as well as eye sore and lower local property values. Plus the brand confusion, misdirected out-of-towners, etc.

So take this analogy to the internet, admittedly the 'real' costs may be lower--transmitting a few billion bytes is cheaper than road maintenance, fire and police protection to the unused property--but the societal cost is the same. The property should be fully realized and transfered to someone who will use it. This is the whole 'eminent domain' debate in a nutshell. Just because you own something DOESN'T give you impunity to 'waste' it as you see fit. There is a public interest that is ethically sound. But at its heart, the people who cybersquat are a nuisance. They have no bona fide interest in the domain name and likely acquired it just to 'own' a property that they think they'll be able to flip one day.... it's the same sh*t as the real estate bubble, heck... bubble of ANY KIND. Fact is, I am glad this system of arbitration is in place because if I was Bill Gates and some guy named Joe Smith bought my name.com and didn't have a fan page or other relevant property, but just intended to sell it to me for a 10,000% return on his 'investment,' I would be pretty pissed off. I really don't see the other side of this debate. These are greedy people just speculatively buying stuff without any real interest. It has created all kinds of negative effects like shotgun domain bidding, poaching, pricing bubble, artificial scarcity, ID theft, the 4chan.org issues mentioned in this article.... need I go on?

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#25

Post by _puk »

ds9 wrote: post #21

It would be a very bad precedent if an owner of a domain name can gain rights to the same name in another tld just by his own site becoming popular. US trademark law is limited to (a) commercial context and (b) possibility of confusion. If you aren't selling anything, or even if you are commercial but are in a different line of business, you should never be troubled by any trademark claims. This is how the old Beatle…

On the flip side, I had a .com domain on backorder (I have the .co.uk), which was actually released.

I didn't get it (regardless of the back-order), but it got bought up by a domain squatting company who now want about $4K for it. It is currently parked with a horrendous page that doesn't even render correctly.

Now if my my .co.uk site were to get popular (hah!), I fully expect that price tag to increase.

It's a bizarre system.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#26

Post by _puk »

_puk wrote: post #25
ds9 wrote: post #21

It would be a very bad precedent if an owner of a domain name can gain rights to the same name in another tld just by his own site becoming popular. US trademark law is limited to (a) commercial context and (b) possibility of confusion. If you aren't selling anything, or even if you are commercial but are in a different line of business, you should never be troubled by any trademark claims. This is how the old Beatle…

On the flip side, I had a .com domain on backorder (I have the .co.uk), which was actually released. I didn't get it (regardless of the back-order), but it got bought up by a domain squatting company who now want about $4K for it. It is currently parked with a horrendous page that doesn't even render correctly. Now if my my .co.uk site were to get popular (hah!), I fully expect that price tag to increase. It's a biza…

Oh, and I had the trademark for said site..

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#27

Post by walshemj »

Camillo wrote: post #17

Guys, this is serious. .org is for non-profit organizations. .com is for commercial purposes. This is why moot had to beg for donations for years while helplessly watching everyone and their cat monetize "his" "content" on a .com domain.

Nope .org is for things that didn't fit into the big 5 one of the other bidders for .org tried to run this line and restrict .org to US style non profits freezing out charities an NGOs like Oxfam and the Red Cross - they got shot down in flames.

You going to tell JWZ (one of the early netscape developers) that hes going to have to give up jwz.org good luck with that .

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#28

Post by walshemj »

rplnt wrote: post #18
binarymax wrote: post #2

Is the name 4chan trademarked? It doesn't seem to be. Would it be easier to secure the .com if they trademarked the name first, then went after oversee?

I think it's really stupid to get domain like this, whether the name is trademarked or not. They didn't steal the domain, they just registered it (or bought it) because it was available. 4chan.org has absolutely no right to it. But since .com TLD is not really international, who knows what will happen.

How is .com not international it's a TLD? by definition TLD's are not tied to a geography in the same way that country domains are.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#29

Post by Shinkei »

ds9 wrote: post #21

It would be a very bad precedent if an owner of a domain name can gain rights to the same name in another tld just by his own site becoming popular. US trademark law is limited to (a) commercial context and (b) possibility of confusion. If you aren't selling anything, or even if you are commercial but are in a different line of business, you should never be troubled by any trademark claims. This is how the old Beatle…

It's not that it's 'more popular.' That's not the debate. The debate is that the .com site is being squatted. If it was some 4chan interior design company with even some legitimate business, then the debate would be over. Do you think it's a bad precedent if Google becomes popular and you can show that a person subsequently registered all the single permutation misspellings of Google and then tried to sell them back to Google? Or even worse, told them they would post porn redirects at all the sites if they didn't buy them at huge markup? Go read about the Whitehouse.com history.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#30

Post by gaius »

ds9 wrote: post #21

It would be a very bad precedent if an owner of a domain name can gain rights to the same name in another tld just by his own site becoming popular. US trademark law is limited to (a) commercial context and (b) possibility of confusion. If you aren't selling anything, or even if you are commercial but are in a different line of business, you should never be troubled by any trademark claims. This is how the old Beatle…

I remember when Gap (the American clothes company) sued Genesis Access Point (the Irish dial-up ISP) and won, back in the 90s. That's when it all started going to shit.
Post reply on HN