Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Fandom vs. Fandom.com 154

Posted by michael from the fandom-menace dept.
Marx's Ghost writes: "This is an interesting article about fan sites being threatened by Fandom.com, whose claim of being "by the fan's, for the fan's" doesn't hold up in view of their bullying tactics. Should provoke some people who are concerned with poor definitions of cyber-squatting. What should really constitute cyber-squatting?" Claiming a trademark on a descriptive term like "fandom" and then bullying other fan sites ... what a great business plan.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fandom vs. Fandom.com More

Fandom vs. Fandom.com

Comments Filter:

  • Gee, I hate to burst your bubble... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...but have you checked out gateway.com [gateway.com] lately? I wonder what used to be there...
  • I disagree.... all this would mean is that someone like microsoft would now get microsoft.* instead of just microsoft.[com|net|org]. Ditto with other companies. I don't disagree with adding more TLDs, but I disagree that this will lead to the end of the BS.

    Besides, if you have a company, or product that is say, the "netshredder". Nowadays, people look for you automatically at netshredder.com. Where do they go now? netshredder.ustm? .gtm? .com? .product?

    I personally think that we need a *better* way of handling domains that is "product" friendly... A search engine built into a browser so that you type in "netshredder" it presents you with a list of the netshredder.* sites and a brief description of them? Something like that. Don't tell me that search engines do that these days... some are better than others, but they are far, *FAR* from perfect, nor usable "search for "breast cancer" and the like...).
  • No way!

    At least, not if I buy www.letter.com you won't!

    In other news, Microsoft Word Charges By The Letter [segfault.org]...
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
  • It really makes one wonder why bother using one of the new TLD's if they are just going to be frought with cease and desist orders from domain holder(s) in the .com, .net, .org space.

    Reminds me of a "special" I once say on NSI's site encouraging people to regester their name in all three!

  • This is one of the reasons that in the UK you can have a .ltd.uk domain. Only a registered Limited company can have the domain. And since all Limited company names are unique there can be no question about which company you are refering to.

    You even have to present your Limited Company certificate before they can release it

    Of course no one ever uses them as everyone would much rather have a .com or even a .co.uk

  • A "cease and desist letter" is pretty much just a lawyer's way of getting your attention, and has no legal weight. A "cease and desist order" is another thing altogether, and Fandom.com seems to be very short on the "order" side of the battle.

  • You find them in the actual books, which while not explicit, are quite 'friendly', with plenty going on. If you can, pick up Winters Heart, which really does have, well... that would be a soiler, now woudn't it?
  • Because the fan-produced sites make the official sites look the steaming piles of shite they generally are. I have yet to see an "official" site that allows visitors quick and easy access to the information they are looking for, in whatever form, when compared to most fan-made sites. Fan sites usually offer more than official sites and make it easier to get to. And since the majority of users are still on dial-up connections or the equivalent speed, it also doesn't hurt that most "official" sites are composed of bastardized HTML and a bunch of mime-types that takes forever to load and might even crash your browser, whereas fan sites are either put together by people who know HTML -- or at least by people who want to make a web site, not reproduce the passize-zombie format of traditional entertainment.
  • Actually, it's not much like the etoys/etoy case. In that case, etoys was claiming that etoy was willfully misleading visitors who accidentally went to the etoy site, by putting pictures of toys on their front page and that whole fake stock offering thing. In this, etoys was responding to actual complaints from parents whose children had gone to the etoy site and found pictures they felt were unsitable for children.

    The fandom.com stuff is just about domain names. The etoys stuff was about trademarks.
  • I'm going to register www.chair.com

    Presuming I get to this before anyone else does ...too late! :-) Here's a bit from the whois query...

    Registrant:
    American Chair & Seating (CHAIR-DOM)
    132 R. Washington Street,
    Quincy, MA 02169
    US
    Domain Name: CHAIR.COM
    A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for Evil.
  • Don't forget Microsoft's trademark on "bookshelf".
  • Physical mutation, that is, because the ideology seems to remain the same. You may be initially led to think otherwise, thought. Check out what Fandom.com wants you to think:

    The initial premise of Fandom.com was straightforward: to protect individual fan site owners from studio censorship

    When Sony made Fandom.com its official site for Godzilla (back in 1997!) you could start thinking otherwise.

    I've bought a thing or two from AnotherUniverse.com, now owned by Fandom.com. I get the catalog mailed to me, and some months ago I received along this letter telling me about the deal. I didn't take it as a big deal until I actually saw the site. Fandom.com is the perfect source for propaganda.

    From the corporative POV Fandom.com is excellent. Yet we still have to read things like this:

    "We are far from a big corporation," insists Meyers.

    I now return to where I started. Fandom.com mutated from a small site that really harbored other smaller pages to this huge corporate-backed conglomerate.

    The ideology has always been that of "incorporate, assimilate" and this outcome was predictable. [Failure was a secondary outcome, but clearly Mr. Meyers knows what he's doing]

    Mrs. Burrell shouldn't have much to worry about, I believe. Of course there are the legal headaches of going through this and the discomfort of going agaist Fandom.com, but there is plenty of evidence that she's right.

    Domain squatting is a problem, of course, but fortunately it's fast to clear out in an individual basis. Also fortunately, as the eToys issue has already shown us, cases like Burrell/Fandom.com's are doomed to get old and dismissed with adequate amount of proof.

    Flavio
  • well fan sites are nonprofit anyways so why should trademarks have any holding against them in the first place?
  • In the context of websites, "Yahoo" is a trademark. Remember that trademarks are specific to a given business type. In that context, "Yahoo" didn't mean anything and thus was a valid trademark. This is why Apple Computer prevailed against Apple Records (who threatened to sue at one point). "Fandom" isn't recognized as a trademark, merely a description.
  • what do you call this anyways? lawyerocracy? judicocracy? tyranny?)


    Idiocracy.

  • "... that would be a soiler ..."

    Robert Jordan's thing for bondage, and "plumply pretty young women" is fairly easy to spot, but I've never noticed anything scatalogical. ;)

    For that matter, they never go to the toilet either! Ever! I haven't seen it once in nine books. There are a few references to menstruation, though. And I have too much spare time.

  • Some points...

    1) What is a global trademark? One registered in several countries? One registered in all countries?

    2) Aren't trademarks registered in particular categories? So a trademarked "Cornflakes" in breakfast cereals is different from a trademarked "Cornflakes" in foot care.

    3) Shouldn't country trademark domains be under the country domain? e.g. tm.ca tm.uk and tm.us rather than .catm .uktm and .ustm

    4) Shouldn't the use of the country domains be left up to the registrars for those countries rather than having them subjugated by the US governement appointed ICANN?

    Zwack

  • They've no need to wake up, in fact, it's all been working marvelously; you see, they're only protecting they're corporate sponsor's needs.

    -elf

  • It could (quite reasonably in my opinion) be argued that not being based in, or having any relevance to the island of Tuvalu counts as using a .tv domain name "in Bad Faith".

    Except, of course, that Tuvalu sold the .tv domain, and it is available to anyone with the requisite $$$'s. They're advertising .tv as the "new .com" and that you should register your domain there now!!!

    James

  • I have to agree. I have been running The Great Thompson Hunt for gonzo fans for five years now. I invested in a $500 scanner, a domain (www.gonzo.org), a new HD, I pay $600 for hosting, deal with abusive $hitheads and drooling fanboys and all the while have managed to stay afloat thru the generosity of free hosts and other fans. I make squat.

    To date I have had favourable reviews from Ralph Steadman, and others, who were happy to see the site and not ticked off. I have never had a copyright problem, although one photographer wants to be paid a cut of any advertising revenues (I have managed to stay ad free).

    I have invested years and time and money and my soul into this site, and as any fan site maintainer will agree, it's a heck of a job, but it's something, a passion that can usually not be bought.

    IMHO, Fandom was just lax in getting the TV domain when it first came out. Comparing the two sites, you would never guess they were the same - I'm not confused.

    BTW, please don't bash any Fandom webmasters or accuse them of selling out. Happily I have never had lawyers come after me, but other sites have. At the very least Fandom does offer them some protection.

    ----

  • Then you defeat the whole damned purpose of having multiple TLDs.
  • " By the fan's, for the fan's "

    I wonder where the fans of punctuation will host their website then..

  • The article makes the point that fandom.com relies on traffic from people like trekkies to be popular. Most of them, from what I've seen, will simply abandon a site if they don't like the ideas behind it. Within a year or so, companies will realize that it simply isn't possible to make a living off of doing things like this, the money will be gone, and the whole issue will be moot. People seem far to eager to look to a law or court to settle things like this, and then turn around and complain that laws and the court are too omnipresent. The internet can not be controlled, and eventually these people will simply whither and die
  • Okay, I said one of the reasons fandom was founded was for the good of the small time fan site. Another reason obviously was to make a profit. The Salon article pointed out that, despite the CEO's portrayal of fandom.com as a grassroots, "little guy" orginazation, it has both corporate roots and corporate funding.

    My point was simply that that idea, small fansites sharing resources to become more powerful as a group, is still a good one, and might be very successful if executed properly. I'm curious if it could be pulled off, and if so, how.

    Although, the Animal Farm comment might have something. Perhaps any kind of power corrupts, and any organization of fan sites would be subject to the same power trips and politicking of the corporate world. (man, my use of the word corporate is becoming positively Katz-esque. I should get out the damn thesaurus).
  • This is a dispute over trademark, not copyright. Fair use does not apply.

    This may seem anal-retentive, but it's important to have a good understanding of the law before you applying it to yourself or others.

  • Excuse me. Fair use does apply to trademarks, but it has a different meaning than in copyright law. It certainly doesn't apply to this case.
  • 3.Does anyone really beleive a 50+ year old 'generic' term is really suitable for trademarking???

    Unfortunately, if you'll remember the VW or Neon campaign from a few years ago: "Hi." I guarantee you any TM lawer could make a make a case for TM issues with that, had anyone attempted to copy them. And "Hi" is probably one of the most generic colloquialisms ever.

    ...counterpoint to that is that I can't remember which of the two manufacturers it was...

    oh well...
  • Just to be clear, YAHOO was a good trademark because it was "arbitrary" (its in quotes because its a term of art). AMAZON is another example in the internet realm.

    The name 'Amazon' is not arbitrary. The company deliberately stole the name of an existing bookseller to mislead customers. They successfully misled me, I might add. The cooperative formerly known as Amazon is now not allowed to use its former name. (They sued, but Amazon.com argued that the co-op was not in the business of bookseller, but the business of 'bookseller and lesbian'. All the members were cross-examined about their sex lives in open court until they ran out of money.)

    Amazon.com went on to dupe me a second time, by passing itself off as WHSmith (the largest book seller in the UK, commonly known as WHS). Several months ago I wanted to take advantage of WHS's online shopping facility but on typing www.whsonline.co.uk [whsonline.co.uk] (instead of www.whsmithonline.co.uk [whsmithonline.co.uk]) I was directed to amazon.co.uk, and thought WHS had sold its web sales operation to the US corporation. whsonline.co.uk now seems to be under dispute (if you go there, try the link to the 'dispute pages' which contain some relevant opinions).

    Don't forget, this is the company which recently retrospectively gutted its privacy policy. And had already flagrantly violated the policy by posting lists of books bought by individuals in the hope of drumming up advertising revenue. Not to mention that it openly admits that its 'one-click' patent has no merit, and uses it solely for anticompetitive purposes. The only good thing I can say about Amazon.com is that last time I looked it was making huge losses.

    Mmmm. That felt cathartic.

  • Under UK law at least it is perfectly legal to name the company after the owner in the case of a Sole trader&owner company.

    For example there are many McDonalds businesses in scotland in a variety of trades, and the fast food chain tried to issue quite a lot of cease and desist letters, it was their mistake in the end tho cause they ended up getting attacked by Lord MacDonald, Chief of the Clan McDonald who probably have a prior claim to the name :)

  • One of the reasons fandom.com was founded was as a way for fansites to band together, to share resources to fight off corporate bullies.

    I think you're missing something pretty important here: Fandom.com was founded in order to profit from helping fansites band together, under the assumption that they needed to do so in order to remain active.

    Fandom.com is a business, not a charity. They are in it to make a profit for their investors, not to make sure that Fandom survives (the latter is a path to the former, that's all).
  • I don't see what this is all about. Usually the fan sites are sometimes better then the real site. While the offical site will most likely have the latest news that will be about all it has. Most offical sites tend to neglect having a message board, etc. It is nice to be able to go to a fan site and hook up and share ideas with others fans just like you. Fan sites don't hurt offical sites at all. Why would they want to get rid of them?
    >neotope
  • This shows how pointless all the extra TLDs are. Because every fuckheaded, lawyer-infested company with a domain is going to sue to take over that name in each of the toplevel domains.
  • That's the point I was trying to make. Sadly, I mistyped "have no ground to stand on" as "have ground to stand on." Kind of reverses what I meant to say just a bit.
  • WOT Erotica? Look no farther than the books themselves! I've been slogging my way through the newest volume, trying to ignore the fact that Jordan's prose is barely readable (I'm hooked on the plot... been reading the damn things since 10th grade, I can't stop now).

    Anyhow, it's been really bugging me just how heavy Jordan's been laying on the bondage fantasy. You can't swing a ta'varen without hitting a naked girl on a leash. It's a little jarring.

    Dan
  • The Fandom.TV web site (http://www.fandom.tv) [fandom.tv]

    The Fandom.com web site (http://www.fandom.com) [fandom.com]

    Fandom.com's dead trademark on Fandom [uspto.gov] Note:Dead May 01, 2000

    Fandom.TV's Trademark Status [uspto.gov] Note:Application Oct 31, 2000

    Fandom.com's suprisingly new trademark on Fandom [uspto.gov] Note:Application Nov 14, 2000

    Most interestingly though from Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] the word

    FANDOMMain Entry: fandom Pronunciation: 'fan-d&m Function: noun Date: 1903 : all the fans (as of a sport)

    The word is in the dictionary and it appeared around 1903, why is this word even allowed to be trademarked???!!!

  • Yeah, I remember fandom.com... they are the people that bought out spcentral.com and then removed all of the South Park episodes from the web, which removed _all_ of my interest in both websites. Really pissed me off, and it does not surprise me one bit that they are starting with these corporate-nasty techniques now.

  • With trademarks, the law - at least in theory - protects the little guy who had the trademark first. But it's not so easy with cybersquatting for a whole host of reasons. First it's a brand new space - so it's hard to say who was there first. Second, unlike trademarks that may have a geographic extent, the internet covers the whole world. Third, there simply aren't the same legal precidents for domain names.

    My own first hand experience is an all ages music night I've been running in various major US cities. Some site has taken our name (trademark) appended with .com and is using it to sell porn - this is a problem when you have a well established night with a largely teenage audience. Yet, to prevent these guys from using a name that sends teens to their porn site - it's a big nightmare, and beyond our budgets. And it's really unclear whether we'd win. The only plus on our side is the fact that we cater to teens and they sell porn.

  • In the mid 90's Microsoft went after every software product that had 'Visual' in its name. If I remember, most gave in, but eventually MS lost since the word 'Visual' wasn't invented with VB.
  • Sounds like a news site such as cnn suing slashdot for linking to their articles and not their ad filled main page.
  • But only one point, mind you. According to the article, fandom.tv copied articles from fandom.com and pasted them on their web site. If those are copyrighted works by fandom.com, then I support them fully, in this particular matter. After all, if I wrote a book, I wouldn't want people publishing it without my consent; it would rob me of a lot of money. What fandom.tv should do, is link to the fandom.com's article, Slashdot style.

    But, they lose credibility when they start claiming that fandom.tv is domain squatting. I cannot fathom, by any definition of the term, where they get this idea. A domain squatter is a domain reseller, whereas fandom.tv is just a site that happens to be competing with it's .com equivilant. Robo-lawyer, ATTACK!

  • Besides, how catchy is something like "amazon.ustm"? I didn't think so.

    And, how catchy was amazon.com before .com and .net got popularized by the mainstream media. If instead of .com the original TLD was .inc or .corp that would be the catchy phrase.

    I know this wasn't the original gist of your post, but if you just make the new TLD people will get used to it. Of course, having a pronouncable extension helps, I personally don't care for .ustm, how would you pronounce that? Uh-stum? Yuck!

  • ... go stand outside a Taco Bell. You'll be rich by the weekend!

  • Or perhaps *.tm.us, *.tm.uk, etc.

  • *sigh* Here we go again.

    Yes, ICANN sucks, but no one pays attention to the meaning behind TLDs anyway. Is slashdot.org really a nonprofit? Is penis.net in the network field? TLDs, as it stands right now, are completely useless. They have no meaning, other than to serve as a top node for the DNS system. Even if ICANN was to come out with a new TLD, it should be .parody . That way, the corporations can still sue everyone with a com/net/whatever for "false representation of their trademark" ... but it's hard to argue that a visitor was mislead if the site is hosted at a .parody . "Gees, I thought Pepsi(R)(TM)(SM)(C)(P) was really injecting thought control drugs in to their drinks, it says so at pepsico.parody"

    Of course, TLDs mean nothing unless the are enforced (and who the hell is going tackle that giant task (and where does the $$ come to fund that)), so nix that idea.

  • It was the Dodge Neon campaign.

  • Thanks a lot! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now I can't make that Ricky Martin fan page, hope you're happy.
  • It is really telling that the Creation company, which runs for-profit Science Fiction and Star Trek Conventions is involved this these people. I remember my first and only Creation Con back in the Early '80s...back then Fan run cons where charging $20 for a weekend membership, and it cost me $25 for one day at the Creation Con. Creation Cons are consistantly over priced, have crappy programming and driven up the speaker's fee s for guests so much that the average convention cannot afford guests. Thankfully, SF Book oriented conventions never really became a target for Creation...we still have good, inexpensive conventions for people who enjoy Science Fiction and Fantasy Books!
    ttyl
    Farrell J. McGovern
    Founder, CAN-CON [achilles.net] Ottawa, Canada (That is the same places a OLS [linuxsymposium.org])
  • This company (fandom.com) exists because its corporate backers think they can make money. But with the attitude towards even big, well known, highly visible dot-companies being what it is today, I wouldn't bet a whole lot on fandom.com's survival.

    And with their attitude -- homogenizing fansites for profit -- and their actions, they deserve to go under.

    Good riddance, won't be missed.
  • In an ideal world. The problem is that if if your a small company or one person with a web server out of your house and the person on the other side is a big company and they are suing you in a state court half way across the country etc. It is hard to even get to that point.

    And this case is not even about infringing on a copyright.

    The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.

  • So, to sum up the story, a corporation with a bunch of money starts a mass of homogeneous website for "fandom" (note the "little 'f'") to protect them from bullying IP lawyers...and their IP lawyers are now attacking any "fandom" that isn't in the "Fandom.com" club.

    To me, this raises a couple of questions:

    1. Are IP lawyers running on 'automatic pilot' everywhere? Do the companies they work for actually realize what their lawyers are doing?
    2. Does this qualify as a "protection" racket? ("You've got a nice fan site there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it. Lawyers sometimes do things, you see...join us. We'll protect you....")
    3. Does anyone really beleive a 50+ year old 'generic' term is really suitable for trademarking???
    4. Is this just a USA thing, or is this sort of "rabid packs of wild lawyers" problem worldwide?


    A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for Evil.

  • Fandom.com (Hereby refered to as EVIL BAD COMPANY) sent Fandom.tv (Hereby refered to as POOR VICTIM) sent them a cease & desist for domain squatting. This is the part that I don't really understand. If EVIL BAD COMPANY is talking about trademark infringement, it goes into the whole Microsoft Windows[tm] vs Windows (no tm).

    I think that POOR VICTIM's best course of action is to tell them to shove it up the EVIL BAD COMPANY corporate ass, perhaps in better terms though.

    I still don't understand how POOR VICTIM can really be domain squatting if they actually have a valid website up with relative content. Domain squatting is registering doctor.com and bidding it off to the highest bidder.

    Someone has their head so far up their ass it's just going to be nasty. Remember Colgate-Polmolive Vs. ajax.org, same thing.

  • what do you mean becomes? [dictionary.com]

    It's already in a dictionary.

  • If folks out there would like to complain directly to fandom.com about this, here is some contact information which I pulled from http://www.fandom.com/master_site/contact.asp [fandom.com]:
    Fandom, Inc

    2644 30th Street
    Santa Monica, CA 90405

    Voice: (310) 581-2488

    Fax: (310) 581-8308

    General inquiries: info@fandom.com [mailto]

    Media inquiries: Hillary Atkin hatkin@fandom-inc.com [mailto]

    Remember folks, be polite, and don't threaton them.
  • Read the article that precedes the discussion; it indicates that the word came into existence in the 1930s.
  • Fandom
    Is
    A
    Source
    Of
    Income
  • Apple Computer was sued by Apple Records over exactly this same sort of bullshit.
  • Let's face it, getting businesses to move is many times harder than getting people to move.

    So let's make a "trademark free" zone like .discus where a person can register a domain like microsoft.ffa and NEVER be penalized for any otherwise legal content on there.

    Surely, this system might take the sting off of people claiming guinessbeersucks.com must be taken back or they will go broke, so joe blow must give it back and has no rights to it. Just take guinessbeer.ffa and be set for life with your audience. Of course the corporations themselves would be prohibited from owning their own trademarks there.

    Also, we still need a .kids and a .sex domain areas. I don't care if some people say "well what about artistic nudity, where should we put that?" Well, duh, figure it out on a case by case basis depending on standard law backed up by psychological study. Or just do it anyway you want to, already. I'm sick of the indecisiveness that makes kids suffer whitehouse.com while adults suffer a complete and total lack of knowledge of what to expect on the internet. If we can categorize into organizations and comercial traffic (already an extreemely fuzzy mix), we should go right ahead and categorize by topic, discussion, and appropriateness. It may not be great, but future filters won't have to worry about filtering out Dick Armey's website!

    -Ben
  • The problem is that fandom.com has no more right to the name than fandom.tv. The word fandom has been in use since at least the 70s (when I first heard it) by a community of folks who have been holding multi-thousand participant conventions around the world for decades.

    Fandom.com is just trying to "own the space", and since it's not their space to own, I really hope they end up paying fandom.tv's legal fees.
  • Fair use for trademarks lets me say things like "KFC's food sucks" and it lets my mechanic say he works on "Ford Cars". It does not let me open a "McDonalds Hamburger Stand" even if my name happens to be McDonalds. It would appear that Sun's legal goons don't quite understand this concept and are trying to strong arm Sun Ripend Kernels [sunrk.com.au] which sells used sun equipment in Australia. If any of you deal wil large amounts of sun hardware, call up your sales droid and ask them wtf is going on.
  • I thought one of the reasons for TLD's was so that one company could have blah.com and another could have blah.tv?
    --

  • They are doing the legally required trademark protection so as not to lose it.

    Maybe no one but me read through the entire article. There is this link [uspto.gov] on page three. According to the USPTO, Fandom.com's claim on the word Fandom as a trademark is "Abandoned: Applicant failed to respond to an Office action." It's a bit late now for them to be whining about it, don't you think?

    2000-06-19 - Abandonment - Failure to respond
    1999-10-29 - Non-final action mailed - 1st action
    1999-10-15 - Case file assigned to examining attorney

    ISTM that they they are crying foul (where a foul is said to be a breaking of the rules) when apparently they didn't want to play by those same rules themselves before now.


    --
  • "by the fan's, for the fan's" what?

    Obviously the apostrobphe has taken on new meaning since I last used it.

    Whats up folk's!

    There, now I have it right...
  • The irony here is incredible. One of the reasons fandom.com was founded was as a way for fansites to band together, to share resources to fight off corporate bullies. Now they have become a corporate bully themselves.

    Still, their idea is a very good one. A union of fan sites would have more power. Affiliate sites could spread the news of impending lawsuits or cease and desist orders much further and more quickly than a lone site. Publicity is often all it takes to curtail a corporation's bad behaviour. Information could be shared, about the little guy's rights, about what legal steps to cover your ass, etc. The knowledge gained in one skirmish could be used by all.

    The bottom line is, fan sites are created by fans. When corporations bully the fan sites, they are bullying their customers. And if enough of their customers get angry about that kind of behavior, change can be effected. Fans do have a lot of power in the relationship, if we can find an effective way to use it.
  • And how exactly will it be legally insulated from "trademark bullies". Trademarks are based upon the laws of the country. If ICANN decided tommorow that .com is trademark free it won't stop the big companies from sueing domain holders and saying stop using our trademarks. Saying "Oh ICANN lets us use your trademark" won't stop them, they'll just go on to say how the law of the country say I have protection no matter where the trademark resides. The law on trademarks would have to be changed to have something like this happen.

    Of course this gets deeply into the whole Global vs Country debate, but unless the TLD is hosted in a country without any trademark laws its going to be a problem.
  • where nothing really exists, but you can be assured, somebody owns it anyway.
  • The solution, like the telephone system, is to have a handfull of standard numbers for these services. So http://1/1/1, 1/1/2 , 1/1/3 etc could be assigned to search engines and 1/2/1, 1/2/2 etc to directory services.

    Fine, but do you know how many search engines there are out there? Or how many there were when google launched? Who would be using the cutting edge search engine 1/1/3867?

  • ...But, to get back to the numbers, what is so hard about using Google to find something and click on the link? ...

    You really mean "...what is so hard about using 64.209.200.100 to find something..." don't you?

    I guess you just answered your own question.

  • Put simply, our system of commerce depends on Brand Names, at a very fundamental level. I can understand this companies actions, they are just trying to trade and make money, after all.
    You can understand why someone who uses the word "fandom" wants people to think of them and not somebody else, but who can possibly agree to this?

    I mean, the article is quite clear - there are hundreds, if not thousands, of "fandom" type websites. Now that this company has gotten a bunch to join with them, they want to stomp out fan sites that don't join - and any other competitor.

    They said the word "fandom" has been around since the beginning of the 20th century, and now someone wants to claim that anyone who uses that word in their domain is cybersquating?

    I say to them: BITE ME.

    It's like comparing "fandom" with terms that have been diluted, like "kleenex" and "q-tip", only those are words created by a company - they wouldn't come after you for using "tissue". Imagine tissue.com trying to shut down tissue.tv claiming they were cybersquating. Give me a break.
    ----------

  • However, both www.fandom.com and www.fandom.tv are competing in the same industry (sic) then perhaps fandom.com can claim that fandom.tv is not fair use.
    How so? I haven't seen where fandom.com has some legal right to the word fandom. They don't. That's the point, isn't it?
    ----------
  • I read the article last night, and something's been troubling me. Perhaps a lawyer type could clear it up for me.

    The little I know about trademarks has led me to understand that if a trademark becomes diluted, that is if they the holder of the mark fails to prevent the word from becoming commonly used, they lose their right to it. This is why the Kleenex folks are always ranting and raving about using generic terms such as "tissue." They are doing the legally required trademark protection so as not to lose it.

    So it might seem that even if Fandom.com does have a trademark on the word, which the article casts as unlikely, that the word has been so heavily used that they have ground to stand on to claim it as a trademark.

    Dan
  • One of the reasons fandom.com was founded was as a way for fansites to band together

    2 problems with the above... That's a good definition of a .org , not a .com - .com means for profit in my book - secondly, the domain was originally registered by a British science fiction fan called Chris O'Shea, reportedly he was made an offer he couldn't refuse.

    This story was reported a while back in the multi-award winning SF newsletter "Ansible" (www.ansible.co.uk), adding "Others quickly bagged unregistered `fandom' domain names: Michael J.Lowrey now owns fandom.co.uk and fandom.org.uk, and would like these auctioned to good Britfannish homes with proceeds to TAFF."

  • It could (quite reasonably in my opinion) be argued that not being based in, or having any relevance to the island of Tuvalu counts as using a .tv domain name "in Bad Faith".
  • Both etoys.com and fandom.com claim in their cease and desist letters that they own the trademark. Neither actually do.
  • Just like the etoys V etoy case they don't actually have the trademark. Fandom.com doesn't actually own the trademark. They applied to the trademark but according to the office it's a "dead" application. Read: The patent and trademark office sent it back probally wondering why they were laying claim to it when Star Log has been using the team years before the WWW was a Wet Dream in a Swiss research lab.

  • Besides, if you have a company, or product that is say, the "netshredder". Nowadays, people look for you automatically at netshredder.com. Where do they go now? netshredder.ustm? .gtm? .com? .product? I personally think that we need a *better* way of handling domains that is "product" friendly

    The people at RealNames [realnames.com] thought of this too and created RealNames Internet Keywords.


    Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].

  • Even if ICANN was to come out with a new TLD, it should be .parody . That way, the corporations can still sue everyone with a com/net/whatever for "false representation of their trademark"

    That's why OpenNIC [unrated.net] created the .parody domain. Install OpenNIC nameservers [unrated.net] in resolv.conf (or the Windoze equivalent) and learn more at http://www.parody [www.parody]. (Note that you have to know somebody who has root on your mailserver to be able to send a registration request to hostmaster@parody.)
    Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].

  • What constantly amazes me is how companies pull this #$%^ on the web. I hate using a generic term like that...but the world is just too small to fight over your .com name sometimes. this is not like Typosquatting [slashdot.org]...but more like registering a new domain.

    I, for example, have a site registered for my family that is my last name. However, put a .com after it and your get someones business. That does not make me wrong and evil..we both just used the same name. But, that business could (and there have been cases of it) charge me with squatting or sue me for the rights? Just because he owns a business named after my family name? Imagine the problem this would cause in the US with someone of the last name of Smith!

    Now, granted those sites are different and this fandom one is the same sort of content. But this isn't amazon.net, the network of books. This is a commonly used word since 1906 (according to the article). Besides even the evil geniuses at amazon.com allow someone else to own amazon.net. If I remember..there was once a dispute over gateway.com, where the computer company was forced to gw2k.com? Was that so bad? Did people still make it there?

    Bottomline, IMHO, there is room enough for all of us out there. Can't we all just get along?
  • There is fair use in trademark law. There is also proper use, such as identification the item that the trademark represents.

    But, according to the article, there is no valid trademark.

    Even so, it has to go the the domain name resolution process.

  • TV land has fandemonium (or some spelling like that). You get best 48 hours of A-Team as picked by fans, or ADAM-12, Gomer Pyle, etc.

  • You really mean "...what is so hard about using 64.209.200.100 to find something..." don't you?

    Oh, a wise guy, huh? You are right, this is the stumbling block with a numberic system: the first step of getting a search engine ot directory service. The solution, like the telephone system, is to have a handfull of standard numbers for these services. So http://1/1/1, 1/1/2 , 1/1/3 etc could be assigned to search engines and 1/2/1, 1/2/2 etc to directory services. This would require some administration on behalf of the organisation looking after the assignments, but I don't think it would be too hard.

    BTW I only use slashes to divide the numbers in these examples because it reduces the number of people that say "oh, IP addresses", in fact I think dots are better and hold out the possibility of doing the whole thing without changing Bind (v8+).

    TWW

  • We have to ditch the current DNS. As long as DNS works with letters which spell out words this is just going to get worse and worse.

    I've said before (there would be a link at this point if /.'s search engine was any good) that numbers (in a hierarchy system, eg http://13/1832/7, this is not IPs) are the only solution and got nothing except "I can't remember numbers" back. Like I can!

    Letters score over numbers in only one way: advertising. It's a lot easier to read and memorise a name. But the cost is all this cyber-bulling, as the article calls it. Ultimatly the whole point of the DNS structure is going to be lost in that domain owners will effectivly claim the right to use all the TLDs for any given domain name (in the case of Wal-Mart for all possible domain names starting with the letters Wal)

    The degree to which the TLDs are already irrelivent is something which /.'ers do not seem to be aware. The namespace in DNS is actually shrinking and, as long as lawyers get money for making it shrink, it will continue to do so until only companies can afford to buy useful domain names.

    But, to get back to the numbers, what is so hard about using Google to find something and click on the link? Nothing, and how would it be harder to do that if the url in the link was numeric?

    In a similar way, directory portals like Yahoo would still work to most people's satisfaction as would bookmarks and links in pages.

    The point I'm making is that a numeric system does not have to require users to memorise huge lists of long numbers.

    Using telephone numbers is not a good idea, though.

    There is a problem, it is getting worse, if you don't like my solution tell us yours.

    TWW



  • I have been campaigning for the TLD of .REG for trademark holders, on my site WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] - Nothing to do with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).

    The USPTO and DoC have given big business the controlled usage of all words.

    The authorities have bastardized our language - they have taken all words away from us and make them fit for only one use - only as trademark system. It is a very bad system at that, used by only one supplier of each name, out of thousands worldwide.

    Extract of 9 October email to DoC & USPTO:

    "Here is an analogy, just for a moment imagine, if you will:

    You go to your dictionary and look up definition for the word 'apple'. It says the following:

    Apple - a maker of computers. This is the sole meaning; any other use will be a criminal offence."



  • If Fandom is trademarked name it should be identified as such.

    I have been campaigning for the TLD of .REG for trademark holders, on my site WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] - Nothing to do with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).

    The proper use of a trademark - It has to be set apart by special typeface or script. And use "tm" for an unregistered mark and "®" for a registered mark.

    The Domain Naming System (DNS) encompasses all words - it is NOT a Trademark System, so requires a tag - like "tm".

    The TLD of .REG would fulfil that requirement!

    Anyone that says the DNS is a TM System is abridging the freedom of speech. Which means they are against the First Amendment.

    Something that Secretary Mineta, DoC, seems to be. I have told him so!

    You could also ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System. He will tell you it is not a TM System.

  • Apple Computer succeeded because it could show that there was no likelihood of confusion between the Apple computers and the Apple records. Both marks were arbitrary within their respective industries and where inherently strong and distinctive.

    Actually, Apple Computer had to make a deal with Apple Records saying that they would not go into the music business. This became a bit of an issue when the Mac II was going to use an improved sound chip.

  • Remarkably... tvfandom.com is not registered.

    Or was not registered as of this writing...

    --

  • As other posters have pointed out...this case is pretty ironic.

    I run a fan-site myself (although I doubt I'd ever be a target of anything: fandom of Elite and Frontier First Encounters [alioth.net] is rather a niche kind of thing to start off with).

    But I have to think: what could I do if I was threatened in this way? In reality, not a lot, and sites like fandom.com know this - and use it to their advantage. They know they can steamroller the 'little guys' and they do.

    My father told me one thing when I was a kid - concerning company mergers. "Son, in business, there is never a marriage. Only a rape".

    When fandom.com picks up a new site - marriage or rape? I would HOPE it would be the former. But it looks like my Dad was right all along...

  • This is exactly why these kinds of disputes should be done in front of a jury and the looser should have to pay the attory fees for the other side.

    The jury would laugh it out of the court room and "fair use" would result in copyright holders to think twice about submitting these "cease and desist orders".

  • At the risk of repeating the article, I find it incredibly offensive that Fandom.com would try to pursue this battle, when to anyone with an ounce of common sense they don't have a leg to stand on.

    The word "fandom" been around since 1903 (from article) thus, they cannot claim trademark infringement. If they somehow manage to do so, I'm going to register www.chair.com and bang on everyone's doors with cease and desist letters.

    As for cybersquatting, that is defined as registering domain names with the express intent of reselling them for profit later. This is something that was *not* done. The site www.fandom.tv is a legitimate fandom site. It reminds me of a story I heard about coca-cola suing some guy somewhere for having www.coke.(ccTLD) Apparently, it was a memorial site for his friend that died from cocaine. Does anyone else remember this?

    Gah! This whole thing makes me sick.
  • "Planet" gamers and Gamespy and such sites have been using somewhat less overt coercion to grab the market for game fans for years... when did this become news? I don't know how many great sites operated by individual fans have been gobbled up by these syndicates and turned into worthless joke sites.

    Pass the monopoly, please.

    -Kasreyn

    (Yeah I know this is kinda a weak post but compared to the offtopic flamebait and trolls in this conversation already, it's downright Insightful 5 if ya ask me ;)
  • You're right: the site wasn't being held to resell at a profit, but was registered for a genuine content-driven purpose. How much protection will the average domain-name owner have in the future against corporate legal action? Obviously the normal Joe and Jane can't afford to defend their sites in court while earning a living (especially if their site is just for fun). Other posters are discussing ICANN and the possibilities of creating an exclusive TLD for companies with registered trademarks, but what protection does this give to .com, .org, .etc? I'm worried that in the future, the law will favor corporate interests in domain name possession, using the logic of productivity and profit. I'm really interested in hearing from someone who knows more about the present law and and the kind of legislation being discussed in the US and other countries. How can domain-holders defend themselves from potential abuses of the laws like Fandom.com?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Just to be clear, YAHOO was a good trademark because it was "arbitrary" (its in quotes because its a term of art). AMAZON is another example in the internet realm. Your APPLE example, another.

    The initial strength of a mark, at its inception, coincides with a spectrum from arbitrary to generic. Arbitrary marks always function as marks and are strong. Generic marks (SHOES for shoes, PEN for pens) never function as a trademark. Within that spectrum, from strongest to weakest there are "fanciful," "suggestive," "descriptive" (I'm sure I forgot one).

    FANDOM is a descriptive mark (possibly generic) and could function as a trademark if they can show that it has secondary meaning. That is, if the owners show that FANDOM.COM functions as an indicator of source or sponsorship of the goods and services produced underneath the mark it could be registered as a mark.

    I think the USPTO probably said that they haven't demonstrated the required level of secondary meaning.

    Or their attorney missed a filing date and it was considered abandoned.

    Apple Computer succeeded because it could show that there was no likelihood of confusion between the Apple computers and the Apple records. Both marks were arbitrary within their respective industries and where inherently strong and distinctive.

    -What He Said

  • More at stake than just the domain battle (Score:3)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Wednesday December 13, 2000 @12:33PM (#562146)
    Ok, yes, first come, first served, the true fan should keep fandom.tv (heck, he had to pay at least $1000 for it, IIRC the .tv pricing structure). Then we can get into all the abuses of ICANN on domain names, etc etc. We've been there before.

    What bothers me more and something that I watch out for is this umbrella'ing of the various sites at one 'official' place for the legal protection specifically mentioned here. Fandom.com is one, but I know several other examples: WB had set up AcmeCity for fan pages with the ability to use graphics and sounds that WB had granted permission. LucasArts set up the Star Wars site for all SW creative efforts. I'm sure there's more. I think from one aspect, this is a great thing, as it shows that said companies realize that fandom DOES exist on the net and it's better to nurture it (with some ability to trim) than to let it run rampent without checks. On the other hand, all they are doing this for is for the publicity and profit, mostly. There's ad banners at most of these pages, and because it's a fandom site, it's really easy to target it. Some sites say the content becomes theirs, even if you leave the site. But again, if there are any other alterior motives, they haven't been made obvious yet.

    I've been watching how the commercialization of the net has affect net fandom, and to be truthful, I don't think we've lost much. If you try to put long clips (or whole episodes) of a show on the web, you'll be shut down, but short clips as per fair use tend to be ok. You try to put up images or stories that put characters that shouldn't even be in compromising positions into compromising positions and you'll be hit. You try to make money off the visitors to your site using fair use items, and you'll get a nice letter. But these are all obvious cases of reasonable copyright/trademark protections.

    What I'd REALLY like to see, instead of an umbrella'ing of sites, is for the various entertainment companies that hold the copyrights to fandom's programs to create a true contract (you'd have to mail it back in and such signed) whereby you and the studio agree that you have a fan site, and that you'll run it within all the usual provisions of fair use and non-infringing copyright as expected, for non-profit use, but on any server that you want, with the agreement that if you do happen to post something that shouldn't have been, the studio would work it out with you as opposed to immediately taking action (in others, some legal protection). In addition, I'd really like to see studios hire 'fandom correspondents', part-IP lawyers, part webmasters, that would be able to work with independent site owners to determine what is fair use and to make a better connection between the fans of the show and the studio.

  • Uh oh. (Score:3)

    by mwalker ( 66677 ) on Wednesday December 13, 2000 @12:56PM (#562147) Homepage
    Wonder if they're going to go after the misspellings too, like Yahoo.com going after Yaho.com and Yehoo.com.

    ...because they're in for a shock when they go after femdom.com.

    heeh!

  • The complainant (fandom.com) must demonstrate that 1) the alleged infringer has a name that is confusingly similar, 2) the alleged infringer has no rights to the name, and 3) the alleged infringer registered in "Bad Faith"

    Fandom.tv is confusingly similar, but seems to arguably have rights to the name -- Fandom may be considered too generic a name to be a trademark. (Of course, this all depends on how well the lawyers argue it.)

    As for Bad Faith, Fandom.com probably will (in this case) try to prove that Fandom.tv registered the name in order to benefit from the people confusing the too -- that is, their nabbing fandom.com's readers. But that seems a little silly, since who would automatically the .tv instead of the .com?

    From the article, there doesn't seem to be a bad faith intent here. So while this does not appear to be cybersquatting, its fuzzy as to what can be proved.

  • THIS IS ICANN's FAULT!!!!!! (Score:3)

    by GeneralEmergency ( 240687 ) on Wednesday December 13, 2000 @10:57AM (#562149) Journal

    This is TOTALLY ICANN's fault.

    ICANN had (and still does have) the opportunity to create a .GTM domain for the EXCLUSIVE use by global trademark holders. They should also set up .USTM, .CATM, .UKTM and so on, domains for national trademark reservation. Use of the .COM, .NET and .ORG should be open and free for all purposes, AND SHOULD BE LEGALLY INSULATED from "Trademark Bullies".

    I've been saying this for two years now.

    ICANN...WAKE THE HELL UP!!!!!!


    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --

  • Re:Trademark Dilution (Score:4)

    by Zachary Kessin ( 1372 ) <zkessin@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 13, 2000 @11:03AM (#562150) Homepage Journal
    Basicly the major differnece here is that the term "Fandom" has been in use for a long time. The Kleenex folks invented the word Klennex and therefore have some level of legitamacy when they say "Kleenex" is a brand name and the generic term should be used. Fandom.com does not have any such grounds.

    The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.

  • Well done: you are FULL of shit. (Score:4)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Wednesday December 13, 2000 @12:00PM (#562151)
    People like you are the reason the domain name system is collapsing.

    The comparision with Ford is misleading. A closer example would be if someone owned "cars.com" and someone else started "cars.tv". If you take out a domain name which is a single, non-trademarked generic term (like "Fandom") then though titties if someone else uses it, mate.

    And, anyway, the whole point of the TLDs (generic or country codes) is to divide up the namespace and allow this sort of thing. The reason it doesn't work is twats like you don't understand or honour it.

    Taking your approach would mean the removal of TLDs: we would just have www.ford or www.ms or whatever, since you are saying that owning a domain in one TLD should be equivalent to owning it in them all.

    TWW

  • Re:No sympathy for Fandom.tv (Score:4)

    by Aeonite ( 263338 ) on Wednesday December 13, 2000 @11:34AM (#562152) Homepage
    :Choosing the exact same domain name and
    :registering in the TV domain is sure to
    :cause some confusion.

    Then what's the point of having a .tv extension anyway, or, for that matter, .biz, .name, .info, or any of the other new ones? If my name is Marty Fandom and I register fandom.name, are they going to come after me? Adding TLDs is pointless if you can't use words that are already being used with .com, .net and .org.
    _______________________________

Slashdot Top Deals

Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of a subject -- the actual enemy is the unknown. -- Thomas Mann

Close