Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

UCSD Squabbles with Student Website 86

Posted by michael from the dumb-dumb-dumb dept.
bunnie writes "Can publicly funded government organizations defend and prosecute their namespace? According to the University of California, yes. A student run website used as a public forum and text book exchange, ironically named ucsduncensored.com, was shut down under Education Code Section 92000. A nastygram from the university reflects the hard-line that UCSD is taking on this subject. Perhaps the UC Regents should trim some bored administrators from their payroll to help address the California budget crunch..." "UCSD" is clearly not an abbreviation of "University of California", so what's the problem?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UCSD Squabbles with Student Website More

UCSD Squabbles with Student Website

Comments Filter:

  • UCSD (Score:1)

    by pezking ( 7705 )
    University of
    California
    San
    Diego.
    • Now, since i couldnt find a top-level to reply to, im found replying to the top post.

      My lack of skillz may have to do with inebriateion, but I swear, its none the responsibility of my username or its implications.

      Regardless, I am a student of the currently famous VT [vt.edu] owns the trademarks to a number of its own nicknames, including Virginia Tech. since VT is a big research school, it makes sense to me for them to actively protect their trademarks (as a number of coorperate entities have failed to do, e.g.,
      • I'm curious - how can someone be an "oddball" when it comes to Ethics?

        It's pretty black-and-white: either you're ethical or you're not, and although your own definitions as to what is "ethical" may be "odd", ethics are not defined by the person - they are defined by the society in which you live.

        ScottKin
  • "UCSD" is clearly not an abbreviation of "University of California", so what's the problem?

    Huh?

    -Sean

  • "UCSD" is clearly not an abbreviation of "University of California", so what's the problem?

    Did you read the section of the Education Code that you linked to? "The name 'University of California' is the property of the state. No person shall, without the permission of the Regents of the University of California, use this name, or any abbreviation of it or any name of which these words are a part" (emphasis mine). "The University of California, San Diego", of which "UCSD" is an abbreviation, is obviously a

    • My guess is there is an amendment that says they can. However, maybe not in a commercial venture.
    • So I can't say MUCK because it contains 'UC'.
    • No, look at the definition. This defines a criminal offense, so it has to be interpreted narrowly.
      • "This name" - no, "ucsduncensored" is not "University of California".
      • "Any abbreviation of it" - no. "ucsduncensored" is not an abbreviation of "University of California".
      • "any name of which these words are a part" - no. "ucsduncensored" is not an abbreviation of "University of California at San Diego".

      There's a "likely to confuse" standard in trademark law, but not here.

      They'll need a lawyer, but t

  • dscuuncensored.com is currently not taken.

    Damn Stupid California Universities Uncensored.

    Register the domain and get back in operation.

    Wallow in the free advertising you get until the
    original domain is given back to you then use
    both domains.

  • "UCSD" is clearly not an abbreviation of "University of California", so what's the problem?

    Uhh, speaking as a naive east coast boy, couldn't it "clearly" be the University of California at San Diego?

    This spontaneous commentary thing might not be such a hot idea, eh Michael?


  • Michael, if you'd have taken the time to read the article for yourself, you would have learned that UCSD stands for "University of California, San Diego".

    Do I need to spell it out for you? Please, editors, for the love of God--don't show so much contempt for your readership that you can't be bothered to read the articles yourself. If you can't take that much time away from your busy busy days, find another line of work.

  • I see the problem... (Score:2, Informative)

    by evilquaker ( 35963 )
    "UCSD" is clearly not an abbreviation of "University of California", so what's the problem?

    The problem clearly is that Michael is an idiot.

  • ...Michael was being sarcastic...

  • Uh, Michael... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Watts Martin ( 3616 ) on Friday October 17, 2003 @09:08PM (#7246071) Homepage

    I hope you were being facetious. "UCSD" is an extremely well-known abbreviation for the University of California at San Diego.

    I looked at the "nastygram" and it wasn't particularly nasty; it was very straightforward, not unduly legalistic, and indicated that UCSD had contacted the ucsduncensored.com people a couple weeks ago and had apparently been blown off. Furthermore, this isn't a case where the USCD in the domain name was referring to something else (it was clearly "the" UCSD), and it wasn't a parody site that could claim First Amendment protection--it was a community site for UCSD students, and one that accepted advertising (look at Google's cache [216.239.53.104] of the site).

    You can argue UCSD is being undiplomatic or churlish, but they're hardly acting out of legal bounds here--and I'm not sure it's that ridiculous to start with, because it's not a UCSD service and putting "UCSD" in the front of the name suggests it is. Independent publications in college towns that are there to provide alternatives to official services don't use the college name in their name, even if they may use it in the subtitle. For instance, the "Independent Alligator" is referring to the University of Florida Gators, but they're not the "University of Florida Alligator," and if they tried to call themselves that, UF would be firmly within their rights to slap them. (Yes, "UCSD Uncensored" getting dinged for this is ironic, but the legal point still stands.)

    • Re:Uh, Michael... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Johnny Mnemonic ( 176043 ) <mdinsmore.gmail@com> on Friday October 17, 2003 @09:23PM (#7246136) Homepage Journal

      ut they're hardly acting out of legal bounds here

      Now that I'm past Michael being an idiot, I think we can get back to the point at hand: the UCSD is claiming that they own the trademark to 4 letters situated in an acronym. My first inclination was that this was pretty ridiculous--but if I made a site about government waste, and called it NASAoverruns, I guess I would have a hard time defending my use of "NASA". So basically, these kids should just change their name, and they'd be back in business.
      • IANALAWPTBO. I just thought I'd note that there are indeed sites that have "nasa" included in their URL identifier (NASA Watch [nasawatch.com] and NASA Tech Briefs [nasatech.com] for example) which aren't a part of NASA. I was also able to find several websites that include the name "walmart" as another high-profile example (such as Wal-Mart Watch [walmartwatch.com]).

        Now, I suppose that some of these sites are either flying under the corporate radar or are operating under some sort of trademark/copyright exception but I really don't know.

        In this part

        • "I just thought I'd note that there are indeed sites that have "nasa" included in their URL identifier (NASA Watch and NASA Tech Briefs for example) which aren't a part of NASA. I was also able to find several websites that include the name "walmart" as another high-profile example (such as Wal-Mart Watch)."

          Ok, I'm just going to say that you should read the sites you reference. The NASA Watch site has a disclaimer explaining that it isn't an official or NASA authorized site. NASA Tech Briefs on the other
          • So in conclusion, you need to read the sites you cite as support for your argument...

            Who says I was making an argument at all? I was merely pointing out websites that seem to be using trademarked names in their URLs - I was making no judgement on their legitimacy, either morally or legally.

            You're right. I missed that NASA Tech Briefs is an official NASA publication - since it wasn't immediately apparent and was not on NASA's usual .gov domain, I didn't look very close. Mea culpa.

      • So basically, these kids should just change their name, and they'd be back in business.

        Agreed. My vote:

        UCantSayDatUncensored.com

        A bit more to type, and gives them the middle finger as well. ;-)

        • UCantSayDatUncensored.com

          I like it. I'd been thinking of UCSDSucks.com, myself. Companies like to pretend that using their name in a domain name is illegal, but that isn't always true. In particular, sites like www.taubmansucks.com and www.microsoftsucks.com and many others. Being unable to see the site, it's hard to tell how this would fall. If the site makes it very clear that it is not an official UCSD funded/supported/sanctioned site, they have a fair chance of winning any legal battle. (The s

        • Working in the Dotcom field, I think it is good that organizations like UC can protect their names. If you look around, you will find that there are thousands of companies creating hundreds of thousands of little doorway pages to web sites.

          Just like email spam, this search engine spam is making money. Trademark law is giving legitimate companies a tool to fight SEO spammers. As with most legal issues. It is better just to handle the whole issue as a trademark issue, rather than on a piece by piece judgin
    • Maybe the legal point is that puclic universities should not have trademarks, and thus shouldn't be worried about defending them.

      It's a travesty that schools these days care more about sports merchandising revenue than about acedemics.

      I think we should immediately institute a complete ban on sports-for-profit in public universities in the USA. Schools are not corporations, trademark protection should not apply to them.
      • Taking that a step further, it seems unreasonable to me that public entities, or entities funded substantially through tax revenue and/or donations should be able to hold any intellectual "property."
      • I just performed a search at uspto.com for the term "UCSD" and as far as I can tell, that particular set of letters is NOT registered as a trademark.

        IANAL, but it sems like absent a trademark registration, their claim is void.
    • I doubt anyone else would consider "Some name"-uncensored to be a service of "Some name". The uncensored is pretty much a clue that the site is unofficial. My question is, if the name was "a_student_from_UCSD_and_his_thoughts", would this still infract upon UCSD? How about "a_student_from_UCSD_and_his_own_unaffiliated_thou ghts"? Is use of "UCSD" simply verbotten under all circumstances?
  • Despite the Slashdot editor's incompetence about UCSD here, there is an important point to make about all this. The California law on the matter:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sec t ion=edc&group=91001-92000&file=92000-92001 [ca.gov] is a violation of the 1st amendment as it stands. It is clearly going much farther than the normal trademark protection.
  • UniversityCensorsShallDie.com
    UnpleasantCancerousStatistDicks.com
    UCannotStopDissent.com
    I could go on for hours, and a decent graphic designer can play games with the image in a way that lets you let off steam without getting more letters. If you're careful.

    Fact is, the law states that the Uni is in the right here. So rub them through the mud. If this site was useful to students, then this is nothing but great publicity for the site now - use the short time you have to register something else and public

    • Fact is, the law states that the Uni is in the right here.

      I'm not so sure. If the site pretends to be an official UCSD sanctioned site, then I've little doubt that UCSD could win in court. However, if they do a good job up front in making it clear that they are not an official UCSD site, and are willing to battle it out in court, the site owners would have a good chance of winning.

      See www.taubmansucks.com for legal details on one sites battle. Visit www.microsoftsucks.com - do you think that's a mic

      • California reserves namespace for universities. Your examples do not address this fact. This is not a trademark dispute - California law explicity reserves the string "UCSD", for instance, for use by the university so named. (By the way, you're also misapprehending trademark law, in a subtle but important way. Talk to a lawyer about any plans you may have for toying with trademarks.)

        Like I said, it is stupid. It is also really easy to route around and use to make the university look as stupid as they ar

        • I gave very concrete real world examples. microsoftsucks.com, taubmansucks.com, shopsatwillowbend.com, pokey.org, whitehouse.com. There are many more examples. The USA's first amendment trumps rules the college makes, as well as California state law.

          You're telling me that I don't understand tradmark law, and I agree. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have any personal experience with trying to enforce or protect a trademark. I have one registered domain, unrelated to any trademarks.

          But I have spent t

          • Didn't mean to annoy you. Yes, in theory, the Lanham Act would appear to trump the UC name ownership laws. In practice, this would be a tough case to argue and probably cost quite a bit more than a couple of students can manage. (I could be misremembering this, but I think the California statutes were enacted to give schools a franchise monopoly on sports t-shirts and whatnot.) That's the other side of the law - money frequently wins.
  • By fighting with a student obviously seeking publicity, they generate positive publicity for the student and negative publicity for UCSD. The student looks like David fighting the jackbooted UC System Goliath. Nice going, UCSD, and way to foster open and honest communication in the academy.
  • As much as I would love to follow the argument of the other posters that UCSD could stand for anything, and the author of the website could just re-write the acronym, it's pretty clear from this document [pdf file] (see page 2) [ucsd.edu] that UCSD is a trademark owned by the Regents of the University of California.

    Disclaimer: While I don't support either side really, I should mention I am a UC student (up here in Berkeley)
    • UCSD is a trademark owned by the Regents of the University of California

      UCSD are just letters. They aren't owned by anyone. Whether they are trademarked or not, trademarks merely prevent commercial competitors from confusing customers with identically-named products. Trademark law does not prevent me from saying that Happy-Meals(R) suck.

      The University of California is an organization like any other. They do not have the right to censor public discussion. They cannot govern my use of the acronym UCSD

  • It's UCSD's right to defend their trademark - I do however feel a little sad for the boys who ran this site - they had actually contacted UCSD before registering the domain and handing flyers out on campus. The University chose to respond after the website had been up a while...

    That being said, as an alumnus and current staff member I feel I should point out that UCSD Administration is far from being the Gestapo; it is actually a pleasant place to work and go to school.
  • UCSD violated the GPL [fsfeurope.org] license and my copyrights on the jaxml [librelogiciel.com] Pyhon module during ten months. It was very difficult for me to make them comply, which they finally did.

    They suck !

    • They suck!

      You know, there really isn't a "they". UCSD is a big university (tens of thousands of students, thousands of faculty, thousands of staff). I seriously doubt there was any concerted or organized effort to misappropriate your software.

      Looking at the link, it looks like they did violate a somewhat involved part of the GPL. They should have been faster to fix their error, but large bureacracies often have a hard time doing anything quickly. Most likely, the people who you had problems with w

  • According to the US Patent & Trademark Office [uspto.gov], the mark "UCSD" is not trademarked [uspto.gov]. Interestingly, it seems neither is "University of California, San Diego". Even more curious that they do seem to have trademarks on the names of most other UC system schools. But IANAPA.

    But even if you own the trademark, do you own its acronym too?

    • This is a question that the group of students that run a similar website at my university are facing.

      Does the university own the rights to it's acronym? Does the university also own rights to abbreviations of it's name (Think Uni. of Cali.) Would that be the same thing as printing the full name?
      It's an interesting quesiton.
      • Well I wish you luck. I don't like this nasty business any more than you, but I think that if they do own the acronym, you're up shit creek. There should definitely be legal precedent on this so maybe you can look it up. I can't believe this has never come up in the courts before.

        If you can change your name it might be worth it just to avoid the hassle. You can have a "subtitle" that mentions the university, apparently.

        -- Bob

        • I think that if they do own the acronym, you're up shit creek

          Disagree. There is a lot more to it than that. Legal precedent and info @ www.taubmansucks.com. I'm sure Microsoft would love to get rid of microsoftsucks.com. The story over pokey.org (Google for it) ties in. There are numerous other examples.

    • If UCSD isn't trademarked, perhaps the student should register it and countersue for trademark dilution.

  • The real problem with UCSD (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    From a UCSD graduate student in Electrical and computer engineering:

    I think the real problem isn't the phrase "UCSD"; it is apparent what the phrase means. The real problem is the overwhelming bureaucracy in the UC schools, and in the case of the UCSD admininstration the problem is their ability to destroy any sense of campus community. The school is boring. The administration is ineffective; they can't build a useful campus-forum website on their own. However, as soon as someone else does build such a
    • It seems from reading the relevant law section that anyone the school approves of is allowed to use the name, just not the ones they don't approve of.

      I don't think that's a good law, but that does seem to be the way it stands. So special interests aligned with their political views wouldn't get in trouble because they're not using the name without the approval of the university.
    • Just get through it and leave it behind. I am a 1987 graduate of UCSD. It is a reasonably prestigous school with fairly low cost. Put your time in and get out.
  • The reason I submitted this story to YRO is not the details of the law, but rather, that the law exists. Can a publicly funded institution really enforce trademarks and their name against public use and possibly defamation? What right does UC have to "own" this name, paid for by the public? And if UC has a right to "own" such names, can other government braches do the same? For example, what is the difference if the feds decided that the "United States" or any acronym derived from that could not be used in
    • What right does UC have to "own" this name, paid for by the public? And if UC has a right to "own" such names, can other government braches do the same?

      By "UC" are you referring to the University of Chicago or the University of California??? ;-)

      IIRC, the U of Chicago was founded about 1850 and the U of Calif in 1868 (Bezerkeley campus founded in 1873), which gives the U of Chicago precedence with the "UC" name. IIRC, trademarks often have very specific descriptions as far as fonts used, colors, etc.

      At

    • Can a publicly funded institution really enforce trademarks and their name against public use and possibly defamation?

      I buy your argument, but what about intellectual property, should that be public as well? Public universities make millions (100's of millions in UC's case) on IP. Is that moral? Or what about sports such as football, can they protect those names, too?

      Hmm, a part of me agrees with your argument, but the rest of me sees a very different reality.

      -Sean
      • I think it's fine for universities to own their IP. They do need money to stay alive, and we live in a money-driven economy.

        Sports and football, sure, they can protect their name too against other sports teams or football teams using their names.

        But if I start a website like "beaversSuck.com" or "tritonsSuck.com", is that illegal? Can a university defend its name against defamation in a website title?

        I do like the comment made earlier in this thread that trademarks are there to prevent confusion/dilution

        • As another note, is nobody bothered by the fact that using the UCSD name in vain is instantly a misdemeanor? Is is usual to create a criminal charge for trademark mis-use?!!

          Yes, many people are bothered, no it is not usual, and yes, they are wide open for an Anti-SLAPP suit.

          The actual letter is a ceace-and-desist, is interesting. The letter states:

          Also, be advised that the use of the name of the University of California or its initials or the name or initials of any of the campuses of the University

  • They can make your life inconvenient. These places are a law unto themselves, and private institutions tend not to be too hot on due process.

    The site needs to be offically run by a non-student for administration purposes. Then any challenges under state law can be challenged in a proper legal manner.
  • Would they have got any with it if it stated "Unofficial"?
  • bunnie is an idiot - his comments to his own post have convicted him as such.

    University of
    California
    San
    Diego... ...you blithering twit!

    Gee - idiots like this get their articles posted like it's their job, and I only get this:

    2001-06-12 01:00:48 The Connection between Bill Gates and D&D (articles,humor) (rejected)

    2001-12-21 22:00:31 Spokane-based "hackers" steal 2,700 Credit (articles,news) (rejected)

    2003-03-14 22:17:43 Security "Hole" found in Sun ONE Web Serve (articles,sun) (rejected)

    2003-04-14
    • Remember, they're free to post stupidity, you're free to ignore it.
    • I'm not clear on what your point is. I fully realize that UCSD stands for University of California San Diego and it is in fact covered by the cited law. If you had read through my entire post and response, you would realize that I am NOT saying that "UCSD" is a "free" acronym and that "maybe it stands for something else, so anyone should be able to use it". Other people in the thread have suggested this, but that is not my argument.

      I'm asking if a public entity can enforce its trademark and name and/or acr
    • One thing perhaps you do not realize is that the comments after a posting in regular case, not italics, are from the moderator, and not from me. I did *not* say that:

      "UCSD" is clearly not an abbreviation of "University of California", so what's the problem?

      That was Michael, the moderator for the forum. When I wrote the post, I was fully aware of the real conflict for the UCSD name because it is a well-known and established acronym, and I reiterate that I am not claiming that UCSD should not have a claim t
  • California has a strong law against SLAPP lawsuits. [casp.net] That may apply here.
    • Sec. 425.16. Claim Arising from Person's Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition or Free Speech -- Special Motion to Strike.

      (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest t

    • An Anti-SLAPP suit would easily succeed in this case, especially considering their wording in their nastygram:

      Also, be advised that the use of the name of the University of California or its initials or the name or initials of any of the campuses of the University of California, including the University of California San Diego without the written permission of the UC Regents is a misdemeanor.

      Taken verbatim, this means almost everybody who used the initials UCSD or the name of the school, including both

  • What everyone is dancing around is the students changing the name of the site. Now we all know, in reality, the University knows there is no confusion as to who runs the site but dislikes the content. That's the true tragedy. Trademark law doesn't mean you can't ever mention someone's trademark, but is there to prevent confusion of brands. (Meatspace spoofing)

    So these students have two options. They can change their domain, which I believe to be unnecessary, or they can put a clear disclaimer on the

  • I'm also wondering--is it normal for criminal misdemeanor remedies to be applied for trademark infringement, as is the case here? Or is it more typically a civil penalty?

    • After all the postings in this thread I would like to point out that the 'nastygram' does not mention anything about infringing trademarks.

      It is not clear at all which law is being broken that could be a misdemeanor.
    • Unless things are different in Cali, some public university official can't arbitrarily charge someone with "a misdemeanor", nor is "trademark infringement" a criminal offense, but it all depends on what is laid out in the aforementioned law. This isn't trademark infringement, they have a law that reserves the name. I would do some more research, and probably drop some cash for a lawyer to assess the situation.
  • It certainly looks like UCSD's notion of education is "bash students over the head with lawyers".

    As someone who sometimes purports to be a college professor type, I must admit that I'm finding colleges and universities to be increasingly ways to ensure conformity, obedience and completely uncritical thinking. And all this time I had thought it was about encourging individuality, independence and critical thinking. No wonder tenure committees dont like me.

  • UCSD students are pretty bright. Surely they could come up with some clever and plausibly deniable name like, itsucsdontit.com.

    "What!" says you. "How dare you suggest the University is a drain on the public coffers! 'It's UCSD on tit' is an illegal and dememaning use of a noble trademark."

    "But, no", says I. "That's not what it says at all! It simply states, 'It sucs, don't it?' The trademark isn't even in there."

    Those La Jollans oughta be able to come up with something much better than this!

  • UCSD (Score:1)

    by Spl0it ( 541008 )
    Frankly, I do see it but not easily. And no one that doesn't live in the immediate surrounding area would. I live in Ontario, and can recognize UWO as University of Western Ontario... as thats its name... it seems the Unversity's of California wants to claim anything that starts with UC or UOC.. no?

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close