Newly Formed Pac-12 Conference Claims Cybersquatting On 5-Year-Old Domain
from the prescient-domaining? dept
Reader Clint points us to the news that the Pac-10 conference (a university "sports league" effective) recently added two new schools to the conference, making it the Pac-12 conference now. Of course, after they did this and went to register the domain pac12.com, they discovered that a business man in Utah already owned it, and had owned it for five years -- long before there was any idea of a Pac-12 conference. Yet that didn't stop the conference from sending a cease-and-desist letter, demanding the domain and accusing him of cybersquatting. The guy, Austin Linford, isn't directly using the domain right now, but bought it for a specific project that has been put on hold due to the economy, but which he intends to do something with in the future. Linford has filed for declaratory judgment that his domain does not infringe, and notes that the conference has been changing its name and number quite a bit lately. Apparently the Pac-10 has gone from that designation to the Pac-16, then to the Pac-11 and back to the Pac-10 in just the time since Linford purchased the URL. It seems we see situations like this all too frequently. Where some large entity seems to think it has the right to a particular domain name, just because they're big, even if someone else had registered it years before.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cybersquatting, domains, pac 12
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I was an almost victim of a similar letter
The worst case of this I have ever heard of was Nissan.com. I am sure you have heard of that case, where Nissan Motors tried to bully a guy named Nissan who ran Nissan Computing as a business. At one point, he was allowed to keep the domain, but not use it for commercial purposes. If I was him, I would have put gay porn involving Nissan cars on the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I was an almost victim of a similar letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I was an almost victim of a similar letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said, the conference still shouldn't be allowed to bully somebody with legitimate ownership of a domain. I really hope he ends up selling them the URL for a hefty sum, since apparently the conference doesn't realize most people will find their site through Google anyway, so it really doesn't matter what the name is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nothing like Nissan.com
This is nothing like the Nissan case
Nissan=Commercial business
pac12=spam placeholder page
There should be some sort of Internet Imminent Domain rules.
If you own choice undeveloped property that is of better use to someone else, they should be able to purchase that property for fair compensation without being held hostage by some tool who thinks he's sitting on the next google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing like Nissan.com
Now it may turn out he is cyber-squatting and made up the "business" excuse to do it, but if not, then he has every right to own that domain. Just because someone else has something you want, doesn't mean you get to run to the government to get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
> doesn't mean you get to run to the government to
> get it.
Unfortunately, ever since the Kelo decision, that's not the case in the US. Now Wal-Mart or Exxon or whoever can do exactly that: run to the government if they want your property and you won't sell it to them and have the government take it away and hand it over to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing like Nissan.com
Also, I am sure that if there were some sort of "Internet Eminent Domain" rules, they would be abused just as much as they are with physical property. I really do not think we need just another rule, law, or whatever that can be easily abused. We already have too many of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
Well, maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing like Nissan.com
Funny. If this logic was applied to a musician and copyright, you'd probably be tearing people's heads off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing like Nissan.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing like Nissan.com
Couldn't that statement be applied to the Pac-12 as well, which would avoid this entire set of events? If he had the site first, whether he's using it or not, that doesn't give the Pac-12 the right to take it from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing like Nissan.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
Also, his current use of the domain pac12.com strikes me as a front (buy a "12Pac" of 2Pac songs) designed to look like a "legitimate" use of the domain.
Maybe as a PAC 10 sports fan and a person that regularly deals with domain name issues I have a different perspective, but the notion of the PAC 10 expanding to PAC __ seems like an obvious domain name speculation to me.
Plus, there are several references online that predate his registration to a potential "pac 12." He also happens to be in Utah, and the University of Utah is one of the two new members creating the Pac-12.
I'm not saying I know the truth, but I'm at least skeptical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
You can be skeptical all you like, I see your reasoning as supposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
Unemployment was lower than it had been since before the dot-com crash (around 5.5%), and proceeded even lower, to around 4.5% in mid-2007.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
I'm not supposing I know his original or current motivations. I just see reason to question his side of the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing like Nissan.com
Yeah, the fact that he was able to foresee this situation 5 years ago just proves how diabolical he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
At any rate, I'm not sure what your response has to do with whether he's holding out for more money.
I know that snark and sarcasm is often a substitute for substance here, but that doesn't make it less annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing like Nissan.com
> Domain rules.
> If you own choice undeveloped property that is
> of better use to someone else, they should be
> able to purchase that property for fair compensation
Or you could just respect the centuries-old concept of private property rights and recognize that if I own something, I don't have to justify to anyone what I'm doing (or not doing) with it. It's *mine*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
I'm not saying that should apply here, but "the centuries-old concept of private property right" is also subject to centuries-old exceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
Neither of which applies here.
Unlike physical land, the Pac12 can't use the domain if someone else owns it, so adverse possession is out as a matter of impossibility.
And eminent domain is the taking of private property by the government for a public purpose. The government isn't even involved here, let alone using the domain for a public purpose. The Pac12 is a private entity, wanting to use it for their own private purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: nothing like Nissan.com
However, part of the underlying rationale for both doctrines might apply (i.e., someone is likely to make a better use of the limited property than the current title holder).
That absolutely should not be the be-all end-all of property decisions. Even China wouldn't go that far (these days), but I just thought it was worth pointing out that private rights aren't absolute, and it has long been accepted for private rights to give way to others based on reasoning that is not far off from the facts of this case.
I'm not advocating for online eminent domain application
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They could just use a different URL
Wouldn't any business he tries to open using the name "Pacific 12" after their trademark application be infringing on their trademark? I don't think I could open a store named "Pac-12 Donuts" and not be sued because I was not licensing the name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They could just use a different URL
You will get letters from the lawyers of course. They have to earn their retainers. As long as you have deep enough pockets (or create a video that mocks the league for haressing you that goes viral), you should be able to keep the name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They could just use a different URL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick, pls be consistent
Be consistent, pleeeeezze
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick, pls be consistent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick, pls be consistent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Masnick, pls be consistent
the difference between patent and domain name is that you have to actualy own domain name to use it, but any dirty infringer out there can use patented invention without patent holder being notified
Anybody can licence my patent for dirt cheap
So why do they prefer to infringe it without asking ?
Because they CAN
This is a universal answer
Why do Wall Street types get rich while f***ing everybody else ?
Because they CAN
And when I get proof of some patent infringement going on I will sue those patent thiefs in federal court
Because I CAN
Homo homini lupus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick, pls be consistent
You never fail to impress the crowd with the way you pound your chest and forth at the mouth like that. And, oh, oh! what is your patent number?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
"The process of identifying useful domain names directly related to the new Pac-12 is routine. As part of this process we have obtained, and will continue to obtain, great domain name options. And at some point in the near future we will select one of them before we launch the Pac-12 website this summer."
They aren't even dedicated to the pac12.com domain. Right now, it is only an option that they will consider for a future website.
Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700112532/Utahn-in-dispute-with-Pac-10-over-Pac12-website.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It isn't a situation that is so cut and dry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In this hypo, the registering of Pac11 through Pac20 would be evidence that his intent was to profit from the Pac10's recognition and desire to keep a form of their name despite expansion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sounds fishy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I bought it, I own it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I bought it, I own it.
That's the hard part here. Maybe his registration of the domain name (which isn't really "ownership" anyway, but that's another story) was in violation of the law at the time he registered it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]