4 ms·

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

ActVen 13y ago
Yes it is. http://www.trademarkia.com/4chan-85867485.html http://www.trademarkia.com/4chan-85867485.html
- binarymax 13y ago
  Looks fairly recent. Maybe that's exactly what they were waiting for.
chimeracoder 13y ago
Trademarks in the US don't need to be registered to be protected, like copyright (but unlike patents). If you have established use of a mark before the registration (or use) of a competing/conflicting mark, you can defend it. In fact, registration arguably provides no protection other than the fact that it makes it easier to search for your mark in the USPTO registry.
- binarymax 13y ago
  No they do not, but it makes for a much easier defense. That is the whole point.
- wdewind 13y ago
  > In fact, registration arguably provides no protection other than the fact that it makes it easier to search for your mark in the USPTO registry. Isn't the trademark legally yours if you register and no one challenges for some period of time (I want to say 7 years)?
  - Perdition 13y ago
    It is also legally yours if you use it and no one challenges for a long period of time. Trademarks are based on use. Massive corporate behemoths have lost local TM use because some mom-and-pop store was using a trademark first.
    - theOnliest 13y ago
      My favorite example of this is the Waffle House (24-hour dive). In Indiana, "Waffle House" was already taken, so the national chain had to use "Waffle & Steak" instead. Of course, since we used to call the Waffle House "WaHo," this leads to the MUCH better name "WaSte"! [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_house#Waffle_.26_Steak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_house#Waffle_.26_Steak
      - jamestnz 13y ago
        Another interesting example is the fact that Burger King is known ubiquitously as "Hungry Jack's" within Australia (but here in New Zealand we get the real BK branding). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack's#History_of_.22Burger_King.22_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack's#History_of_.22Bur... "When Burger King moved to expand its operations into Australia, it found that its business name was already trademarked by a takeaway food shop in Adelaide. As a result, Burger King provided the Australian franchisee, Jack Cowin, with a list of possible alternative names derived from pre-existing trademarks already registered by Burger King and its then corporate parent Pillsbury that could be used to name the Australian restaurants. Cowin selected the "Hungry Jack" brand name, one of Pillsbury's U.S. pancake mixture products..."
        huxley 13y ago
        An important US trademark case (Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots (1968)) also involved Burger King: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois) The court ruled that federal trademark registration had priority over state law, and that the big chain Burger King had rights to the “Burger King” name everywhere except in Mattoon, Illinois. Since the Hoots family had prior actual use there, they retained the name for the Mattoon area.
rplnt 13y ago
I think it's really stupid to get domain like this, whether the name is trademarked or not. They didn't steal the domain, they just registered it (or bought it) because it was available. 4chan.org has absolutely no right to it. But since .com TLD is not really international, who knows what will happen.
- iLoch 13y ago
  TLDs are not distributed by ICANN on a first come, first serve basis. Those with rights to the name (ie. a trademark) have priority access to the TLD.
- walshemj 13y ago
  How is .com not international it's a TLD? by definition TLD's are not tied to a geography in the same way that country domains are.
  - rplnt 13y ago
    The .com is essentially US domain. So as, for example, .be is controlled by some Belgian organization, .com is controlled by US one. And it's not ICANN, so it doesn't aim to be international either.
    - walshemj 13y ago
      NO all the gtld's like .com .org .net are not specific to coutrys - where the registry is located has no bearing on Back in the day I used to be one of the owners of .coop which was run out of the UK that didn't mean that it wasn't for all co-ops world wide. What domain does the Manchester Guardian a UK based newspaper use - it uses a .com.
      - rplnt 13y ago
        It doesn't matter how it should be. It is controled by US company, that falls under US jurisdiction, thus US does control the .com namespace. example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/01/bodog_shut_via_verisign/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/01/bodog_shut_via_veris...
bduerst 13y ago
It is trademarked, though it's to an LLC called 4chan.

ActVen 13y ago

Yes it is. http://www.trademarkia.com/4chan-85867485.html http://www.trademarkia.com/4chan-85867485.html

binarymax 13y ago
Looks fairly recent. Maybe that's exactly what they were waiting for.

chimeracoder 13y ago

Trademarks in the US don't need to be registered to be protected, like copyright (but unlike patents). If you have established use of a mark before the registration (or use) of a competing/conflicting mark, you can defend it. In fact, registration arguably provides no protection other than the fact that it makes it easier to search for your mark in the USPTO registry.

binarymax 13y ago
No they do not, but it makes for a much easier defense. That is the whole point.
wdewind 13y ago
> In fact, registration arguably provides no protection other than the fact that it makes it easier to search for your mark in the USPTO registry. Isn't the trademark legally yours if you register and no one challenges for some period of time (I want to say 7 years)?
- Perdition 13y ago
  It is also legally yours if you use it and no one challenges for a long period of time. Trademarks are based on use. Massive corporate behemoths have lost local TM use because some mom-and-pop store was using a trademark first.
  - theOnliest 13y ago
    My favorite example of this is the Waffle House (24-hour dive). In Indiana, "Waffle House" was already taken, so the national chain had to use "Waffle & Steak" instead. Of course, since we used to call the Waffle House "WaHo," this leads to the MUCH better name "WaSte"! [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_house#Waffle_.26_Steak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_house#Waffle_.26_Steak
    - jamestnz 13y ago
      Another interesting example is the fact that Burger King is known ubiquitously as "Hungry Jack's" within Australia (but here in New Zealand we get the real BK branding). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack's#History_of_.22Burger_King.22_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack's#History_of_.22Bur... "When Burger King moved to expand its operations into Australia, it found that its business name was already trademarked by a takeaway food shop in Adelaide. As a result, Burger King provided the Australian franchisee, Jack Cowin, with a list of possible alternative names derived from pre-existing trademarks already registered by Burger King and its then corporate parent Pillsbury that could be used to name the Australian restaurants. Cowin selected the "Hungry Jack" brand name, one of Pillsbury's U.S. pancake mixture products..."
      - huxley 13y ago
        An important US trademark case (Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots (1968)) also involved Burger King: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois) The court ruled that federal trademark registration had priority over state law, and that the big chain Burger King had rights to the “Burger King” name everywhere except in Mattoon, Illinois. Since the Hoots family had prior actual use there, they retained the name for the Mattoon area.

rplnt 13y ago

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

iLoch 13y ago
TLDs are not distributed by ICANN on a first come, first serve basis. Those with rights to the name (ie. a trademark) have priority access to the TLD.
walshemj 13y ago
How is .com not international it's a TLD? by definition TLD's are not tied to a geography in the same way that country domains are.
- rplnt 13y ago
  The .com is essentially US domain. So as, for example, .be is controlled by some Belgian organization, .com is controlled by US one. And it's not ICANN, so it doesn't aim to be international either.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    NO all the gtld's like .com .org .net are not specific to coutrys - where the registry is located has no bearing on Back in the day I used to be one of the owners of .coop which was run out of the UK that didn't mean that it wasn't for all co-ops world wide. What domain does the Manchester Guardian a UK based newspaper use - it uses a .com.
    - rplnt 13y ago
      It doesn't matter how it should be. It is controled by US company, that falls under US jurisdiction, thus US does control the .com namespace. example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/01/bodog_shut_via_verisign/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/01/bodog_shut_via_veris...

bduerst 13y ago

It is trademarked, though it's to an LLC called 4chan.