Name Your Fandom™: Website name dispute has larger implications
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Name Your Fandom™: Website name dispute has larger implications |
| Creator: | Joanne Madge |
| Date(s): | February 2001 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | Tarriel Cell, Archived version |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Name Your Fandom™: Website name dispute has larger implications is a 2001 essay by Joanne Madge.
It was printed in Tarriel Cell v.14 n.3.
The subject was copyright, fannish sites, fandom and profit, and the controversy about Fandom, Inc..
"Fandom is a way of life. Or is it? If you ask the folks at Fandom, Inc. they just may tell you that Fandom is a way of business. Their business. And they've got the lawyers to prove it."
Article
In July 2000, web enthusiast and longtime participant in many and varied randoms, Carol Burrell, decided to consolidate her many fannish pursuits - as well as those of her friends - into a single, not-for-profit website devoted to all of them. The domain name she chose for her site: fandom.tv. In October she received what many fannish website creators fear! A cease and desist letter. The letter was sent not by Paramount, not by Warner Brothers, not even by 20th Century Fox. This letter was sent by Fandom, Inc... the legal representatives of another fan-created website: fandom.com.
The letter, dated October 30, 2000, described the company as "owner of all exclusive rights in and to the trademark 'FANDOM'." It then went on to claim, "Through continuous, widespread use, including radio, print and other advertising, the Company's trademark, and related domain name have become strong and distinctive source identifiers for its commercial activities." The letter accuses Ms. Burrell of "cybersquatting," a word described by Webopedia as "the act of registering a popular Internet address, usually a company name, with the intent of selling it to its rightful owner." After two more paragraphs, chock-full of the word "cybersquatting" and threatening various punishments that could be meted out to Ms. Burrell for it, the letter then strangely appears to give in to this accused act of online extortion and states, the Company has authorized us to make the following offer... $250.00 for her "immediate, unconditional transfer to the Company of the Infringing Domain Name registration" as well as agreeing in writing that, "neither you, nor anyone acting in concert with or for you, shall register or attempt to register any domain name in any top level domain, in which the second level domain includes the word 'FANDOM,' or any word or phrase likely to be confused therewith."
Needless to say, at first Ms. Burrell was frightened by the letter, but then as she started to think it through, she got angry. Then she did some research. She discovered that the word "fandom" itself appears in dictionaries going back as far as 1903 (companies can not have exclusive use of any word that exists in everyday speech). Lastly, she discovered the US Trademark Electronic Search System webpage which contains the status of all trademark applications approved, denied, and pending. There she learned that Fandom, Inc., the company that runs fandom.com. had attempted to trademark the word "Fandom" - filing a claim originally on July 8, 1999. The claim status was marked "Dead" and 'Abandoned: Applicant failed to respond to an Office action".
Ms. Burrell sat down and wrote a short, but polite letter to Fandom, Inc. explaining the common usage of the word fandom", and pointing out that her domain name was being used and her site was alive and active, thus proving that she was not "cybersquatting".
On November 14, 2000, Fandom. Inc. resubmitted it's application to trademark the word "Fandom" (application #76164987). The status of the new claim is at the time of writing 'Live' and "Newly Tit[t]ed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.'
On November 15, 2000, the day after resubmitting their trademark application, Fandom, Inc's lawyers sent Ms. Burrell a second letter. The letter told her that she had "misunderstood and incorrectly limited" the claim that Fandom. Inc. had to the word 'Fandom' and went on to say that her site would cause "consumer confusion" between her website and theirs. After more threatening paragraphs again outlining the legal course they could take against her should they choose to do so, they finished with "The Company has authorized us to increase the amount of the Company's prior offer for a voluntary resolution of all disputes and claims that they have against you. The new offer is as follows: in consideration for your immediate transfer to the Company of the Infringing Domain Name registration, the Company will pay you the sum of $1500."
At this point. Ms. Burrell decided to turn to the fan community itself. On December 13, 2000, an article titled Who owns fandom? appeared on Salon.com, describing the situation. The reaction was immediate and loud. A boycott of fandom.com was enacted to show support both to Mr. Burrell's right to use the word "Fandom" in her domain name, as well as the right of the rest of the fan community to keep the word "Fandom" itself free for use by whomever chooses to do so. An online forum titled Fandom Fights Back was created to keep those interested up to date with the situation as well as for open discussion about it. Perhaps most notable, is the scathing parody poem, How the Grynch Stole Fandom by well known fan and author Peter David.
At the time of writing, nothing more has been officially reported by either side of the dispute. One of fandom.com's message board administrators has posted claims that he was privy to an as-of-yet unsent letter to Carroll Burrell currently being drafted by Mark Young, Fandom, Inc. CEO. According to this administrator, the letter will state that Fandom, Inc., "never had any intention of suing her or taking away the fandom.tv URL from her... The letter Carol received should not have been sent. It was not read or approved by the appropriate people beforehand, including myself. We are not attempting to own the word fandom or to stop fans from using it. Everyone should disregard the letter Carol received because it is in no way representative of the way we run our company or want to treat the fan community of which we are proudly a part.'"
A problem with the claims of this supposed letter-in-progress is that it contradicts the current attempt by Fandom, Inc. to trademark the word "Fandom". It also contradicts the claims in both the letters received by Ms. Burrell that the company had authorized them to actually pay her money to turn over her domain name to them. Surely, the lawyers could not have promised payment without the "appropriate people" in the company they represent approving it beforehand.