What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
302 Comments
- Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -20/+422Kevin,
I own www.diggfan.com and have since November 2005. Is this a violation of your trademark? - jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -13/+272Technically, we're supposed to ask everyone, that's the problem. Everyone, don't freak out yet... We're looking into what options we have. The _last_ thing we want is to have to ask all these fan sites to change their names.
- Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -38/+252Why the hell am I being modded down? It's a legitimate question. I'm not spamming my site since I took it down about 8 months ago anyway. I just wanted to know if it violated their trademark.
- PicklePower, on 10/12/2007, -4/+167Well then incorperate the features that duggmirror.com and diggsig.com, for example, provide, so users don't have to go to an outside website to get those benefits. It would be a lot nicer for Digg to know when a page is suffering the Digg effect and automatically provide a backup of the page right from Digg.com.
- Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -12/+129Why is everyone hating on digg/Kevin for enforcing their trademark? Regardless of what digg represents, it's still a business and they're incorporated (most likely a C corporation if anyone gives a *****).
That being said, they have investors. A lot of times, with investment money, comes the ability to steer the direction of a company, which may or may not have happened in diggs case, but regardless, digg may eventually go public. How the hell would they be able to go public if "digg" existed on everything from shovels, to t-shirts, to other corporate websites?? How would they be able to control the quality of goods and services that you may buy that carry the "digg" name, like the fancy black t-shirt below? The answer is they can't if their identity "DIGG" doesn't belong to them.
You may not like it. Kevin and Jay may or may not like it, but it's a fact of business. Quit hating on digg for doing what's in the best interest of digg's business.. - chad78, on 10/12/2007, -46/+142"The _last_ thing we want is to have to ask all these fan sites to change their names."
You mean like you did to digggames.com? - jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -20/+112We were asked to respond to this, RBotros.
- gp120, on 10/12/2007, -16/+104i HATE IT when people use all CAPS for words and fail to capitolize the first letter of their sentence....it shows how ignorant they are.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+103I hope he didn't "loose" his dictionary.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -17/+102"We don't want to shut anyone down (not even the clone sites), all we ask is that you avoid using the name 'digg' in your website names/domains."
Don't say "avoid" using it - outright say its your trademark and make an effort to enforce that. Otherwise the courts may think you didn't actually care if it ever comes up. - beelz, on 10/12/2007, -33/+104http://digggames.com/
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+78all your diggs are belong to us.
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -7/+73"Seriously, did this article add anything?
Bury on..."
Yes it did offer something: the Digg team could have just blown off the issue and adopted a cold, hard-assed corporate position. Instead, they took steps to both explain the background behind these events as well as inform the user-base that they are looking for alternative solutions.
Perhaps you can cut them some slack. - Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -9/+75@diggywiggit
First of all, they aren't going to sue me. They haven't even asked me to stop using the name. Second of all, business is business. Digg isn't some fly-by-night website run out of some guys basement. It's a bonafide business. They have lawyers. They have a payroll. They have investors. What the hell people. Some of you act as if digg has become "the man". - jed02, on 10/12/2007, -4/+68Kevin,
Sounds like your attorney is looking out for you. You don't have to shut down a site if they are willing to accept a license from you. This allows them to continue to use the name and allows you to protect the goodwill in the mark. Unfortunately, if they will not agree to a license you will have to take action. To the extent that the mark is totally copied a Uniform Domain Name Resolution Action with WIPO is a lot less aggressive and a lot less expensive.
Jorge - diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -5/+65No.
Since they added the extra "g" to dig, they're allowed an extra "o" in lose. ;-) - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -5/+56@Gregd
I agree with both sides of your observations. But your question of Digg hate is spot-on. There are some rabid users in Digg that simply live to piss on something.
You KNOW something is wrong when someone (Kevin) makes an attempt to set things right and SOME users want an effigy any way. And this is not particular to this issue either: I see similar reaction patterns when GOOD news is announced.
Solution: challenge, mod and block (and/or request they be banned for violating TOS).
Hang in there, Greg.
P9 - Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48Mine always said that and it said that it wasn't endorsed by digg....
- Resolver, on 10/12/2007, -19/+63actually, digg's lawyer asked them to shutdown _on behalf_ of it's client, digg.
basically, he spoke for them. - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46That is a Spellchecker. not a Grammar Checker.
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47Surely (hopefully) there must be an option to allow digg fan sites to exist if they perhaps add a clear message/logo/badge that says "Unofficial Digg Fan Site" (or similar)?
- Nothlit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44If you ever study trademark law, you will learn that it's perfectly fine for companies in different industries to have the same name, as long as there is little chance for confusion. However, in the case of web sites offering digg-like services and using the digg name, it's pretty much unavoidable that digg needs to take steps to protect its trademark or risk losing it.
- anonyjames, on 10/12/2007, -13/+53Woah there, don't loose your cool.
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50Is it possible to somehow acquire these sites as official parts of the Digg empire, affiliated subsites if you will, but leave complete control with the appropriate parties?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+50in other words, "hey guys stop hating us for shutting down digggames.com"
- PhairOh, on 10/12/2007, -23/+57You do realize that by calling Kevin Rose ignorant, you are just asking to be modded down into oblivion, right?
- kevinrose, on 10/12/2007, -19/+51lol... oops, fixed.
- t4k3n, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36Loose is spelt right..
It's just the wrong word. - rot97, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35google does the same thing guys, http://xooglers.blogspot.com/ it talks about them having to enforce the trademark and stop tv shows and movies from using the verb "google it"
- DarkElf109, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36@gp120:
He's not iGnorant, he just follows the Apple naming scheme. - D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35I wouldn't go so far as to say "hate it" and "ignorant", but i too find it on the silly side...
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29They have the extra g because dig.com was already taken by disney.
Wouldn't it be funny if disney sued digg for trademark dilution? - Linkage155, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32Maybe the 500pound naked dude in the front page would explain..
- rgremill, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29You mean trademark laws?
- h0zae, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23search http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=35d1aj.1.1
information http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/ - elroy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29"Apparently if you don't enforce the TM (meaning not let other sites use it), we run the chance of loosing it... which would suck. The last thing we want is to loose our name."
BINGO! Your lawyer is right. Man, if this was a story about Apple we'd have all the mouth-breathers on here making their posts about "the cold heartless corporations" and other well-thought-out posts.
Advice to the digg team: If you intend on filing a case later on to protect your trademark, you need to have a history of defending it. Start doing so immediately.
Better advice to digg team: Buy all the coke and whores you can now, cuz that VC money won't be around forever! - AbortedFetus, on 10/12/2007, -29/+47Kevin did you "loose" your spellchecker?
LOL just kiddin' man :P - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Its good that Kevin Rose dugg your comment, which might hint that that system is well on its way..... or atleast, he likes the idea and will incorporate it.
- haker0, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22hey Kevin how about a friendly email instead of sending your lawyers after them?
maybe its just me but i think that's a better idea - EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Didnt Kevin say in one of the Diggnation podcasts is he hates when people use lol?
Ok start the modding down. - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14 So if Disney owns "dig.com" doesn't sue the owners of "digg.com" I wonder what will happen if I make a "diggg.com"?
- Alegis, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Explains the digggames.com thing.
- mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21I hate it when people don't use the reply button. It shows how ignorant/"n00bish" they are.
- sigintop, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Here’s the deal: ;)
This is not a case where you have to enforce your trademark or risk losing it. According to the digg lawyers:
“Given the nature of your services, your use of the DIGG mark is likely to confuse, mistake, and deceive people as to the affiliation……”
First, your lawyers are going to have a hell of a time proving that digggames is confusing the vistors of the site or that the person who owns digggames is knowly deceiving vistors to the site. Hate to tell you this but the burden of proof is on digg. Do you really want to waste digg money in order to prove something that’s extremely difficult to prove?
“Your use of the client’s mark is a clear attempt to trade on the goodwill which our client has developed in the DIGG Marks.”
Clear attempt? Good luck proving that in court. They’re talking willful deception and that’s hardly the case here.
Second, all a fansite has to do is state clearly on their page that their site is in no way associated with digg.com and that all references to digg.com belong to you guys. This simple act makes any attack the digg lawyers make pointless.
So the solution is, have these sites say they’re not affiliated with digg.com in clear readable letters and you’re both covered. Save your money for when something actually does try to steal your ideas (*cough*AOL-Netscape*cough*). Win fan respect and let the lawyers have a day off. - psbpv3o, on 10/12/2007, -36/+46Kevin Rose doesn't need proper grammar. If loose is lose than thats what it is because kevin deemed it so. Know your place bitch!
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15You do know you can license the name at no costs don't you? You didn't have to shut down http://www.digggames.com.
diggs current policy is about as stupid as TSR's old policy on 'protecting' their trademarks.. - brydude, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Oh snap.
- psyon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Couldn't the trademark be licensed just as any other trademark can be? Just give free licenses to the fan sites.
- PurpleMeteor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Windows is not a trademark, a window is an object I have on the walls of my house, it can't be trademarked. "Microsoft Windows" is the trademark.
- NeoBlanka, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20No way you just called Kevin Rose ignorant and then ended your entire post with a sentence fragment. Way to show 'em what's what.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 302 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is