Can an $8.47 Domain Absolve World Hunger and Malnutrition?

So Brad...why do you follow a narcissist around like you're a little puppy dog nipping at my heals. Inquiring minds would luv to know

 

Oh Abdullah...I can't do all that on my own, I'm expecting my brother Rob to pitch in and help. Afterall, our boss is wanting us to feed the hungry in this world. Thanks for your concern.

 

Not quite sure why you wrote this (perhaps believing the anti-UN rhetoric of some politicians!) but the UN through World Food Programme indeed do a lot and have been for 30+ years!

Is it enough by itself? Absolutely not and it is tragic that more than 800 million go to bed hungry each night (at least it is encouraging that despite population growth that number is less than it was a few decades ago, partly due to the efforts of the World Food Program). The World Food Program works in more than 80 countries and provides more than 15 billion meals over the year to more than 80 million people in total.

Today, if it is a typical day, the World Food Programme will have more than 5000 trucks delivering food around the world as well as about 90 planes in the air and a couple of dozen ships of various types in waterways.

As has been noted a bit above, many countries signed on in 2015 to a 17 point program to eradicate world hunger by 2030. It is not simply about food, but various aspects of social justice, economic development, education, and more. You can read about the Zero Hunger initiative here.

Your idea of some sort of chef competition as a marquee fund raiser around the world is not without merit, but please don't claim that the UN and its agencies are not doing anything. Saying that is not only a disservice to those who support and donate to those programs, but especially to the huge numbers of staff and volunteers on the ground who administer and deliver their programs. Over the years some have literally paid with their lives to help the world's hungry have meals.

Just because not enough has yet been done, and it is a travesty that the world grows enough food to feed everyone if only that food reached everyone, does not make it right to say "if the United Nations were ever to do anything for the world". Of course there are countless other organizations doing literally life-saving work in this area as well.

Bob

 

• "Richard, take Aviato. That's not a name I found; it's a name that found me."
• "A name has to be primal; something that you can scream out during intercourse. Like Aviato!"
• "Unique Cross Platform Technologies. Technologies... Technolojeesus... Oh F*ck! Infatrode."
• "Infatode. Infatrode? WTF is Infatrode?! What is that? It's all just meaningless words."
• "OK. No, no, no. Making the world a better place. Making the world a better place X 10"

At the end of the day, I applaud anyone wanting to make the world a better place.

 

I leave for a couple hours and damnit if Bulloney hadn't figured out how to save the freaking world. This is why I come back here day after day, fantastic!

 

In all seriousness, two things came to mind when I saw this domain:

(1) Is Olympics trademarked? Remembering cases such as:https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0435.html >> however, does the context differ when adding an s?

Noting the 1B status of Office Olympics



(2) A world food competition would be an awesome event. How would it be judged? Can I be a guest judge? How are the judges chosen? Lots of national pride in cuisine. mmmm dinner time.

 

Wow, you questioned whether Olympics was trademarked? Isn't it obvious.

 

I thought it was open and shut close TM case.

But seeing how somebody is actively trying to register "Office Olympics" as a trademark, it became a little less obvious. Granted, it hasn't been issued and will likely be denied -- based on past dropped TM applications containing suffix olympics.

If you read the entire post, you would see me cite a UDRP where an "Olympic" domain was was ordered to be transferred to the complainant, USOC. But that wasn't solely due to the domain name.

Other entities hold 'olympic' character mark trademarks besides USOC such as:

Olympic Channel - Comité International Olympique association SWITZERLAND
Olympic - DBA Columbine Vineyards

It likely comes down to how the domain or company will be used. If game related, than that's probably open and shut case close TM violation.

(Not legal advice)

 

Grilled...thanks for your comments. While "Olympic(s)" and anything and everything having to do with is trademarked, I'm arranging a meeting with the attorney Jim Bikoff who represents the Olympic Committee with regards to their trademark. While I can't assume anything, since I'm so heavenly involved with Special Olympics, and my idea for GourmetOlympics.com/org is to create an international competition that ultimately help to feed the world, I'm thinking there's not only a chance they might approve it, but I'd gladly give it to them if they would use it for the intended purpose. I'm just sort of hoping they might throw me a bone just for the idea

Finally, I've had others tell me "a world food competition would be an awesome event" and with your handle being Grilled, you should be part of the team Thanks, and lets stay in touch!

 

Bob...i can see this is near and dear to your heart. Your comment, "it is a travesty that the world grows enough food to feed everyone if only that food reached everyone" is what i was referring to with regards to the United Nations. What's up with that? If the world were being attacked by aliens, I'm not sure I want the UN to be in charge of our defense.....i'm just saying

 

I find as I get older I often am awake in middle of night worrying about things, but actually never an alien attack . If I was, I would be as happy with the UN trying to coordinate a response, hopefully an effective and friendly one, rather than some government going at it alone. Just saying....

It is. No organization is perfect, particularly one as large and complex as the UN and all of its associated agencies. I just am a big believer in people working together within a legal framework.

I think blame can go many ways, including governments, corporate, radical activists, some military, etc. for why it is we grow enough food but many grow hungry. No doubt the UN has made mistakes re world hunger at times, but I think their people are devoted, have a plan and are working hard and making a difference. I hate it when politicians trash them. Not only because it is unfair, but also because it will cause some who would have donated not to. Each dollar not donated does not just mean 3 meals not provided (approximate direct cost) but because of the various scaling factors it is I think more like 9. In my way of looking at it when politicians trash UN or other organizations doing good work they are literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry people.

Anyway, I should have said before that I like, even though it may be overly grand, that you are concerned about the world hunger and nutrition problem, and that you are thinking creatively about how to do something about it. Clearly many can have a role.

I had avoided any mention of Olympics because I am not clear the legal status of the word. Most things TM are for a specific word or phrase or logo etc. plus a use class. If that is so for Olympics, what are the use classes they have? Is it anything sports related, or is it more broad to anything competition related, or maybe even something else? I have no clue and no legal expertise really (my four decades old legal aspects of education graduate course is getting a bit aged and also not very directly useful ).

Congratulations on your very long term support of the Special Olympics program. Clearly they have been allowed to use the term for many decades, as well there are of course competitions such as the Physics and Chemistry Olympics (although the international one uses Olympiad) that have used it for many years.

Obviously you are doing the right thing by inquiring early re the issue. I see your concept as working independent of that domain name though, if problems do appear. It is a HUGE undertaking though. I wonder if any corporate sponsor, perhaps one already in either event management or restaurants / food, might be persuaded to become the sponsor of the event. Some object to such sponsorships, but in a way it does get things rapidly operational. In Canada our biggest mental health fund raising event is sponsored by the Bell telecommunications network and I think that has been effective.

Anyway, best wishes, and even if it does not get to next stage, always encouraging to having people think big. But leave criticism of the UN out of it, OK?

Bob

 

Not sure if you intended this to be a pun, or if anyone else caught it, but that's ☝ how I interpreted it 🤣

 

World hunger will never disappear until human population gets under control.

 

Yes and no....many gourmet dishes are grilled vs. fried, boiled, broiled, baked, etc.

 

Bob....you know me...i believe in the motto "Where there's a Way". You'll be pleased to know 9Time™ has legs and is moving right along. I have a PGA professional who will be my Director and CEO, and check out who I'm talking with about partnering: https://www.womensgolf.com/renee-powell It turns out Dr. Powell and I have a lot in common with the exception she's a great golfer and I suck

 

Congratulations, not only have you acquired a domain of a well known active trademark .. you've also just admitted to registering a domain in bad faith by the very fact of "hoping" they might reward you in some way!

This is the textbook definition of what is known as Cyber-squatting. I plead with new domainers to NEVER even consider registering domain names with known trademarks hoping in even a small way of even a chance to profit from the trademark owner. NEVER EVER DO THAT .. IT'S WRONG .. IT'S NOT LEGAL .. AND IT GIVES THE ENTIRE DOMAIN COMMUNITY A BAD REPUTATION !!!

Every single aspect about this is so horribly and blatantly wrong, that (yet again) after seeing posts that are just plain misleading to new domainers on proper domaining strategy, I just can't sit idly by with no comment!

Before even getting to the domain/TM aspects .. the fact that it could be even considered the IOC be efficient in any way at optimising revenue to tangible meaningful charitable activities is absurd. The IOC is one of the most corrupt and wasteful institutions on the planet (right after FIFA)!

More importantly .. as @Bob Hawkes has already mentioned, solving world hunger involves significantly more than just money ... there's logistics, infrastructure, security, policy, politics, etc etc .. to think any flash in the pan concept could be more or even close to as effective as the UN's WFP is absurd.

Not only that .. but even if it weren't breaking trademark rules, GourmetOlympics isn't even a good name for an "Olympic" scale food competition event, as it limits the scope of potential competitions to just higher end gourmet competitions, when indeed that would mean missing out on all other levels of cooking below "gourmet".

You might as well call it HungerGames! At least there you could argue that a food competition event isn't in the same TM class as books/movies (although it would be if the event was televised). There are TONS of food competitions going on out there .. many of them indeed for charity .. it's not a new concept in any way.


The proper way to go about this would have been NOT to have registered a trademark infringing domain, and simply approach them with a business plan/concept. Again .. THIS IS *NOT* DOMAINING (it's business development) .. not only that, but THIS *IS* CYBER-SQUATTING .. please .. nobody do anything like this.

 

you cant wait for charity on world hunger, it has to be an implemented tax program introduced into the whole world system, then everybody pays it and complains about it.

 

I believe your clever comment was meant lightly but it has a lot of truth too! I think the current system has strengths whereas it is based on all elements - contributions from international organizations (which are indirectly from 'taxes' on governments), contributions from governments (directly taxes!) and charity both from foundations and individuals. The World Food Program depends on all three types of funding.

That is partly why there is a multiplication effect. I am pretty sure (it definitely was true a year ago) that Canadians donating to the WFP it gets matched up to a level by Canadian government springing for a larger contribution. But also, at least occasionally, other non-governmental groups, add matching too. I think I am remembering right that the grain boards were at least also matching (since it meant more use of Canadian grain) so I think each dollar became three or four. I think it was four, person donates $2, NGO grain boards matched with $2 in kind contribution, Canadian government matched that $4 so $8 in food provided to WFP.

Anyway, sorry to provide a long serious answer to what was I think intended as a lighter comment.

Bob

 

no it was an excellent addition to what I was trying to say. tyvm.

 

@Grilled , @cabotower and several others seem to miss an important distinction of the "Olympics" term relative to ordinary trademarks.

They don't just have a trademark. They have their OWN LAW

Take a look for a moment at this US law, 25 USC 220506. That's a part of a set of laws which establish and define the authority and certain rights of the US Olympic Committee and its affiliated organizations.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220506

(a) Exclusive Right of Corporation.—
Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation has the exclusive right to use—
,,,

(4)
the words “Olympic”, “Olympiad”, “Citius Altius Fortius”, “Paralympic”, “Paralympiad”, “Pan-American”, “America Espirito Sport Fraternite”, or any combination of those words.

And @cabotower is aware of, but does not grasp the significance of, the exceptions in section (d).

Olympic paint was a pre-existing mark. The other major exception are businesses in the general area of Olympia, Washington.

Continuing with section (d):

(d) Pre-Existing and Geographic Reference Rights.—
(1)
A person who actually used the emblem described in subsection (a)(3) of this section, or the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.

(2)
A person who actually used, or whose assignor actually used, the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, or a trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia described in subsection (c)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.

Olympic” to identify a business or goods or services is permitted by this section where—

(A)
such use is not combined with any of the intellectual properties referenced in subsection (a) or (c) of this section;

(B)
it is evident from the circumstances that such use of the word “Olympic” refers to the naturally occurring mountains or geographical region of the same name that were named prior to February 6, 1998, and not to the corporation or any Olympic activity; and

(C)
such business, goods, or services are operated, sold, and marketed in the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountain range and operations, sales, and marketing outside of this area are not substantial.

These conditions are the US national version of certain international understandings relating to the IOC and the various national committees.

Now, turning to that pending trademark application mentioned by @Grilled , do remember that anyone with around $250 can file a trademark application on anything.

What do you think will happen to that "OFFICE OLYMPICS" application, considering that there is a US law which specifically grants exclusive rights in "OLYMPICS" to the USOC?

Well, we don't have to guess. The USPTO will do what the USPTO always does when someone files such an application.

And, again, this is why I sometimes get a little depressed at the way people don't use the USPTO database correctly. The application cited by @Grilled has already been refused.

Why? Well, you can read it yourself. The refusal is literally two clicks from looking at that TESS record, by using the TSDR tab and reading the refusal:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn88555922&docId=OOA20190823175416#docIndex=1&page=1

Olympic Marks Statutorily Protected (No Bona Fide Intent to Lawfully Use Mark in Commerce) – ABSOLUTE BAR to Registration

Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. This refusal issues when “(1) a violation of federal law is indicated by the application [record] or other evidence, such as when a court or a federal agency responsible for overseeing activity in which the applicant is involved, and which activity is relevant to its application, has issued a finding of noncompliance under the relevant statute or regulation, or (2) when the applicant’s application-[related] activities involve a per se violation of a federal law.” In re PharmaCann LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1122, 1123 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016)); TMEP §907. To qualify for a federal registration, the use of a mark must be lawful. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re PharmaCann LLC, 123 USPQ2d at 1123-24.

Importantly, Section 110 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, 36 U.S.C. §220506, protects various designations associated with the Olympics. Under 36 U.S.C. §220506(a), the United States Olympic Committee has the exclusive right to use the name "United States Olympic Committee," its symbol and emblem, and the words “OLYMPIC,” “Olympiad,” “Citius Altius Fortius,” “Pan American,” “Paralympiad,” “America Espirito Sport Fraternite,” or any combination thereof. The United States Supreme Court has held that the grant by Congress to the United States Olympic Committee of the exclusive right to use the word "Olympic" does not violate the First Amendment. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522, 3 USPQ2d 1145 (1987) (concerning petitioner's use of “Gay Olympic Games”). Under 36 U.S.C. §220506(c), a person is subject to suit in a civil action by the Committee if such person, without the Committee's consent, uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition, a designation noted above (listed in §220506(a)) or ‘any trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia falsely representing association with, or authorization by, the International Olympic Committee or ... [the United States Olympic Committee]" or any simulation of the words “Olympic,” “Olympiad,” or “Citius Altius Fortius” “tending to cause confusion, to cause mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with ... [the United States Olympic Committee] or any Olympic activity.” See U.S. Olympic Committee v. Toy Truck Lines Inc., 237 F.3d 1331, 57 USPQ2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001); O-M Bread, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 65 F.3d 933, 36 USPQ2d 1041(Fed. Cir. 1995); U.S. Olympic Committee v. Intelicense Corp., S.A., 737 F. 2d 263, 222 USPQ 766 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 982 (1984); U.S. Olympic Committee v. Union Sport Apparel, 220 USPQ 526 (E.D. Va. 1983); U.S. Olympic Committee v. International Federation of Body Builders, 219 USPQ 353 (D.D.C. 1982); Stop the Olympic Prison v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 489 F. Supp. 1112, 207 USPQ 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). In this case, the applicant's mark contains the term “OLYMPIC” (i.e., “OFFICE OLYMPICS”). The fact that the mark contains the additional word “OFFICE” does not affect or overcome the refusal.


-------------

Anyway, far be it from me to ruin anyone's fun. But, for those interested in what the underlying legal circumstances are, then there are two takeaways:

1. The US Olympic Committee, in addition to various trademarks, has its own law which grants exclusive rights to us the term "OLYMPIC" etc..

2. That law is an absolute bar to anyone else registering a mark with Olympic in it, except for marks prior to 1950 when the law was enacted.

In point of fact, one of the things the IOC was able to accomplish was to establish "OLYMPIC" and other designations on the permanent reserved word list in the new gTLDS. Their particular rights in that word are hard-wired into the ICANN gTLD process.

Every UDRP brought by the IOC or a national committee involving an "OLYMPIC" name has resulted in transfer:

NAF:

117893 olympiccommittee.com International Olympic Committee and The United States Olympic Committee v Domain For Sale, Inc. aka John Barry UDRP 08/08/2002

• Transferred

10/01/2002 127799 olympic.tv International Olympic Committee v Richard Freeman aka Return Pty Ltd. UDRP 10/17/2002

• Transferred

12/19/2002 128817 olympicbrand.com, olympicsbrand.com, olympic-brand.com, olympics-brand.com, olympianbrand.com International Olympic Committee & United States Olympic Committee v Russell Ritchey d/b/a EZ Fixin's d/b/a eBrandman UDRP 11/14/2002

• Transferred

02/01/2005 201977 bcolympic.com, bcolympic2010.com, bcolympics2010.com, bcolympics2010.net, Vancouverbcolympic.com, vancouverbcolympics.com, vancouverbcolympics.net, Vancouverbcolympics2010.com, Vancouverbcolympics2010.net International Olympic Committee & The United States Olympic Committee v Guy Boyden UDRP 10/16/2003

• Transferred

06/27/2006 1253280 ctvolympics.com International Olympic Committee and United States Olympic Committee and CTV Inc. v Texas International Property Associates - NA NA UDRP 03/26/2009

• Transferred

05/06/2009 1382972 olympicmuseum.org, olympicmuseum.net International Olympic Committee v Greek Historical Domains Society UDRP 04/18/2011

• Transferred

WIPO:

canadaolympicstore.com, canadaolympichockey.com
Transfer
WIPO D2016-0322 (Decision Date: April 17, 2016)

usaolympiconlinestore.com, olympiconlinestore.com
Transfer
WIPO D2000-0435 (Decision Date: July 20, 2000)

usolympicstore.com
Transfer
WIPO D2000-0189 (Decision Date: May 5, 2000)

Y'all have fun now.

 

Luv the FACT you chimed in here Berryhill....you made my day

 

Far from ruining my fun. Sincerely, thank you for stopping by and chiming in.

Despite all the distractions, I'm here to learn. And admittedly, sometimes I speak on things I don't yet understand, but am trying to understand. So when educated folks like yourself stop by, and attempt to steer us in the right direction, I really appreciate it.

A specific thank you for this!

I will try to use the USPTO database more correctly going forward. Though, I wholeheartedly welcome and appreciate all corrections.

This is the first time I've seen an (Offc Action Outgoing) PDF. Guessing by the text maybe more commonly called a NonFinal Office Action?

It took me about 5 minutes to find it, after re-reading the comment a few times, slowly, because I wasn't quite grasping it at first read. Maybe there's easier ways (and some of you will find it faster than me) but...

...for those interested in the steps I took:

Start: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

> click Search our trademark database (TESS)

> search: office olympics

> select the live application (88555922)

> Click TSDR

> Select Documents Tab

Finish: Click on the most recent entry (Offc Action Outgoing)

....

After reading the document, these quotes stuck out

Concluding, the reason the application might still be appearing as LIVE, despite an initial refusal decision, is because the applicant still has 6 months to respond (around February 24th, 2020), until the status will update to DEAD similar to the previous 'Office Olympics' applications?

Me too.

 

Correct.

 

Just to expand some more on that answer, @Grilled , there are a couple of things that could happen. The applicant may, if they feel like it, present some sort of argument why the application should be allowed. Frankly, I don't see much chance of that being successful, but it will certainly keep the application alive for another cycle of refusal + 6 months response time. The status on these things doesn't necessarily update like clockwork. Since responses can be mailed, there is an allowance for processing time. Much like registrations one can sometimes find which are past their renewal date, but simply haven't been updated in the system yet.

As you point out, this is the third go-round for someone trying "OFFICE OLYMPICS" as a mark. The other two were expressly abandoned, most likely after receipt of a letter demanding same from the USOC.

If you do a search among dead applications involving "OLYMPIC" you'll find there are a couple of standard refusals the USPTO issues for these sorts of things.

This one for "OLYMPIC EGAMES" is fairly comprehensive, and includes a "false association" objection as well:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86714838&docId=OOA20150820214934#docIndex=1&page=1

Falsely Suggests a Connection

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with the United States Olympic Committee. Although the institution is not connected with the services provided by applicant under the applied-for mark, the United States Olympic Committee is so famous that consumers would presume a connection. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); see TMEP §§1203.03, 1203.03(e).

...

In this case, the term "OLYMPIC" would be clearly seen by the general public as referring to the Olympic games, and thus to the organization the comprises the Olympic games (i.e., the United States Olympic Committee). Further, the fact that the applicant’s services include a variety of sports and athletic related services simply enhances that the false association (e.g., conducting of sports competitions, organization of sports competitions, etc.). In addition, no connection with the United States Olympic Committee has been established in the present record.

-----

One of the exceptions to the general rule I mentioned above is whether the organization or event in question pre-dated the formalization of rights in the various "OLYMPIC" designations. In the US, for example, Olympic paints is one such mark. Another event, known as the "Culinary Olympics" has apparently existed in Germany since the 1800's:

https://www.olympiade-der-koeche.com/en/

Some background information about that is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Exhibition_of_Culinary_Art

The International Exhibition of Culinary Art (in German: Internationale Kochkunst Ausstellung or IKA) termed the Culinary Olympics, is a quadrennial chef competition, and the biggest culinary exhibition in the world. Last held in 2016, the event has in recent years been arranged in Erfurt, Germany.

--------

But, anyway, if you look at "<whatever> OLYMPICS" applications at the USPTO for things that are not affiliated with the USOC, then you find that the applications tend to be (a) new and not examined yet, (b) expressly abandoned, or (c) refused under the law I cited above. The ones which were expressly abandoned where no doubt the recipients of correspondence from the USOC.

 

I cannot see them licensing the name for any other organization.

Example: Someone from the new organization GourmetOlympics embezzled funds. Now the entire name is attached to that controversy. The risk is too great, it will never happen.

Now for my opinion...

Gourmet and hunger don't go together very well. Feed, poor, hungry, starving, they fit but gourmet is completely the wrong term when talking about feeding the poor. Gourmet is always attached to affluent or people with discerning taste.

Just my opinion on this.