MMQB: Peril Of Naming Your Website Without EMD
Neustar Domain Names

MMQB: Peril Of Naming Your Website Without EMD


I want to share an imteresting story that was posted on Deadspin regarding the domain name.

Sports Illustrated (SI) columnist Peter King, who famously covers the National Football League, is known for his MMQB column. MMQB stands for “Monday Morning Quarterback,” and the column is regularly posted following Sunday football games with news, analysis, and opinions about the week’s NFL games. I always find myself reading the column to get King’s insight.

It was recently announced that SI would have a standalone website called The MMQB. The domain name that was referenced is, which currently forwards to an internal Sports Illustrated subdomain.

Naturally, many people just assumed that a website called MMQB would be found on Unfortunately for King and Sports Illustrated, those who visited that domain name would find themselves in unfamiliar territory. is owned by a furniture company, and it’s been that way for years.

Deadspin shared some information from the owner of the domain name, including a bit about a recent negotiation for the domain name, and it’s amusing.

The moral of the story is that people will generally assume you operate the exact match domain name, so be mindful when you name a new website and don’t have that exact match domain name. I suppose Mr. King is luckly that isn’t an adult website or operated by someone else who writes a competing column.

It will be interesting to see if they try to work out some sort of deal for the domain name in the future.

About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has sold seven figures worth of domain names in the last five years. Please read the Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest.

Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | | Facebook | Email

Comments (14)


    Weird. calls themselves monday morning quarterback too ? Why does the site have the logo/image from right on the home page, including a (likely unlicensed) image from an NFL player and a byline of Peter King ?
    HELLOOOO . . . are they f’ing crazy ? They then link it to their subscription page. dumb!

    July 22nd, 2013 at 4:24 pm

      Elliot Silver

      Perhaps that’s the article they have at the top right now and are making fun of the fact that SI named its brand without having the EMD?

      July 22nd, 2013 at 4:25 pm


    They just opened the door a mile wide to lose a UDRP with that “Joke”.

    Some people are incredibly fucking stupid.

    July 22nd, 2013 at 7:01 pm

      Elliot Silver

      How so? They’ve used the site for many years (way prior to SI’s new venture), and the graphic is probably some sort of parody.

      July 22nd, 2013 at 7:04 pm


      Because what you call ‘parody’ could just as easily be interpreted as bad faith by a UDRP panelist.

      The guy who lost the UDRP claiming that NBA really stood for “National Bible Association” lost that one, too.

      Or the moron who lost because he insisted of poking the bear by putting up related ads.

      Incredibly stupid behavior. If I were a judge and you came into my courtroom with “Uh, well, IT’S A PARODY! YEAH, THAT’S THE TICKET! A PARODY!”, I’d dismiss that as non-credible and have no problem finding both confusing similarity AND bad faith.

      Dumb, dumb, dumb.

      July 22nd, 2013 at 11:16 pm


    Truly dumb.

    I just took a screen shot for the complainant.

    July 22nd, 2013 at 7:07 pm

      Elliot Silver

      I am sure they will be in touch with you to get that right away. 🙂

      July 22nd, 2013 at 7:08 pm


      I wouldn’t be too fast to write it off.

      I wonder if the people who have screenshots of Dallas Cowboys stuff plastered all over (who hastily ‘changed course’ once it was pointed out) would receive such a flippant and mocking response from the owner of that domain.

      July 22nd, 2013 at 11:19 pm


    Here is why is getting so much traffic. SI messed up and put out the wrong domain name for the site on different articles. Stupid!

    SI doesn’t need the name and that’s why they offered only $1500 for it. The name of the site isn’t MMQB it is The MMQB and chances are it will never be a stand alone site and will always link through It has to be stated that they are not branding themselves as Monday Morning Quarterback but as “The MMQB”. Take a look around the site and its clear how they are branding it. The owner of better be careful and remove that link from his site or ESPN is going to shove some of his office furniture up his ass.

    July 22nd, 2013 at 7:18 pm


    Interesting use of for sure, yikes.

    Then again we know of a man who had a *** domain and yet sold that *** company a $XXX domain for $750,00 so who knows lol

    July 22nd, 2013 at 8:37 pm


    That is dumb to put that MMQB on the website. Definitely creating unwanted attention.

    July 22nd, 2013 at 11:37 pm


    Nice post on EMD.
    Yesterday I read an article at DomainSherpa “The Secret of EMD: Exact Match Domains Revealed” where it mentioned that “Facebook” started with “TheFacebook.Com” and later bought the “FaceBook.Com.”

    July 23rd, 2013 at 5:54 am

    Elliot Silver

    To be successful, a UDRP complainant would need to prove that these are all true:

    “(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

    (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

    (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”

    The MMQB is brand new, so I doubt they would even be able to convince a panelist of #1. has been online for many years as a furniture website, so obviously a complainant wouldn’t prove that #2 was true. Given the amount of content on the site vs. the one parody graphic on the home page, I highly doubt they could prove #3.

    That all said, I am quite sure a UDRP panelist would not even have to opine on the second or third factor.

    Perhaps it is unwise to have the graphic, but based on the requirements of the UDRP, I can’t see any way they would be able to win.

    July 23rd, 2013 at 9:14 am

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *