Joeski

Hello all,

I need abit of advise, if you dont mind...

I bought kirstycrawford.com a few days ago, Kristy Crawford was on TV screens last year on Pop Idol (UK).. and i am a fan of hers, hence buying the name.
She is planning on kicking off a solo career.

Now, this domain has been taken since she was on the show, and her manager has been wanting it since he became her manager.

I must have got it JUST as it became free again, as he got a call to say it was avalible.. and then id got it when he looked.

I talk to Kirsty on msn, and i dont want to offend her or hurt her..
But, she said that legally he is entitled to it, and James, her manager wants to take legal action... not on me, he doesnt know its 'me' that has it at this point.
Do you know where i stand on this one?
I know its not a legal forum... but i thought someone would know somthing about it?
If it was for sale to ANYONE, doesnt that mean ANYONE can buy it?
Im not gonna kick up a fuss on this one, cos like i say, im a fan.. and i talk to her on msn.. so dont wanna spoil things.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/61327-advise-needed.html

Another one i wanted to ask... was..
What would you all give it for a value?
Cos no doubt i will sell it to him..
Shes launching a singing career in the new year, she has management & production deals, shes gigging up and down the UK, im almost certain she has a record deal..
If you owned the name, and they wanted it - what would you expect to get?

Sorry if this isnt the place for this.. just thought i'd ask and see!
Thanks in advance

pimpdaddy

even though anyone can register domains, there are certain copyright issues that you may encounter..

first of all, its her name and she will no doubt win the case if it were to be brought to trial.

I would arrange selling arrangements as thats what you are better off doing, so you can get at least something for the name

billinchina

Don't try to sell it to them.

__________________
A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold. Proverbs 22:1

Joeski

why?

equity78

Bad Faith

Joeski

?? so i just GIVE it to them?

equity78

Or lose it at the WIPO

Joeski

Whats that?

equity78

World Intellectual Property Organization

Joeski

uurm... OK..
They've actually offerd me an ammount for it already?

[edit]
should i take the offer, or just randomly give it to them?

equity78

if they offered then just sell

PokerGuide.com

Well get a reason, like a girl you did like in school or something thats why you regged it.
Even a fan site entitels you the domain, dont sell it to them.
Say that they maybe can rent it or something if they ask.

Its youre domains, they have no right for it if they dont have a TM on her name or something.

equity78

If its your name you have a right you are wrong

dgridley

Take their offer.. you would lose it in court otherwise.

__________________

davew3b tumblr blog | davew3b posterous blog

equity78

this whole notion of I got a name because its someone famous then oh well I won't use it for anything with them then the name is worth 0 when obviously 99.9% of the time you regged it to profit off their name.

DG you are 100% correct

IllCodeForFood

I dont understand some users? Dont you understand thats imposible to TM a personal name, its imposible.......so you can have what domain you have. How many times i must say that many ppl in the world ale called Michael JAckson and they dont need a disclaimer to use their ID card, damn this is getting crazy . You can have and sell what name you want, If you could TM names this means that are ppl in the world that cant use their id card. Just make a fan site or so and they would want to buy it from you for shure, no need to warry, i have a lot of popular persons domains and no one swed me. This is only a stupid think!

__________________
Diseño Web Venta Casas

IllCodeForFood

You CAn NOT TM PErsons Name, or you can, but its not illegal to get a popular name domain,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________
Diseño Web Venta Casas

equity78

Ill you are incorrect many celebs have actual Trademarks on their name yes they do she may not and not all celebs do would not call this girl a celeb But you can Trademark your name

equity78

Posted: Mar 31 2004, 12:46 AM, By: HurricaneMB
Federal charges were filed against Adam McGaughey, creator of the popular SG1Archive.com website - a fan website devoted to the MGM-owned television show Stargate SG-1. The charges allege that the website engaged in Criminal Copyright Infringement and Trafficking in Counterfeit Services. The charges were the culmination of a three-year FBI investigation, set in motion by a complaint from the Motion Picture Association (MPAA) regarding the content of the SG1Archive.com website.

SG1Archive.com is one of the most popular fan-run websites among the Stargate community. In addition to providing very active fan discussion forums, broadcast schedules, production news, and episode guides, the site heavily promotes the sale of the show on DVD. As of this writing, direct links from SG1Archive.com to Amazon.com have resulted in the sale of over $100,000 worth of DVDs. Many more DVDs have been sold to international fans of the show through sites like Blackstar.co.uk. Upon hearing this news, Stargate executive producer Brad Wright called the site "cool" - which Adam took as an endorsement of his work.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=61327

However, instead of thanking Adam for his promotion of their product, officials at MGM and the MPAA have chosen to pressure the FBI into pursuing criminal charges. Adam was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI raided his and his fiancee's apartment in May of 2002 and seized thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment. Adam later received a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant, and was shocked to discover that this document, prepared by the FBI, contained significant amounts of erroneous and misleading information. For example, two social security numbers were listed for Adam, one of which is not his. References were made to a cease and desist letter sent by the MPAA to an email address that did not exist. His online friendship with other Stargate fans across the globe was portrayed as an international conspiracy against the MPAA. And perhaps most disturbing of all, it was later revealed that the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. The FBI's abuse of its powers did not stop there. When they seized Adam's computer equipment, he was given written documentation stating that it would be returned within 60 days. The equipment that they did return did not arrive until more than 8 months later, and only then after much prodding from his lawyer. Much of it was damaged beyond repair - one laptop had a shattered LCD screen, an empty tape backup drive was ripped apart for no apparent reason, his fiancee's iBook was badly damaged when it was pried apart with a screwdriver. The FBI's computer crimes staff is either incompetent (at least when it comes to Macintosh computer equipment) or else they just don't give a damn.

Adam has has received positive feedback about his site from multiple members of the Stargate cast and crew at fan conventions. In addition, a representative of MGM's fan publication interviewed Adam about his website several months prior to the FBI raid. As a result, Adam sincerely believed that the show's creators did not have a problem with the content of his website. Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality, without promoting the sale of DVDs or offering a community for fans to discuss the show. Why the MPAA and FBI have chosen to ignore these sites and target SG1Archive.com is unclear.

Up until this point, Adam has been fortunate enough to receive pro bono legal counsel in his current hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio. However, the charges were filed in Los Angeles county. The cost of travel, trial, bond, etc. is likely to be quite high. Unfortnunately, Adam and his fiancee do not have the resources to pay for it all - he is a Macintosh repair technician at a chain computer store and she is a medical student. If you would like to contribute to the SG1Archive.com Legal Defense Fund, please make a paypal donation by clicking the button below. Thank you for your support!

equity78

“Bad Faith” And The Acpa - A Thumbnail Sketch”
By Howard Neu
The ANTICYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER’S PROTECTION ACT was enacted into law for the primary purpose of preventing a person from registering a domain in “bad faith” or using that domain in “bad faith” after registration. It was intended to protect trademark holders from being extorted by cybersquatters who registered their trademark name and then either tried to sell it to the trademark holder, use it to compete with the trademark holder, or profited from the use of someone else’s trademark.

The ACPA is enforceable in any United States District Court, provided that the court chosen by the Plaintiff Trademark holder has jurisdiction over the person or over the res (domain). To that end, it has been determined by the courts that if the registrant of the domain in question is unknown or cannot be served, the Plaintiff may obtain jurisdiction over the domain itself if the law suit is brought in the Judicial District in which the Registrar, the Registry, or other domain authority is located. Many law suits have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia because that is where the DOTCOM Registry is located.

Whether Plaintiff’s attorneys have done a better job for their clients in U.S. Federal Courts than in WIPO or NAF under the UDRP is up for conjecture, but Domainers lose more cases decided by U.S. Federal Judges than they do from decisions by WIPO or NAF arbitration panels. This is partly due to the fact that it is very expensive for Domainers to defend their domains in court as they MUST be represented by counsel and counsel must know the very exact and demanding rules required by the courts. Therefore, many decisions are by default. The major problem with just ignoring the law suit is that it doesn’t just go away. While under the UDRP procedures, the Complainant can only get the domain transferred, under the ACPA, they can also obtain actual damages incurred or Statutory damages in an amount up to $100,000.00 per offending domain. AND, if it is an “extraordinary” case, the Complainant can also obtain a Judgment for its costs and attorneys fees, which often run more than $30,000.00.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=61327

The courts have additionally expanded the original intent of the law from preventing the use of a trademark through a domain name to including mistyped trademarks. The Internet is an unforgiving medium. If a user types in the wrong “address” or URL, he will not arrive at the destination he is seeking. If it is a misspelling of a trademark in the domain name, it will not get him to the trademark holders’ web site. Thus, the courts have determined that a “ typosquatter” is the same thing as a “ cybersquatter” and is subject to the provisions of the ACPA .. The fact that the “ typosquatter” may be using the domain for a completely different purpose than the trademark is of little or no consequence. The courts have generally ruled that the Domainer acted in “bad faith” in registering and using the domain and must give it up and pay damages to the Plaintiff.

Jnarber1501

Wallerlogistics.com expires tommorow they did not even know if some one buy's it they will have to buy it off you. Set your price. $$$ No funds or I would be all over it.

Joeski

well thanks for ur help guys
uuurm, ill just take their offer and run... lol

Ill leave you to "discuss" if you 'can' TM a name or not

equity78

Congress passed the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACCP) in 1999, giving companies some recourse against misuse of their trademarks in domain names, but questions still remain. What exactly can be claimed as a trademark? How do you define "misuse?" And, hey, celebrities are big business, are they covered too?

Cyberlaw vs. Traditional Trademark Law

In non-cyberworld cases, the courts have been the answer for trademark disputes. Traditionally, trademarks have been protected by the Lanham Act, enacted in 1946, and, most recently, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, but these new cyber star wars over cyber star wares are creating new questions as to how trademark law will evolve and effectively govern in this new era.

The Dilution Act protects marks from "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services," although the courts have disagreed as to how to interpret the law. In one case, Ringling Bros., the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held the holder of the more famous mark must prove actual damages, while in the Pepperidge Farm Goldfish case, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said no damage was necessary. Most recently, in the Victoria’s Secret case which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the 6th Circuit again found that proof of damages was not necessary.

Disputes are handled differently in the online world. Here, when holders of a famous mark or a celebrity name want that mark or name from a cybersquatter, they most often bring the dispute to an arbitration service, usually the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) or the World Property Organization (WIPO).

Although the standards used in these cases are similar to traditional trademark cases, they are still unique. Basically, anyone bringing a suit must prove that the contested domain name is 1) confusingly similar or identical to the plaintiff’s own trademark; 2) that the current domain holder has no right to or legitimate interest in the domain name; and 3) that the name was registered in "bad faith."
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=61327

These international "People’s Courts" of domain name management are effective but limited. Their decisions are not enforceable under U.S. law so, if mark holders or alleged cybersquatters are unhappy with the decision, they can still bring the case to court to maintain ownership of the domain name.

But, perhaps most seriously, some critics say these panels are creating a new global trademark law with entirely new definitions and standards. One common concern is that these panels have overwhelmingly protected people’s (most commonly celebrity’s) names even when these names have not been trademarked. In traditional trademark cases, complainants usually have, quite obviously, a registered trademark. In domain name battles, it is often not so.

Under ICANN’S Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), a registered trademark is not required. The complaining party can also just have "rights in trademark." This is often integral to a celebrity’s case. Celebrities argue that their names have acquired "secondary meaning" and, thus, have established rights as a common law trademark – and they have been extremely successful.

"Most surprising is the strength of protection given to personal names under the UDRP," Dr. Milton Mueller of Syracuse University’s Convergence Center has said. "Personal names that are not registered as trademarks have been protected as strongly as registered marks, if not more strongly…overall the win rate for complainants in personal name cases is practically identical to registered marks."

Critics of arbitration have freedom of speech concerns as well. Many sites, such as the JuliaRoberts.com, contained what many considered to be parody of a public figure, which has traditionally been protected, but, still, the site was taken from the holder after it was judged to be registered in "bad faith."

Celebrity Cyberlaw Case Studies

In the non-cyberworld it’s not unusual for different companies to own rights to the same trademark. As attorney and author Mark Radcliffe has pointed out, more than 15 companies have registered "Apple" as their trademark but, with domain names, this simply can’t work. There can be thousands of Apples in the world, but only one Apple.com. Similarly, there may be thousands of people named Julia Roberts in the world, but there can only be one JuliaRoberts.com–and take a guess which one is most likely to get it.

In one of the most notorious celebrity cyber squabbles, actress Julia Roberts filed suit against Russell Boyd, a New Jersey man who had purchased the domain name, JuliaRoberts.com. Boyd then created a site filled with cartoons, wacky poems and message boards, all poking fun at the "Pretty Woman" star. Roberts brought the dispute to WIPO for arbitration and won, the panel finding that Boyd had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and that he had registered it in bad faith.

The case left many domain name owners wondering if Roberts’ celebrity had unfairly influenced the decision. After all, what made Julia Roberts the actress more deserving of the domain name than the countless other Julias in the world? Wayne Huang, who owns a domain name of actress Katie Holmes said: "There was an interesting post on a website from a woman named Julia Roberts who is a housewife, and she asked, ‘My name is Julia Roberts too, can I sue you for this site?’"

Similar concerns were raised in the Madonna.com case. Here, the singer sued for the domain name and won – the decision heralded by her publicist Liz Rosenberg who told the Associated Press that the decision was just because the Material Girl was "the most famous Madonna in the world." The site’s owner, Dan Parisi, disagreed, as did Catholics around the globe presumably. "She was named after the Virgin Mary as was her mother and hundreds of thousands of other people throughout the world over the past 2000 years," Parisi has said. "We do not believe that because Ms. Ciccone named her act after the Virgin Mary that gives her the right to stop any party from using the word ‘madonna’ as a title of their website."

Although celebrities are often victorious, it is not always the case. Singer Bruce Springsteen brought suit against the owner of BruceSpringsteen.com, a fan who was running a club on the site, however, the panel did not side with the singer, finding that running a fan club on the site was not a demonstration of bad faith.

And recording artist Sting (real name: Gordon Sumner) got stung when he brought suit against Michael Urvan, owner of sting.com back in 2000. Urvan, a software engineer from Marietta, Georgia, who also just so happens to go by the nickname "Sting," won the dispute. The arbitrators ruled that "sting" was a common word that could not be successfully claimed as a trademark even though Sting-the-singer is arguably more well-known than Sting-the-Software-Engineer. (Urvan has since agreed to transfer the name to Sting and Sting.com is now the singer’s official site.)

Singer Alanis Morisette is the latest star to wage a cyber battle, fighting for control of the domain, Alanis.net. This summer her attorneys sent a letter to the owner, Russ Smith, demanding the domain name and claiming he was misappropriating Morisette’s trademark. Smith sent a scathing reply, claiming, among other things, that Alanis Morisette did not have a right to the name "Alanis" separate from her last name. Look for this one to hit the arbitration panels soon.

Cyberlaw – The Next Generation

Although celebrities and holders of famous marks have been quite successful in arbitration, they may soon have new woes to deal with. This year new top level domains (.info, .biz, .name, .pro, .aero, .museum and .coop) are slowly being introduced and holders of existing trademarks don’t like that one bit as new domains mean more cybersquatting battles to come. (Juliaroberts.museum, anyone?)

And, as the Internet continues to expand, so does cyberlaw’s reach. Cases have begun to move beyond the arbitration services and are carving out new definitions of trademark law in the courts as well. Trademark holders have begun bringing suit under the Lanham Act, the ACCP Act and, most recently, state dilution laws.

In April, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a Texas company had diluted the trademark of wine giant E. & J. Gallo by maintaining a site called "Whiney Winery" on the domain, ernestandjuliogallo.com. Although not a direct celebrity case, it still has implications as this was the first time the 5th Circuit applied the ACCP Act and the first time the Texas dilution act was applied to cybersquatting. "Many laypeople think that the regular laws don’t apply to the Internet. The courts are confirming what I’ve always believed, that the trademark and copyright laws apply to the Internet just like they apply to everything else," E. & J. Gallo attorney Craig Weinlein has said.

And, if celebrities have anything to say about it, these laws will apply to them too. Can’t we all just get along? Sure, as soon as there’s enough JuliaRoberts.coms to go around. Until then, let’s get ready to rumble.

equity78

So you can see Joeski if you have cash maybe you can win but if not better to just sell. Good Luck Dude

Joeski

Would it make a difference if the reason i bought the domain name was for a fansite for Kirsty... and it stated that it was 100% unofficial?
Too complicated for me i think