news Man purchased ClintonKaine.com domain name for $8 in 2011; he wants $90,000 to sell it

[deez007]

(CNN) – Tucked away in a basement apartment in northeast Washington, a 28-year old federal contractor and lawyer, who creates web comics as hobby, hopes he’s sitting on a fortune.

He goes by the pen name “Jeremy Pegg” and as first reported by “DCIST”, he bought the domain name “clintonkaine.com” in 2011 for just eight dollars. So how did he predict this ticket five years ago?

Pegg explained, “Obama was looking at Kaine before he picked Biden and I don’t know, I felt like he was very likely going to be a running mate.”

Covering his bases, he also bought the “Clinton Biden” and “Clinton Booker” domain names and last year, he sold “cruz2016.com” and “bidenwarren.com” for $1,500 dollars each, but this might be his biggest real estate.

Since Clinton picked Kaine as her running mate, Pegg says he’s been getting huge web traffic and multiple interview requests.

Until he sells clintonkaine.com, he’s sharing his homemade comics on the webpage, depicting the democratic duo in a Harry Potter narrative.

Pegg said, “I’m pretty sure Clinton will win this election so the domain will keep being valuable for at least 4 years.”

He describes himself as very political, progressive, and who likes Sanders. Pegg goes on to say, “I have people suggesting I put links to the hacked DNC emails up there.”

He now supports Clinton, but does say he’s open to selling the domain name to Sanders, or even Trump supporters, whoever makes the best offer.

Pegg concludes with, “I don’t actually want to hurt the Clinton campaign, but I do want to sell the domain so we’ll see.”

Source: http://wwlp.com/2016/07/26/man-purchased-clintonkaine-domain-name-for-eight-dollars-in-2011/

 

[Kate]

Yes, the domain is developed. But.
Personally I think the owner has done this to cover his butt - what he really wants is to sell it for a big sum. Development is a pretense to claim good faith.
I could be wrong of course, but I see this name as a speculative registration from day one. If you are going to blog about the democrat party, why use a name pair that is so targeted ?

If the fact can be established in front of a court, then it makes more sense for Clinton et al to sue and seek monetary damages, than pay ransom.

Here is the killer:

He now supports Clinton, but does say he’s open to selling the domain name to Sanders, or even Trump supporters, whoever makes the best offer.

Sorry, but the good faith argument does not convince me. Accordingly I am more inclined to side with David Walker on this issue.

 

[Keith]

This is not cybersquatting. Incorrectly labeling someone as a cybersquatter is a worse offense, in my eyes, than actually being a cybersquatter. While I disapprove of both, you should get your facts straight:

1. No one owns a trademark for "ClintonKaine" or "Clinton Kaine"
2. He registered the domain name in 2011 before the pair teamed up
3. He is using it in a perfectly valid and legal way that even if there was a trademark, his use of the domain name would not be infringing on their rights, and he'd be fully within his legal rights to do so.

Your accusation is completely off base and inappropriate.

The real question is why did the owner register the domain? An educated guess would tell you he/she was hoping to cash in on someone else's name, literally.

It's an area that isn't worthwhile IMO.

 

[Addison]

There is no trademark: established, implied, in use, or otherwise. Clinton and Kaine are not operating under the mark (trade or service mark) "Clinton Kaine" or "ClintonKaine" thus by definition, it is impossible for this to be cybersquatting.

We can all argue the moral or ethical side of doing this, but the facts are that it's not cybersquatting.

 

[Keith]

There is no trademark: established, implied, in use, or otherwise. Clinton and Kaine are not operating under the mark (trade or service mark) "Clinton Kaine" or "ClintonKaine" thus by definition, it is impossible for this to be cybersquatting.

We can all argue the moral or ethical side of doing this, but the facts are that it's not cybersquatting.

It's squatting all day. The only reason this domain was registered was in hopes that Clinton Kaine would be a ticket. A registered TM isn't required to prove cybersquatting.

It's no different than me registering your first and last name .com. The only reason to do it is in hopes that you buy it. Other than that, there's no good faith in the registration.

 

[Edvard Munch]

I am no expert on this, but there are

• 18,820 people in the U.S. with the last name Clinton.
  
• 625 people in the U.S. with the last name Kaine

So if this is cybersquatting, I would think almost any LastnameLastname domain name could be accused of the same?

 

[Keith]

I am no expert on this, but there are

• 18,820 people in the U.S. with the last name Clinton.
  
• 625 people in the U.S. with the last name Kaine

So if this is cybersquatting, I would think almost any LastnameLastname domain name could be accused of the same?

How many domains do you own of people's last names mashed together? Probably zero, correct?

It's a bad faith registration with the sole purpose to profit from other's names. It's no different than registering Jennifer Lopez .com. There might be more than 1 person named Jennifer Lopez so you somehow have a legit right to own the domain?

 

[Kate]

So if this is cybersquatting, I would think almost any LastnameLastname domain name could be accused of the same?

If your name Firstname Lastname and you register FirstnameLastname.com there is nothing wrong with that.
If your name is not Clinton Kaine, then it's much harder to justify it.

But here we are talking about prominent politicians, they can certainly claim TM rights like celebrities. Of course no need for a registered TM to claim TM rights.

 

[000]

The domain is currently still held by the man who registered it 5 YEARS prior to the Clinton-Kaine ticket even existing. The domain can 100% be used and/or sold by this man, fair and square.


Those crying about some non-existent "TM issue" are absolutely off their rocker !!


Let me guess.......... Hillary supporters?! What, ya don't think she can afford $60,000 for a domain if she wants it? As we all know, she's literally spending hundreds of millions of dollars on promoting her campaign.


You want to talk about ethics while defending Hillary Clinton? Are you actually serious?!!


What a buncha trolls !!

 

[Kate]

The domain is currently still held by the man who registered it 5 YEARS prior to the Clinton-Kaine ticket even existing. The domain can 100% be used and/or sold by this man, fair and square.

It was a prediction. But it was nonetheless a speculative registration
We have seen people buying all possible combinations for the next president, like: name of representative + 2016 + .com. People are literally gambling.

And if I buy microsoftgoogle.com, microsoftyahoo.com, googlebing.com etc these entities don't exist yet but it's still infringement.

The question remains. Why Clinton Kaine and not another more neutral domain ? Easy.
Clinton was already well known 5 years ago and certainly had presidential ambitions. So only the second part of the domain had to be 'guessed'.
I'm not buying the good faith argument.
If this one goes to UDRP or court, I'm not sure the owner would prevail.

Also, initial good faith can be ruined by subsequent actions.
For example, you register a name, develop it, then you start parking it years later because it's no longer needed for its original purpose (the business has been shut down). If the domain was to display infringing sponsored links for competitors, you could lose the name. Yes, there are examples in UDRP.

Now, remember what the owner allegedly said: he would even sell it to the Trump camp, whomever pays the most. Does that sound like good faith ?
You know what they, everything you say and write can and will be used against you.

Some registrations are borderline but defensible, but in this case the owner has shot himself in the foot.
In my view, these names always are more a liability than an asset.

 

[000]

None of this is relevant for ClintonKaine.com.

What you are implying is that the Clinton camp should reverse-hijack this domain.

Anyways, domains like microsoftgoogle.com, microsoftyahoo.com, googlebing.com are entirely different and you know it. Neither "Clinton" nor "Kaine" are at all comparable to Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Bing. If you're going to provide examples, you should probably try a little harder and at least find sensible comparisons.

There are two trademarks on "Clinton": one is for printing paper and envelopes, and the other is for watches and watch movements.

Since you clearly think that Hillary somehow owns exclusive rights to the name "Clinton", riddle me this:

Why hasn't Hillary ever bothered to trademark "Clinton"?

Your argument and accusations are 100% baseless and 100% senseless.

 

[000]

Your argument is that Hillary can swoop in and TAKE any domain ever registered with the word "Clinton" in it, if she years down the road finds some use for it. Under your bizarre interpretation of "cybersquatting", she should be able to willy-nilly seize literally any one of these domains (even if registered today or ten years ago) should she choose to run in 2020 with a matching running mate:

ClintonBrown.com
ClintonChair.com
ClintonHeart.com
ClintonFootball.com
ClintonHair.com
ClintonMan.com
ClintonSky.com
ClintonBazooka.com
ClintonChili.com

Say Hillary taps Joe Chair or Bob Man as her running mate in 2020.... you really think she has the RIGHT to seize ClintonChair.com or ClintonMan.com?

What a truly bizarre way of thinking !

 

[ZapNano]

It was a prediction. But it was nonetheless a speculative registration
We have seen people buying all possible combinations for the next president, like: name of representative + 2016 + .com. People are literally gambling.

And if I buy microsoftgoogle.com, microsoftyahoo.com, googlebing.com etc these entities don't exist yet but it's still infringement.

The question remains. Why Clinton Kaine and not another more neutral domain ? Easy.
Clinton was already well known 5 years ago and certainly had presidential ambitions. So only the second part of the domain had to be 'guessed'.
I'm not buying the good faith argument.
If this one goes to UDRP or court, I'm not sure the owner would prevail.

Also, initial good faith can be ruined by subsequent actions.
For example, you register a name, develop it, then you start parking it years later because it's no longer needed for its original purpose (the business has been shut down). If the domain was to display infringing sponsored links for competitors, you could lose the name. Yes, there are examples in UDRP.

Now, remember what the owner allegedly said: he would even sell it to the Trump camp, whomever pays the most. Does that sound like good faith ?
You know what they, everything you say and write can and will be used against you.

Some registrations are borderline but defensible, but in this case the owner has shot himself in the foot.
In my view, these names always are more a liability than an asset.

The owner of the domain can do whatever he or she want to do with it!! Do not used this normal thing to do, as your defense to gain something out of nothing. The fact is you are not an experienced lawyer in this field. All you have is trying and assuming on things.

 

[Kate]

Your argument is that Hillary can swoop in and TAKE any domain ever registered with the word "Clinton" in it,

...

Say Hillary taps Joe Chair or Bob Man as her running mate in 2020.... you really think she has the RIGHT to seize ClintonChair.com or ClintonMan.com?

I never said such a thing. That's not how TM law works. Plenty of people are called Clinton. They will own Clinton domains in good faith and it's alright.
But when you own that particular domain Clinton Kaine, and you are even willing to sell it to Trump, it is a specific scenario.
Each domain is different and the circumstances matter.

Celebrities enjoy de facto TM rights, so do politicians. A registered TM is not a requirement to claim TM rights.

 

[promo]

@ZapNano

Being critical is not the same as being negative. Criticism is what develops ideas and highlights faults.

I cant count the times I have read your posts and thought. Wauw, she really should not advise on that. You often give advise even though you know nothing about the subject. That much is clear to people that actually have experience in this industry. Your advise is most often "positive" but positive advise does not always have positive consequences. Especially not in TM relevant matters. Your actions have real world consequences, "positive" affirmations can end up causing heaps of trouble for people, should they choose to follow your direction.

In this case you are calling out a member that has years more experience than you. One that in my opinion is much closer to the "truth" than you are. I am all for advise, but would like it to be grounded in actual knowledge and experience rather than a need to back pump people.

The owner should take the money and run.

 

[Keith]

In this case the domain would easily be stripped from the owner if Hillary filed a case. It's simple to see the bad faith with this one.

 

[LucidDomains]

A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:

• The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
• The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
• The domain name has been registered and the domain name is being used in "bad faith".

Complainant needs to prove ALL 3 things, however:

If there is no TM on this domain or no one is using a similar domain or mark, then there's no issue.

Selling a domain for profit is a legitimate business practice, many panels have confirmed this previously.

He is using the site for political cartoons which is fair use.



There is no issue here whatsoever in my opinion. Good luck to the seller.

 

[ZapNano]

@ZapNano

Being critical is not the same as being negative. Criticism is what develops ideas and highlights faults.

I cant count the times I have read your posts and thought. Wauw, she really should not advise on that. You often give advise even though you know nothing about the subject. That much is clear to people that actually have experience in this industry. Your advise is most often "positive" but positive advise does not always have positive consequences. Especially not in TM relevant matters. Your actions have real world consequences, "positive" affirmations can end up causing heaps of trouble for people, should they choose to follow your direction.

In this case you are calling out a member that has years more experience than you. One that in my opinion is much closer to the "truth" than you are. I am all for advise, but would like it to be grounded in actual knowledge and experience rather than a need to back pump people.

The owner should take the money and run.

Yes you and Kate has been in this business for years; that is why both of you still here; that itself will tell everything. There is only few people on here that I can trust. But you, I can not trust as well.

 

[000]

The owner using the domain for political cartoons clearly falls into the realm of fair use, even if there were a trademark on this political ticket (and there is not, nor are there any relevant trademarks on "Clinton" or "Kaine"). Whether the owner chooses to accept an offer for it is entirely up to him.

Here's what an ACTUAL LAWYER (of 20+ years) had to say about RomneyRyan.com in 2012.

The Romney campaign likely could not rely on a UDRP complaint to obtain control of the domain name, because the campaign probably does not have trademark rights in “Romney Ryan” (a requirement for any UDRP proceeding) or, at least, it did not have trademark rights when the domain name was registered in 2010. Numerous political candidates have tried and failed to use the UDRP to their advantage. Just ask Meg Whitman, the former eBay CEO who lost a UDRP decision for <megwhitmanforgovernor.com>, <megwhitman2010.com>, <meg2010.com>, <whitmanforgovernor.com>, and <whitman2010.com> when she was running for governor of California.

So many self-righteous know-it-alls around here with senseless knee-jerk reactions !!

 

[martinrussell]

For the duration of the campaign I'd think anyone sitting on these names are safe from action. But I'd bet good money on PresidentTrump.com getting served regardless of the outcome of the vote come November.

History proves, right?

And sorry, but any new, presumed relevant names like ClintonKaine.com are likely already late to the (pun) party. Social media is well underway and anyone looking for their candidates already know where to go.

The .coms are long up, so too FaceBook and Twitter and Pinterest and so on…

 

[Addison]

A registered TM isn't required to prove cybersquatting.

Do you know anything about this law? Please stop making things up.

The entire basis of cybersquatting is that there must be bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.

"The law was designed to thwart “cybersquatters” who register Internet domain names containing trademarks with no intention of creating a legitimate web site, but instead plan to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a third party."​

The owner of this domain has already created a legitimate website with the domain name, and he is fully within his rights to also offer it for sale if he wants. Even if he hadn't created a legitimate website, the fact still remains that Clinton and Kaine do not have the proper name "Clinton Kaine" and therefore they have no rights to the combination of these two names.

Of course no need for a registered TM to claim TM rights.

You are correct; you don't need to register a TM to claim TM rights, but you do have to use the mark in trade or service, of which they do neither. Therefore, they cannot claim TM rights in any way whatsoever.

 

[N-A]

A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:

• The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
• The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
• The domain name has been registered and the domain name is being used in "bad faith".

Complainant needs to prove ALL 3 things, however:

If there is no TM on this domain or no one is using a similar domain or mark, then there's no issue.

Selling a domain for profit is a legitimate business practice, many panels have confirmed this previously.

He is using the site for political cartoons which is fair use.



There is no issue here whatsoever in my opinion. Good luck to the seller.

I think that you and everyone else that agrees with the notion that this isn't TM infringement need to read the case of JuliaRoberts.com. The facts in that case, which was ruled in favor of the actress Julia Roberts, is very similar to ClintonKaine.com.

 

[Addison]

I think that you and everyone else that agrees with the notion that this isn't TM infringement need to read the case of JuliaRoberts.com. The facts in that case, which was ruled in favor of the actress Julia Roberts, is very similar to ClintonKaine.com.

That case has zero relevance here. My post right before yours explains it:

the fact still remains that Clinton and Kaine do not have the proper name "Clinton Kaine" and therefore they have no rights to the combination of these two names.

 

[martinrussell]

I think that you and everyone else that agrees with the notion that this isn't TM infringement need to read the case of JuliaRoberts.com. The facts in that case, which was ruled in favor of the actress Julia Roberts, is very similar to ClintonKaine.com.

And then read what happened with BruceSpringsteen.com

 

[LucidDomains]

A. Complainant contends that the domain name <juliaroberts.com> is identical to and confusingly similar with the name "Julia Roberts" and the common law trademark rights which she asserts in her name pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name <juliaroberts.com> pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the domain name <juliaroberts.com> in bad faith in violation of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

B. Respondent does not contest that the domain name <juliaroberts.com> is identical with and confusingly similar to Complainant�s name. Respondent does contest whether Complainant has common law trademark rights in her name. Respondent admits that he selected the domain name <juliaroberts.com> because of the well known actress.

Respondent contends that he has rights and legitimate interest in <juliaroberts.com> because of his registration and use of the domain name.

Respondent contends that his registration and use of <juliaroberts.com> is in good faith.





This isn't similar at all.

1. He is using the domain in fair use to make political commentary and/or cartoons and that Respondent for the JuliaRoberts.com case had no use whatsoever except to profit from the actresses name.

2. Also JuliaRoberts.com, which is one person (FIRSTNAME/SURENAME) and is unmistakable.

This is two peoples' (SURNAME/SURNAME) who after 4 years or so will probably not be in power.

This SURNAME/SURNAME also remind me of a recent UDRP of GOOGLENIKE.COM.

Who won that? The Respondent if I recall correctly. Two TM's have conflicting interests.

3. How is this domain passing off if it contains two SURNAMES' of two different people? It's not.

 

[N-A]

That case has zero relevance here. My post right before yours explains it:

All case law has relevance in court. That's how proceedings are met: Bantering case law. That case shows that the condition of Bad Faith can be met

In addition, the Respondent has placed the domain name up for auction on the commercial website eBay. When considered in conjunction with the pattern of registrations described above, the Panel finds that such action constitutes additional evidence of bad faith.

Sound familiar? The owner of ClintonKaine.com posted his domain on Flippa. He also admits in news outlets that he is willing to sell it for the highest price.

Rights or Legitimate Use

In addition, Respondent admits that he has registered other domain names including including other well-known movie and sports stars and having placed the disputed domain name <juliaroberts.com> for auction on eBay

The owner of ClintonKaine.com has the following domains as well: ClintonBooker.com, ClintonBiden.com.

Identity or Confusingly Similarity

Having decided that Complainant has common law trademark rights in her name, the next consideration was whether the domain name <juliaroberts.com> was identical to or confusingly similar with Complainant�s name. The second level domain name in <juliaroberts.com> is identical to the Complainant�s name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

This is easily proven with "de facto" trademark.

It's fine if you don't want to believe it though...