domain Beyonce.info

[webcom]

A recent acquisition - Beyonce.info
A fabulous artist and one of my personal favorites.

Massive OVT - 2,492,709 and close to 44 million Google results.

Value? Less than $1,000 or over?

Thanks.

 

[seeker]

You most definately DO NOT need permission to create a fan site, *especially* if you are not running ads on the site.

Also, I do not see any problems with this name as far as TMS are concerned.
it is a first name.

 

[dgridley]

The implication is if you are making a Beyonce Knowles fan site, you would be wise to seek permission as it infringes on a TM.. ads or no ads makes no difference. She may seek to litigate to protect the TM from dilution or to insure the site does not create confusion in so far as it's being unauthorized.

The problem most emphatically derives from the fact that Beyonce trades on her first name, so there are indeed TM issues.

You are correct.. anyone can make a fan site.

However, no one can infringe legally on a TM without permission.

You most definately DO NOT need permission to create a fan site, *especially* if you are not running ads on the site.

Also, I do not see any problems with this name as far as TMS are concerned.
it is a first name.

 

[seeker]

we could sit here all day and argue about this, and I am sure, we will not get anywhere.
Under freedom of speech, one can do what we are talking about, without problems.
this includes such examples of sites that use 'example'sucks.com or other TLD.
You do raise an issue here (a logical one) about her trading with her first name.
That indeed makes her case a little stronger.
However, from my review of WIPO settlements, it is my opinion, that this domain, used as a fan site, without generating revenue, would not be in any jeopardy.
I am a little too lazy at the moment to start quoting WIPO decisions, and other examples. However, I am confident (with an acceptable margin of error) that such a case as described would not hold a chance in a dispute.
were I daisagree with you is in that such a move would be infringe her TM.
in fact, there are cases that I remember were first+last name were used as fan sites, and the case was lost to certain 'famous' people.
This also applies to other forms of TMS, such as companies etc...
I tend to be on the conservative side when it comes to TMs.
However, this specific domain, is far beyond what I would consider even as a 'little' dangerous, if used properly.

 

[dgridley]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.. Freedom of Speech doesn't enter into this as much as "fair use" might. TM infringement in the main normally hinges on intent in any case. Profit doesn't necessarily enter into the picture at all.. you may lose the case based on many factors other than a profit motive. That being the case, asking for an appraisal may already demonstrate "bad faith" and the intent to profit.

we could sit here all day and argue about this, and I am sure, we will not get anywhere.
Under freedom of speech, one can do what we are talking about, without problems.
this includes such examples of sites that use 'example'sucks.com or other TLD.
You do raise an issue here (a logical one) about her trading with her first name.
That indeed makes her case a little stronger.
However, from my review of WIPO settlements, it is my opinion, that this domain, used as a fan site, without generating revenue, would not be in any jeopardy.
I am a little too lazy at the moment to start quoting WIPO decisions, and other examples. However, I am confident (with an acceptable margin of error) that such a case as described would not hold a chance in a dispute.
were I daisagree with you is in that such a move would be infringe her TM.
in fact, there are cases that I remember were first+last name were used as fan sites, and the case was lost to certain 'famous' people.
This also applies to other forms of TMS, such as companies etc...
I tend to be on the conservative side when it comes to TMs.
However, this specific domain, is far beyond what I would consider even as a 'little' dangerous, if used properly.

 

[seeker]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree..

agreed...

 

[Archangel]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.. Freedom of Speech doesn't enter into this as much as "fair use" might. TM infringement in the main normally hinges on intent in any case. Profit doesn't necessarily enter into the picture at all.. you may lose the case based on many factors other than a profit motive. That being the case, asking for an appraisal may already demonstrate "bad faith" and the intent to profit.

I have to agree with you.
The one thing that I'm still pretty sure about -- and this might say all that needs to be said -- I don't think, let's say, Ozzy Osbourne would force me to shut down my Ozzy site. I'm promoting him, after all. And who'd be so mean (and infuriate other fans by the knowledge of it) to kill a website made for him by his own fans?

 

[Zeeble]

I wouldn't worry too much about TM problems as people in her position stay away from the bad publicity which inevitably ensues if it is just a fan site. Obviously you may have problems if you use it to give her bad publicity, but then that would devalue the domain.

 

[webcom]

Not many actual appraisals in this thread but still, very useful information. A bit of controversy is always useful I appreciate everyone's thoughts and suggestions. I actually own a lot of celebrity domains and I've been contacted a couple of times by lawyers via email and regular mail claiming them. After a reply back explaining the situation and how I intend to use the domains, I've never heard back from them. No URDP cases yet. I think they mostly go for the .com's and for all domains that affect the celebrity's image in a negative manner. Going after a developed fansite that does nothing but promote the artist is a poor move, IMO. And yes, most fansites generate some revenue one way or another (AdSense).