Dynadot

news Brett Kavanaugh Didn't Buy His URL. It's Now A Resource For Sexual Assault Survivors.

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Foggy

Established Member
Impact
55
5
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
3
•••
4
•••
Forward thinking and in many minds a good use of the domains.

If there is litigation this could go all the way to the Supreme Court!
 
2
•••
He could easily challenge the owner and win.

This is bad faith and using a public figures name at its finest.
 
Last edited:
6
•••
I would say what i think about all those left b****es but i'm afraid to be banned. So i'll just keep silence.
 
2
•••
It is a common practice to register a celebrity name and redirect it to a non-profit fan site and that is fairly wipo-proof if not monetised.
 
1
•••
It is a common practice to register a celebrity name and redirect it to a non-profit fan site and that is fairly wipo-proof if not monetised.

Does it have to be a fan site? ... what about a critic site? I wonder about FirstNameLastName.com of lower level judges -- one's who still have to be voted in by their communities, and would be most effected by a critic site.

StephenBreyer.com -- US Supreme Court Justice since 1994 -- is for sale via HugeDomains for $1,195. Other US Supreme Court Justices FirstName+LastName.com HERE
 
1
•••
I must say while I accept the evidence that it apparently has been allowed, and not in any way commenting on this specific case on either side, as a general rule I find the idea of registering someone's first and last name strikes me as wrong for the same reason that it is wrong to try to profit from a companies TM.
 
2
•••
I must say while I accept the evidence that it apparently has been allowed, and not in any way commenting on this specific case on either side, as a general rule I find the idea of registering someone's first and last name strikes me as wrong for the same reason that it is wrong to try to profit from a companies TM.
It strikes you as wrong because it’s wrong. Registering another persons full name can’t possibly be in good faith.
 
2
•••
Does it have to be a fan site? ... what about a critic site?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/wipo_cleeve_domain_decision/ :
"The panel finds that the respondent's use of the disputed domain is to establish a website for criticism and commentary about the complainant's business activities. This constitutes legitimate commercial use and fair use within the meaning of the policy," said the ruling.

Or just google Wipo Gripe Sites and read away.

Etc https://www.americanbar.org/content.../materials/2016/06/ce1606ybs.authcheckdam.pdf
 
Last edited:
1
•••
I doubt Justice Kavanaugh cares unless they post slander.
 
1
•••
0
•••
Should have made it a site about liking beer. Wasted opportunity.
 
4
•••
Should have made it a site about liking beer. Wasted opportunity.

Dilly Dilly

have-a-kav.jpg
 
7
•••
4
•••
Brett Kavanaugh didn't buy a domain with his name in it. So now, if you go to BrettKavanaugh.com, .org or .net, you won't find an official site for the contentious Supreme Court ... It's not the only Kavanaugh-related URL that's been snapped up.
 
0
•••
It strikes you as wrong because it’s wrong. Registering another persons full name can’t possibly be in good faith.

It's a very different situation from "celebrities" in the entertainment field, than it is when we are talking about political public figures.

ACPA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamparello_v._Falwell

On appeal in 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the earlier decisions, ruling that there was not a "likelihood of confusion" between Lamparello's and Falwell's official site; that there was no trademark infringement based on "initial interest confusion" for sites that were non-commercial and critical of the trademark holder; and since Lamparello's site was non-commercial, there was no "bad faith intent to profit" and it was not cybersquatting.

UDRP:

http://www.adrforum.com/Domaindecisions/1370044.htm

Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website devoted to criticism and commentary regarding Complainant, a public figure. Such use clearly qualifies as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. Cf. Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, 320 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that use of a domain name corresponding to the name of a controversial public figure for purposes of criticism and commentary regarding that person, even where done for profit, qualifies as a “bona fide noncommercial or fair use” under federal trademark law). The Panel concludes that Complainant has failed to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the same reasons as set forth in the preceding paragraph, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
 
1
•••
It's a very different situation from "celebrities" in the entertainment field, than it is when we are talking about political public figures.

Do you have to be an “entertainer” to be a celebrity? It should boil down to if the general public is aware of your name.

In this case, it seems apparent that most people know of the name Brett Kavanaugh.
 
0
•••
Do you have to be an “entertainer” to be a celebrity? It should boil down to if the general public is aware of your name.

It's more a matter of whether one's name functions as a trade or service mark. The public is aware of the name Charles Manson, but that does not function as a mark.

For example, Steven Spielberg is a director. "Steven Spielberg" is his personal name. However, if you go to see a "Steven Spielberg Movie" then, in that context, "Steven Spielberg" functions as an adjective to describe what kind of movie one is talking about. In other words, in that context, "Steven Spielberg" distinguishes those movies from others in the marketplace.

The public is aware of a lot of people's names, but that doesn't mean that persons who are well-known, for one reason or another, derive value from their name on goods or services as a means of distinguishing those goods or services from others in the relevant market - which are typically in artistic, literary, or performing arts sorts of fields.

WIPO Overview 3.0 puts it this way:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item15

1.5 Can a complainant show UDRP-relevant rights in a personal name?

1.5.1 Personal names that have been registered as trademarks would provide standing for a complainant to file a UDRP case.

1.5.2 The UDRP does not explicitly provide standing for personal names which are not registered or otherwise protected as trademarks. In situations however where a personal name is being used as a trademark-like identifier in trade or commerce, the complainant may be able to establish unregistered or common law rights in that name for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case where the name in question is used in commerce as a distinctive identifier of the complainant’s goods or services.

Merely having a famous name (such as a businessperson or cultural leader who has not demonstrated use of their personal name in a trademark/source-identifying sense), or making broad unsupported assertions regarding the use of such name in trade or commerce, would not likely demonstrate unregistered or common law rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP complaint.

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

The list of relevant cases suggests that artists and entertainers do better than business people or politicians:

Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, WIPO Case No. D2000-0210, <juliaroberts.com>, Transfer

Dr. Michael Crichton v. In Stealth Mode, WIPO Case No. D2002-0874, <michael-crichton.com>, Transfer

Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2006-0560, <tomcruise.com>, Transfer

Fields for Senate v. Toddles Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-1510, <virginiafields.com>, et al., Denied

Jacques Chardeau, et al. v. MindViews,LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0778, <caillebotte.com>, Denied

Margaret C. Whitman v. Domains For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2008-1534, <megwhitmanforgovernor.com> et al., Denied

Jim Carrey v. BWI Domains, WIPO Case No. D2009-0563, <jimcarrey.com>, Transfer

Jay Leno v. Garrison Hintz,WIPO Case No. D2009-0569, <weeknightswithjayleno.com>, Transfer

Vanisha Mittal v. [email protected], WIPO Case No. D2010-0810, <vanishamittal.com>, Denied

Ananyashree Birla v. Ali Madencioglu, WIPO Case No. D2013-1123, <ananyashreebirla.com>, Denied

Tracy Morgan v. Fundacion Private Whois / PPA Media Services, Ryan G Foo, WIPO Case No. D2013-0078, <tracymorgan.com>, Transfer

Ananyashree Birla v. Ali Madencioglu, WIPO Case No. D2013-1123, <ananyashreebirla.com>, Denied

Philippe Pierre Dauman v. Dinner Business, WIPO Case No. D2013-1255, <philippepierredauman.com>, Denied

Adam Anschel v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Tzvi Milshtein, WIPO Case No. D2015-1570, <adamanschel.com> et al., Transfer

Victor Topa v. Whoisguard Protected / “Victor Topa”, WIPO Case No. D2015-2209, <victortopa.com> and <victortopa.md>, Denied

David Michael Bautista, Jr. v. Quantec LLC / Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Lisa Katz, Domain Protection LLC, WIPO Case No. D2016-0397, <davebautista.com>, Transfer
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Back