NameSilo

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

Labeled as news in Domain Industry News started by Foggy, Oct 10, 2018.

Replies:
19
Views:
982

  1. Foggy

    Foggy Upgraded Member Blue Account

    Posts:
    222
    Likes Received:
    48
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. TestCase

    TestCase Note: Doesn't play well with others. VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    1,205
  3. robert widener

    robert widener Restricted

    Posts:
    409
    Likes Received:
    210
  4. wot

    wot Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    7,692
    Likes Received:
    2,166
    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!
     
  5. Keith

    Keith Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    7,895
    Likes Received:
    6,952
    He could easily challenge the owner and win.

    This is bad faith and using a public figures name at its finest.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  6. golan

    golan Leo.Domains Gold Account VIP

    Posts:
    2,878
    Likes Received:
    2,342
    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.
     
  7. carob

    carob Active Member VIP

    Posts:
    2,978
    Likes Received:
    3,529
    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.
     
  8. Grilled

    Grilled MIA VIP

    Posts:
    4,139
    Likes Received:
    5,449
    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
     
  9. Bob Hawkes

    Bob Hawkes formerly MetBob NameTalent VIP

    Posts:
    2,076
    Likes Received:
    3,872
    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.
     
  10. Keith

    Keith Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    7,895
    Likes Received:
    6,952
    It strikes you as wrong because it’s wrong. Registering another persons full name can’t possibly be in good faith.
     
  11. carob

    carob Active Member VIP

    Posts:
    2,978
    Likes Received:
    3,529
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/wipo_cleeve_domain_decision/ :
    Or just google Wipo Gripe Sites and read away.

    Etc https://www.americanbar.org/content.../materials/2016/06/ce1606ybs.authcheckdam.pdf
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  12. mr-x

    mr-x Acme Domains Gold Account VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    8,065
    I doubt Justice Kavanaugh cares unless they post slander.
     
  13. Foggy

    Foggy Upgraded Member Blue Account

    Posts:
    222
    Likes Received:
    48
  14. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols My name is Joe and I am Canadian! VIP

    Posts:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    2,627
    Should have made it a site about liking beer. Wasted opportunity.
     
  15. mr-x

    mr-x Acme Domains Gold Account VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    8,065
    Dilly Dilly

    have-a-kav.jpg
     
  16. Joe Nichols

    Joe Nichols My name is Joe and I am Canadian! VIP

    Posts:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    2,627
    Ha ha! A cold cup of justice the whole country can enjoy. Best imbibed after a prolonged nervous sweat.
     
  17. johnsmith9200

    johnsmith9200 New Member

    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  18. jberryhill

    jberryhill Top Member John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq. VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    2,108
    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.
     
  19. Keith

    Keith Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    7,895
    Likes Received:
    6,952
    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.
     
  20. jberryhill

    jberryhill Top Member John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq. VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    2,108
    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: Nov 6, 2018

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
Topics / Tags:

Share This Page

Lysted
  1. NamePros uses cookies and similar technologies. By using this site, you are agreeing to our privacy policy, terms, and use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Loading...