question Can a person's name be trademarked?

[domaincapitol]

Hi all

Would like to know if registering some other person's name is against the law and falls under cybersquatting?

 

[Domain Galleria]

celebs and famous sports athletes have an excellent change getting their names back. best to avoid

If my name is Ronaldo, does it mean Christiano Ronaldo can take ronaldo.com away from me?

 

[hookbox]

A name like JohnSmith.com is so generic and so widely used by thousands and thousands of people that you can easily register this name with no issues. If you register a name like TomCruise.com then get ready to hear from his lawyer. Simple rule: Generic names no problem. Unique names big problem.

 

[benjatd]

Well at the end of the day, you are all correct in your recommendations of it not being a good idea. If you don't want the headache, don't register a domain with potential conflicts. That being said, most of the case law sides with the domain owner, based upon hard to prove intent.

At first glance I found 13 cases, all siding with the domain holder. The domain holders are the ones winning in court and there is a bunch of case law behind them, unless of course they are committing extortion. It seems the lawyers have infiltrated the ISPs because they cannot win in an equitable court of law. The next question is, do the ISPs need to be put in check for undue regulation and limitations of constitutional rights. Most likely it would full circle back to intent and we would learn some really interesting things in discovery.....

"A gripe site that incorporates a company's entire trademark into its domain is still protected under the First Amendment, a US District Judge has ruled. In the case of Career Agents Network v. careeragentsnetwork.biz, the judge said that the gripe site made no effort to bolster its own business and was noncommercial, therefore protecting it from Career Agents Network's trademark claims and cybersquatting accusations."

////cases//////

/////
Lucas Nursery and Landscaping, Inc. v. Grosse

Defendant used domain name to host a
legitimate, critical, noncommercial site.

Sixth Circuit found no bad faith intent to
profit, only good intentions to educate other
consumers about her experience.

////////
Taubman Co. v. Webfeats

“[T]he domain name is a type of public expression,
no different in scope than a billboard or a pulpit, and
[the defendant] has a First Amendment right to
express his opinion about [the plaintiff], and as long
as his speech is not commercially misleading, the
Lanham Act cannot be summoned to prevent it.”

//////
Bosley Medical Inst. v. Kremer

Former patient created website
bosleymedicalviolations
to criticize past
service by the company

Multiple claims (infringement, dilution, Lanham Act
anti
-dilution)

NO liability under the Lanham Act

 

[benjatd]

Also I would like to acknowledge rob @Epik.com for his tasteful response to taking some heat earlier this morning. In an even keel and dignified manner, he simply just liked a post. That is seasoned CEO behavior, nice job rob. +2pts

 

[Grilled]

You can add a TM to your string or add verbiage in the footer of your site indicating that RobMonster.com is trademarked, for example.

As to whether a regulator such as USPTO will issue TM on a .COM, the fact is that they have. Amazon.com is a registered trademark. Which means RobMonster.com can be a TM as long as it is not confusing similar to some other registered mark.

In other words, someone with a generic name like John Smith might have a hard time getting a trademark for John Smith because many exist already:

However someone could still get a TM JohnSmith.com.

Interesting post.

Epik is planning to make more progress in providing registrants with more comprehensive brand protection solutions. Some people know that I am Chairman of Patents.com. The key will be to make something that makes it is easier to buy, sell and lease these trademarks. That is really the missing breakthrough. We do it with domains but for TMs this is relatively novel. More to come there.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1268924572620947456

<<<>>>

Saw the below patent dispute, and thought of Patents.com

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Nissan.com
Tesla.com

 

[TheBaldOne]

This is an interesting thread, says he who registered his own Christian name as a domain name literally days ago.

I have had comments made to me that because a certain singer has a similar domain (which I dispute on the grounds that his is a single letter domain and mine is 6 character domain name that my domain name does not constitute any such clash against the singers' TM on his name. Indeed one area is age of use of the name, I am 61 years of age and therefore my Christian name has been used specifically to identify me as an individual for that whole period - legally, indeed here in the UK I would require legal action to change my given name officially (I believe the same would apply in the US for a change of name as well).

The name in question is also extremely popular in and of itself being one of the most common male names in the US and the UK. Now I could not afford the pure name in the .com and therefore being a domainer I looked at the name and utilised the syllables of the name in its most common pronunciation, I used a hyphen (dash) between the first syllable and the second syllable and then the 'dot' to separate the second and third syllable.

There is though the matter of usage. Whereby the pop singer uses his domain name commercially I do not use mine commercially, and if I did then it would not be in the same areas. (Anybody who has been unfortunate enough to hear me attempt to sing would know just how bad I am. At the age of eight when my voice didn't just start to break but shatter I was asked (read that as 'told) not to sing to sing in school assemblies nor in church. My voice has only deteriorated as I have gotten older! LOL)

The singer therefore would be highly unlikely to succeed in any action against me to obtain the domain. Of course if I started commercially using the domain name to profit from the singer's TM products such as his songs then quite obviously the whole situation would be upended and the singer would have a far more legitimate claim to the name (but this is something I do not intend ever to do).

As I say this is an interesting thread and for me a somewhat poignantly timed discussion.

 

[TheBaldOne]

(Update to my post above as I can no longer edit it. I have just published the domain as a site, the most embarrassingly bad site I have EVER created. The law is a strange thing and courts and hearings can make absurd decisions so by publishing it gives me just one more layer of defence against any potential claim. )

 

[Save Breach]

Sure, someone claimed an inactive twitter handle @Haje, by trademarking their name, if they can then others can too! Also, just like .com domains I believe all 4L twitter handles are gone, so TM is only legit approach to get them

 

[jberryhill]

I believe absolutely yes.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/8131

15 U.S. Code § 8131. Cyberpiracy protections for individuals

(1) In general

(A) Civil liability

Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil action by such person.

(B) Exception

A person who in good faith registers a domain name consisting of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, shall not be liable under this paragraph if such name is used in, affiliated with, or related to a work of authorship protected under title 17, including a work made for hire as defined in section 101 of title 17, and if the person registering the domain name is the copyright owner or licensee of the work, the person intends to sell the domain name in conjunction with the lawful exploitation of the work, and such registration is not prohibited by a contract between the registrant and the named person. The exception under this subparagraph shall apply only to a civil action brought under paragraph (1) and shall in no manner limit the protections afforded under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) or other provision of Federal or State law.

(2) Remedies

In any civil action brought under paragraph (1), a court may award injunctive relief, including the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. The court may also, in its discretion, award costs and attorneys fees to the prevailing party.