Celeb Names Trademarked

[mmoebk]

Are celecbrity domain names protected by trademarks? What are the pro and cons of celeb names/

Thanks!

 

[Badger]

pros, you get a bit of traffic for a while, cons you lose the name in a flash...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/05022006/364/wonder-wins-website-battle.html

The latest loser

 

[The-YoungLat]

how are you going to loose the domain?

 

[JSaez]

I suppose you have the right to your own name on the internet. Appart from that, most of the celebrities dont last much tho.

 

[Dave_Z]

Are celecbrity domain names protected by trademarks? What are the pro and cons of celeb names/

Thanks!

One sample:

http://gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/hoffman-2000-09-all.html

the real issue in the case was whether the actress had any trademark rights in her name. She did not have a registered United States trademark (which is not required under the UDRP but is required under the ACPA) but alleged instead that she had common law trademark rights because her name had acquired a "secondary meaning." Secondary meaning is a legal term meaning that although a name (whether a personal name as in this instance or a product or service name) or a design is not a registered mark, the public has come to associate that name or design with a particular person or company or goods or services. This term is usually applied in situations where the mark or claimed rights have been in use for a period of time and have been widely disseminated and used in such a way so as to create this reference in the minds of the public. If the claimant establishes this "secondary meaning," the issue then is whether the use by another in a particular context would be likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public that a particular use is related to the owner of the secondary meaning (referred to as "passing off").

 

[fonzie_007]

Dave, helpful post. Thanks. Rep added.

 

[Dave_Z]

Dave, helpful post. Thanks. Rep added.

Thanks!

Guys, the articles from the site I posted above are as relevant today as when
they were first posted. I suggest you take time to read them.

 

[netzilla]

I would imagine if you had a fan site or club that they wouldn't be upset at the fact that you were using their name but it you were trashing them then that would be a different story. Just my opinion though.

 

[Badger]

I would imagine if you had a fan site or club that they wouldn't be upset at the fact that you were using their name but it you were trashing them then that would be a different story. Just my opinion though.

difficult call and all depends on what you do with the name...

"To establish common law rights in a personal name, it is necessary to show use of that name as an indication of the source of goods or services supplied in trade or commerce and that, as a result of such use, the name has become distinctive of that source. Upon such proof, a celebrity's name can serve as a trademark when used to identify the celebrity's performance services": WIPO/D2002-0872 (michaelcrichton.com - finding that Complainant had, through use, acquired common law trademark rights in his name).

Cases where Panels found that individuals have trademark rights even where their names are not registered as trademarks: NAF/FA97112 (stephanieseymour.com, ''her fame as a supermodel and actress evidences a reputation worthy of protection under common law trademark laws''); NAF/FA95465 (karlalbrecht.com, author of books and articles on business and marketing); WIPO/D2000-0402 (stevenrattner.com, high profile investment banker); WIPO/D2000-0235 (jeanettewinterston.com,.net and.org, well-known British author); WIPO/D2000-0229 (choyoungpil.com, famous Korean pop music artist); WIPO/D2000-0210 (juliaroberts.com, famous American actress); NAF/FA95261 (mickjagger.com, famous American singer); NAF/FA95110 (brittanyandrews.com, "internationally known actress, model, public speaker, and feature entertainer'"); DEC/AF-303 (annemclellan.com, annemclellan.org, senior Canadian government official).

But See:
Panel ruled that famous performer Sting did not necessarily have rights in STING "as a trademark or service mark" because the personal name Sting was "also a common word in the English language, with a number of different meanings." WIPO/D2000-0596 (sting.com).

Panel majority refused to transfer brucespringsteen.com to recording artist Bruce Springsteen. The Panel reasoned that Internet users would know that the site was not an official/authorized site and that Respondent used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Panel found that Respondent did not register the domain name to prevent the trademark owner from using the mark in a domain name. Since Complainant had registered brucespringsteen.net as his official web site, the Panel found that Respondent did not prevent Complainant from using its mark in a domain name. The Panel also criticized other celebrity name cases. It felt that Panels fail to grasp that "users of the Internet do not expect all sites bearing the name of celebrities or famous historical figures or politicians, to be authorised or in some way connected with the figure themselves." WIPO/D2000-1532 (brucespringsteen.com).

 

[Australia]

i just regged

hiltondiaries.com
thehiltondiaries.com
parishiltondiaries.net/.org

i expect a knock at my door soon :hehe: