NameSilo

Fox News Corp Wins against Cybersquatter

SpaceshipSpaceship
Watch
'The Simpsons' wins ruling over domain name

Don't know if this was posted elsewhere but...

GENEVA -- Woo-hoo! "The Simpsons Movie" has won its name back on the Internet.

A UN agency has ruled that ownership of the domain name thesimpsonsmovie.com must be handed to News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox, which owns the rights to the film and the popular TV series.

Twentieth Century Fox complained to the World Intellectual Property Organization over the use of the film's name in the Internet address of a site registered by Keith Malley of Brooklyn, New York.

Malley was using the address to divert Internet users to a website that included sexually explicit depictions of several characters from The Simpsons and, later, to his "Keith and the Girl" website. He was demanding a $50,000 fee from Twentieth Century Fox for the domain name, according to the July 22 ruling of the WIPO arbitration panel.

It found that Malley "has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name" and ordered its immediate return.

The arbitration system, which was set up in 1999, allows those who think they have the right to a domain to gain control of it without having to fight a costly legal battle or pay large sums of money. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and Madonna are among the Hollywood stars who have previously won rulings against so-called "cybersquatters."

"The animated television series 'The Simpsons' debuted in 1989, and has become one of the longest running network series in television history," the ruling said, noting that Friday's release of the film has generated huge public interest on the Internet.

WIPO said Malley's "aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit" Twentieth Century Fox's trademark to promote and sell his own products and merchandise. The domain name has been registered since 1999.

Malley, who didn't submit a defense in the case, did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment, and his telephone number is not listed.
 
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
AfternicAfternic
Eat my shorts Malley
 
0
•••
^^ Well said DNQuest. It's a shame people always try to profit off of something that brings people entertainment. =(
 
0
•••
What a douche, how did he honestly think he was going to pull that off.
 
0
•••
0
•••
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.N. agency rules for 'The Simpsons'

2 hours, 21 minutes ago

GENEVA - Woo-hoo! "The Simpsons Movie" has won its name back on the Internet.

A U.N. agency has ruled that ownership of the domain name thesimpsonsmovie.com must be handed to News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox, which owns the rights to the film and the popular TV series.

Twentieth Century Fox complained to the World Intellectual Property Organization over the use of the film's name in the Internet address of a site registered by Keith Malley of Brooklyn, New York.

Malley was using the address to divert Internet users to a Web site that included sexually explicit depictions of several characters from The Simpsons and, later, to his "Keith and the Girl" Web site. He was demanding a $50,000 fee from Twentieth Century Fox for the domain name, according to the July 22 ruling of the WIPO arbitration panel.

It found that Malley "has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name" and ordered its immediate return.

The arbitration system, which was set up in 1999, allows those who think they have the right to a domain to gain control of it without having to fight a costly legal battle or pay large sums of money. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and Madonna are among the Hollywood stars who have previously won rulings against so-called "cybersquatters."

"The animated television series 'The Simpsons' debuted in 1989, and has become one of the longest running network series in television history," the ruling said, noting that Friday's release of the film has generated huge public interest on the Internet.

WIPO said Malley's "aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit" Twentieth Century Fox's trademark to promote and sell his own products and merchandise. The domain name has been registered since 1999.

Malley, who didn't submit a defense in the case, did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment, and his telephone number is not listed.

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


I don't know about this ruling... The name domain name is a more tangible and well defined type of property than the amorphous and ever expanding copyright/trademark rights.

News Corp doesn't have to use this name, it's essentially a generic name (how many simpson's are there, real and fictional? millions). Fox could just use TheSimpsons.com or TheSimpsonsMovie.TV, .ORG, .NET, .BIZ..., even TheSimpsonsMovie.US. Does this mean anything that contain the word Simpson belongs to News Corp? This guy bought the rights to that domain name before there was a simpson's movie. The fact that he will vicariously profit from the success and promotion of a similar name is dubious at best. If I develop my property, all of my neighbors may benefit from my efforts, but I can't force them to give me their property. $50,000 was a reasonable amount and News Corp would have paid that easily.

The flaw is evident in the things NOT said in the article. Especially telling is, he "has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name", shouldn't the presumption be that he has just as many rights as News Corp?

And who the hell is the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) and when and how did they get the right to approve or deprive an American citizen the right to something based on their judgement of whether his business interests are "legitimate interests"? Extra judicial authority to nullify the sale of property which, apparently, supercedes the authority of US courts??!?!

If this doesn't make bells go off, then you have totally accepted the control of the state and the giving away of our sovereignty as Americans to the United Nations.

The WIPO "ordered its immediate return." To whom? New Corp didn't own it before. To the Domain Registrant? Verisign? So that News Corp. could buy it from them? What right do they have to sell it over and above Malley's?

Enom charges a premium to register names like Apple.tv, is this illegal now? Do they have to give it to Apple Corp for free? Or Apple Music? And it's a .TV, which means the country Tivolu had exclusive rights to the domain, which it sold to Verisign. Does this mean Verisign should have to return the name to Tivolu who then has to give it to Apple computer?

You think this is a mess now, wait till the UN get's the knack for this and then well see some REAL extortion and corruption!

~KC
 
0
•••
A website called "the simpsons movie" that diverts users to sexually explicit characters of the Simpsons, that he tried to sell to Fox and that he submitted no defense (because he has none) is about as 100% clear a case as you can ever find. He more or less did EVERYTHING wrong on this topic.

It is clear that his interest is an infringing one and he deserves to lose the name.

If he were a documentary filmmaker named Simpson making a movie in 1995 about his extended family, he would have probably won the case.

Read up on UDRP "law". this is an open and shut case.
 
0
•••
Yeah well - People trying over and over to Profit on others success is just Scummy anyway IMO ~

leech1 (lฤ“ch) pronunciation
n.

One that preys on or clings to another; a parasite.

http://www.answers.com/leech

Also see - Typo and TM cybersquatters



There are some legitimate reasons to have TM names , But Sadly - 99% of people Registering and buying them Do not have good intentions .....

If they want to make money - Let them Build something for once or Buy Generic domains with existing traffic .... Not "LEECH" off of the success, hard work , and Investments of others.
 
0
•••
DOH...what an idiot.
 
0
•••
I agree this is guy is the worst-case scenario. And my gut reaction was the same, against him. But this type of case is the worst way to make law. Laws should derive from fundamental principles, not worst case examples. Worst case example laws lead to ad-hoc decisions, unclear law and becomes fraught with inconsistencies.

Freedoms are eroded by attacking the rights of those least able to defend themselves, Jews, Blacks, pornographers... etc... this guys is easy to attack.

Surely there is a better system than an arbitrary standard that involves judging the merits of someone's business model and, apparently inevitably, a value judgment that is so subjective. Someone's property rights should not need to be adjudicated based on their intentions (what's to stop Fox News from making it a porn site, they could post exactly the same content). Any law that is based on divining somone's "intentions" is fundamentally flawed. I've lived with a woman for six years and I don't seriously pretent to "know" her intentions. Doesn't the Bible, the moral source of the Judeo-Christian foundation of British common law and U.S. statute law, say "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions"? You have to be a mind reader to know someone else's intentions and that's scientifically impossible right now.

Frankly my point is that laws are complex enough even when itโ€™s as clean cut and straight forward as possible. Unclear property laws dampen development and I think it's pretty easy to see how this current system lends itself to corruption.

Believe me, I'm against leeching. But it is the protection of property rights that is the foundation of our protection against leeching.

I admit I'm new to the whole domain name universe, so maybe I'm totally wrong, I'm willing to listen to why I'm all wrong about this if that's the case.

But what about those problems I brought up regarding Apple, VeriSign, etc... those are the real issues, not an ad-hominem attack on this guy as scum, agreed, the guy's scum. Scum have the same rights as everyone else.

Equal standing in the law, that's what gives the hardworking and entrepreneurial opportunities to shine.

The principle of first-come first-served seems to be the underlying justification for arguing for him to keep it, especially since he paid for it and it was bought on the open market with Fox News or anyone else having the same chance to buy it. First-come, first-served is a one of the foundation stones of justice. I think it takes a pretty compelling argument to convince me it should be overthrown in favor of another system.


With all due respect,
~KC

P.S. I'm checking out the code (law) refered to above, sorry for my ignorance.
P.P.S. I have NO names that could possibly infringe any TM, nor do plan to buy any (I'm not scummy ;).
 
Last edited:
0
•••
First come first served ???? On a Brand name/TV show/Movie Name ? You'll never justify that with me, Especially seeing what they were using it for .... That only works with Generic terms in my book.

Thats just like the squatters registering any TM name available in other extensions and saying "they should have registered it themselves" - No one should have to register 400 or more extensions to protect their own Brand(s) or TM's.
 
0
•••
brainstormTV said:
Doesn't the Bible, the moral source of the Judeo-Christian foundation of British common law and U.S. statute law, say "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions"?

No, that's not the bible, just an old saying.
 
0
•••
Equal standing in the law, that's what gives the hardworking and entrepreneurial opportunities to shine.

Holding a name with someone else's legal mark is not in the legitimate entrepreneurial spirit.
 
0
•••
The simson can make it over and over again, because 'The Simpsons' debuted in 1989, and has become one of the longest running network series in television history,"
 
0
•••
Element said:
^^ Well said DNQuest. It's a shame people always try to profit off of something that brings people entertainment. =(
lol, domaining is all about profiting off something you have nothing to do with. Just because you own a generic, say quads.com for example doesn't mean you invented or even sell four wheelers. You simply bought a name, something that brings people entertainment.
 
0
•••
Jasonn said:
lol, domaining is all about profiting off something you have nothing to do with. Just because you own a generic, say quads.com for example doesn't mean you invented or even sell four wheelers. You simply bought a name, something that brings people entertainment.

Profiting off of Generic/dictionary terms and phrases is a far cry from what the Real Squatters are doing .... Surely you Jest
 
0
•••
Mark said:
Profiting off of Generic/dictionary terms and phrases is a far cry from what the Real Squatters are doing .... Surely you Jest
It depends on your definition of 'cybersquatters'. The average person views those who have domains parked, no matter if they are generic or not as cybersquatters.

The guys statement "its a shame when someone trys to profit off something that brings people entertainment" is totally hypocritical because its the root of domaining. If people didn't want these domains, to sell products that educatate/entertain/assist then they wouldn't have any worth.The person owning them did nothing to give them the value that they carry.
 
0
•••
0
•••
BrainStormTV, I agree 110% with you!My opinion here is corporates always win and they will use anything against you. I also think that this guy should rather have just parked the domain, instead of trying to sell of some stupid site. I think if he parked it, he could have had a leg to stand on. Or am I wrong?
 
0
•••
Do check out http://www.keithandthegirl.com and the top podcast is Keith's recounting of the events.

Interesting...

(It's mentioned in the decision)

-Allan :gl:

(Mentions he will appeal)
 
0
•••
Appraise.net
Escrow.com
Spaceship
Rexus Domain
CryptoExchange.com
Domain Recover
CatchDoms
DomainEasy โ€” Payment Flexibility
DomDB
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the pageโ€™s height.
Back