question Have I just done something wrong?

[DrJacoby]

Earlier today I bought a [First + Last Name].com with around 40 people on Facebook having that exact name.

Then I started thinking; did I just do something wrong? Could I get sued if I tried to sell it? Are there any other risks? Am I doing something immoral?

The name is not trademarked, and there are no celebrities with that name.

According to Wikipedia, cybersquatting is defined as:

"Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using an Internet domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else."​

Since the name is not trademarked, it seems I'm at least not guilty of cybersquatting.

Would appreciate any advice you can give me on how to proceed.

 

[jberryhill]

Since the name is not trademarked, it seems I'm at least not guilty of cybersquatting.

Wikipedia is not a good substitute for the actual law.

That section of the Wikipedia entry on cybersquatting is based on 15 USC 1125(d) - the US federal statute relating to trademarks.

There is ALSO another US federal statute on the topic of domain registrations - 15 USC 8131:

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

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

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.

 

[jberryhill]

Now, there is not a wealth of cases involving section 8131 (which was formerly 15 USC 1129), and a lot may be bundled into the requirement of "specific intent" - i.e. were you specifically targeting "Mr. Xavier L. Hudenbacher" of which there is only one person so-named (for example), or were you generally inspired by the commonality of a name like Bob Smith, of which there are thousands.

The problem, of course, is that whether or not there is one or five persons named "Xavier L. Hudenbacher", any one of them might believe they were specifically targeted, and file a suit. After spending tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself, you might come out fine, if indeed you can show that you had not registered the name with him specifically in mind.

But US federal law is also not the be-all and end-all of "things that can happen with a domain name". Some states - notably California - have their own laws in relation to claims that relate to personal names, domain names, and rights of publicity. As you might expect, given the importance of the entertainment industry in California, their law on the subject of personal right of publicity is very highly developed.

Here are some cases under the "personal name" provisions of the statute quoted above, involving the name "Brian Salle":

http://www.michaelrisch.com/tiki/Salle+v+Meadows

...and Bernard J. Carl:

http://www.manishin.com/law/legal_docs/Carl_v_BernardJCarl.com_(E.D._Va._2009).pdf

There is some disagreement over whether Congress intended that the personal name additionally qualify as a trade or service mark, and courts have taken different positions on that question. A lengthier discussion of those cases (by an attorney with an interest in a particular outcome) is here: https://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/personal-names-and-the-acpa/

 

[DrJacoby]

Target audience of 40 people?

Unless you plan to directly market it to some of them it's a complete waste of a reg fee.

I do plan to contact some of these people (especially two in particular) as soon as the domain lands in my account.

But after reading all the comments, I guess I'll steer clear of full name domains in the future.

 

[jberryhill]

...and here's the California law in question:

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/business-and-professions-code/bpc-sect-17525.html

(a) It is unlawful for a person, with a bad faith intent to register, traffic in, or use a domain name, that is identical or confusingly similar to the personal name of another living person or deceased personality, without regard to the goods or services of the parties.

 

[DrJacoby]

Thank you @jberryhill! I will probably avoid full name domains going forward, even though I'm not American and I'm not living in the USA. If that makes any difference?

 

[jberryhill]

If that makes any difference?

As you might imagine, that gets complicated.

Short answer - the .com registry is located in the United States, and that fact is regularly used as a basis for US legal proceedings concerning .com names.

Long answer - the long answer is much longer. Other factors affecting whether the action will involve "just the domain name" or whether you could personally be on the hook may include whether the registrar is located in the US, whether you have intentionally engaged in commercial contact with someone in the US in relation to the domain name etc..

My comments on NP are generally about US law, since I am a US lawyer. There are, of course, various procedures under which persons outside of the US can be held liable in US legal proceedings, and there are treaties under which many countries will enforce judgments from other countries. As noted above, it gets complicated, and a whole lot of specific facts will matter in those situations.

 

[jberryhill]

For example:

I do plan to contact some of these people (especially two in particular) as soon as the domain lands in my account.

While you don't mention where these people are located, US courts aren't particularly keen about persons who argue, "I was trying to do business with someone in the US, but I'm not in the US, so US law does not apply to me."

 

[DrJacoby]

While you don't mention where these people are located, US courts aren't particularly keen about persons who argue, "I was trying to do business with someone in the US, but I'm not in the US, so US law does not apply to me."

The individuals in particular are Australians.

 

[VRdommy]

To put this as simple as I can...
You may not 'profit' by using someones mark that is not yours or have no license to do so.
Being that there is not trademark, civil courts may act in the same manor.
So if, for instance, the person was a movie star and you were trying to capitalize on that fact with the name, you may have a problem.
While I hate to advise, if it were me trying to play full names, I would put the name on a sales lander and let them come to you if you find the name is also a celebrity.
If the name is also 'your proper name', then you have established rights.
It would later come down to the 'intent' of your use of the name. Parking names like this could lead to trouble because you never know what kind of add may appear fuging the line with intent to profit.

All touchee' stuff you need to well study before leaping in. (but really is for all names)
A good start would be by reading court dockets of cases brought to trial.
Just look at the arguments and the final decision basis. You will understand what not to do.

I have plenty of names that latter became TM's ... even a bit more complex.

But this advise I will leave you...
NEVER ever try to sell a trademark name or even a grey similarity to the trademark holder.
Let them come to you and be very careful how you use it.and never refer to the trademark person, place or thing selling it.

 

[maxjohan]

Quit talking yourself into this by seeing $$ signs. You learn your lesson when you get a $2 million lawsuit against you. Meaning = Grow up. You know this is a scummy road. This is why the industry has a bad rep.

 

[DrJacoby]

Quit talking yourself into this by seeing $$ signs. You learn your lesson when you get a $2 million lawsuit against you. Meaning = Grow up. You know this is a scummy road. This is why the industry has a bad rep.

For the third time: I will probably avoid these types of domains in the future.

FYI, this was my first (and probably last) attempt. I'm a newbie and that's why I started this thread in the Beginner's section.

But I truly appreciate all the comments I'm getting, because I would be stupid not to learn from you experienced domainers. Thank you guys!

 

[jberryhill]

The individuals in particular are Australians.

Oh.

I thought all Australians were named "Bruce":

 

[DrJacoby]

Oh.

I thought all Australians were named "Bruce":

Haha! Maybe they are....

 

[MapleDots]

For the third time: I will probably avoid these types of domains in the future.

Welcome to namePros

You'll have to say that another dozen times and the same thing will still be said. The problem is a lot of members read the first few posts and then post a response not realizing the op has already corrected his response.

HeHe..... you'll get used to that........




Not really.... it will always irk you

 

[Willox Perez]

I think @Willox Perez knows more about it. It was on his blog I read it.

The example Mike Mann gave was JamesGregory.com which he sold for more than $19000.

Yes the first name and last name combinations have to have some type of popularity and be common. Great example with the domain Mike Mann sold.

- Will

 

[ben pedri]

The more people that have the name the less likely to be sued and the more likely to sell,if you buy the domain with free privacy how is anyone gonna know who is selling it anyway maybe johnsmith is retiring and wants to sell his .com name to someone who was not smart enough to register it b4 him, a name a name I sold a celebrity name I bought on ebay for .99 cents for 5 grand and there was only one person with that name

 

[xynames]

I sold a real name domain for good money but not even to the celebrity whose name it was.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/ha...cant-sales-via-outbound.1042253/#post-6412464

 

[Joe Styler]

I love that musical.

Have I done something wrong? On the contrary. I called you here because our odds are beyond scary...