Here is a good Lawsuit for you.

[slipondajimmy]

I just got this from thesmokinggun

FEBRUARY 5--Keith Urban, the country star and husband of Nicole Kidman, is suing Keith Urban, the New Jersey painter, over a web site bearing their name. The singer claims that the other Keith Urban owns the keithurban.com web address and is trying to mislead Internet users into believing that the site is the star's online home. In a lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Nashville, the 39-year-old singer, whose web site is keithurban.net, alleges that the New Jersey Urban is trying to sell art prints via his site, noting, "You have reached the site of Keith Urban. To those who don't know, oil painting is one of my hobbies." The site directs visitors to a gallery of paintings and offers a "very limited edition" of prints for sale. While the site does not list prices, a previous version of it offered $93.50 prints of hack paintings such as "Al Bundy for President" and "Missing Child," which features a lone red sneaker and a switchblade lying in a gutter. The keithurban.com domain was first registered in May 1999 by the New Jersey Urban, 37, who did not respond to a TSG e-mail seeking comment about the federal complaint. The performer's lawsuit, which does not specify monetary damages, seeks transfer of the keithurban.com address and an injunction barring the New Jersey Urban from operating a web site that suggests a relationship with the singer

read the complaint here http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0205071urban1.html

 

[Mark]

The only thing I see even remotely deceiving on the site is the Adsense Ads ...

They do have to be careful about the ads shown IMO ....

		<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1">
		<meta name="Creator" content="Keith Urban">
		<title>Welcome To KeithUrban.com</title>
		<meta name="keywords" content="Disney, Disney World, keith, keith urban, keithurban.com, www.keithurban.com, keithurban.org, www.keithurban.org, The Real Keith Urban, Adobe Flash Artist, graphics, design, orlando, Keith Urban the Artist, Keith Urban the designer, Keith Urban the programmer, Fine Art, Computer Art, Computer Graphics">
		<meta name="description" content="This is a website that contains all kinds of info about Keith Urban the American Artist. He has been an inpiration to thousands. An incredible artist, designer, inventor and more. He has studied with world reknowned artist Peter Caras and has taken these techniques to the next level.">

Even the source code seems clean to me .... (Give or take the Disney stuff)

No idea if it has been tamprered with or edited recently though.

I don't see anything deceiving by browsing Archive.org either ...

Will be interesting to watch.

 

[Acroplex]

The only thing I am seeing wrong is the inclusion of Adsense ads on the .com, that contain obvious references to the singer.

 

[Mark]

If it were mine , I'd try my best to block any music related sites .... Agreed on that.

Otherwise - Seems the guy just happens to have the same name.

 

[slipondajimmy]

Well I would like everyones opinions. This guy Keith Urban started Creating this site in 2000 . I did not hear of the singer until a few years ago. I was trying to check out keith urban the singers trademark but the system is down.

Should the owner have to give up the name? Do you really think it was regged in bad faith? I was not even aware you could trademark your name.

 

[Mark]

After reaching a personal nadir in 1998, he became determined to give up the habit and checked into Cumberland Heights, a treatment center in Nashville. After cleaning up, Urban released his self-titled American debut in 2000, which produced three top 5 hits and secured for him the Top New Male Vocalist Award at the 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Urban


Close call - But I still feel the Artist has just as much right to the name in this case .... So far anyway - There are tons of updates/listings in Archive.org and I only looked at a few random ones.

There has been some odd decisions in the past -

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0847.html The MADONNA Decision.

Under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, we find in favor of the Complainant. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights; Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. Therefore, we decide that the disputed domain name <madonna.com> should be transferred to the Complainant.

 

[circa1850]

Okay, forget the obvious humor in this person's name, but here is a very similar if not identical case of name vs. name.

The WIPO ruling is posted at the bottom of the story.

Not sure what to make of this. Seems like another f'd up panel of one.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/04/pecker_domain_dispute/

If it were mine , I'd try my best to block any music related sites .... Agreed on that.

Fairly easy to do in the AdSense control panel. Perhaps this artist is not aware of the potential infraction (perhaps he is and very happy with the traffic...who wouldn't be) but now would be an ideal time to block any singer/song/lyrics/music/download option out there.

 

[Dave_Z]

I was not even aware you could trademark your name.

Well, you are now. :D

It's unfortunate it's come to this, especially when Nicole's husband could've
simply told Mr. Urban to adjust the adsense to prevent likelihood of confusion.
But then, there's no law saying one can't be unreasonable.

Good luck to both of them, especially to Mr. Urban in being able to show he's
not using it in bad faith. But if Mr. Urban doesn't reply to the dispute, he can
very well lose it.

 

[sdtrader]

I think Keith Urban will win the case.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

I think Keith Urban will win the case.

Nah - it'll definitely be Keith Urban; you're way off base.

-Allan :gl:

 

[DNQuest.com]

I agree that he needs to change the adsense. Sometimes it isn't only what you put up as opposed to what you did not put up. A simple disclaimer or even a Bio of the Artist could have gone a long way. Anything to show he is not the singer. So it will come down to the Singer proving the Artist is being deceptive. I honestly believe the Artist is being deceptive, with the Adsense and the following line, it could be his downfall.

"You have reached the site of Keith Urban

To Those Who Don't Know, Oil Painting
Is One Of My Hobbies "

So it comes down to, can the Singer prove the Artist is trying to confuse it's visitors? I know I would be if i came across the site.

Edit to add:

I think the lawyers will will in this case

 

[RogueWriter]

Because the singer is famous and has millions of dollars at his disposal to do with as he pleases, he will undoubtably win the case. Law here in the United States is most often used to reinforce the wealthy's ability to get what they want. Well, okay, if it's rich vs. rich or poor vs. poor, there is reasonable justice. Even, government vs. rich is not too bad. But rich vs. poor, well, it won't even be close. Sorry if that seems cynical, but I'm in a mood right now.

 

[slipondajimmy]

Well here is something else interesting I found. Keith Urban (the musician) Filed all his trademarks (7 ) on march of 2003 . Keith Urban (the artist) had his website set up as early as 2000 at keithurban.com . The archives show his website really has not changed much since then and also had the same phrase in 2001 as current..

"You have reached the site of Keith Urban
To Those Who Don't Know, Oil Painting
Is One Of My Hobbies. To View Some
Of My Work Please Enter My Virtual Gallery."


Does this help the current domain owner in any way?

 

[RogueWriter]

If he is aware of those facts, maybe. But, in the end the musician is still a multimillionaire, and will simply out spend the artist.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Well here is something else interesting I found. Keith Urban (the musician) Filed all his trademarks (7 ) on march of 2003 . Keith Urban (the artist) had his website set up as early as 2000 at keithurban.com . The archives show his website really has not changed much since then and also had the same phrase in 2001 as current..

"You have reached the site of Keith Urban
To Those Who Don't Know, Oil Painting
Is One Of My Hobbies. To View Some
Of My Work Please Enter My Virtual Gallery."


Does this help the current domain owner in any way?

It really doesn't matter when he filed for his registered mark sicne he can easily prove he used his name as a TM in commerce in 1997 with the group The Ranch and as a solo artist in 1999..

As far as the statement, I have already stated an opinion about it. Personally, I think he is trying to deceive the public. The one thing that could really hurt is having a person(s) step forward saying they bought a painting thinking it was from the singer.

 

[labrocca]

I agree that he needs to change the adsense. Sometimes it isn't only what you put up as opposed to what you did not put up. A simple disclaimer or even a Bio of the Artist could have gone a long way. Anything to show he is not the singer. So it will come down to the Singer proving the Artist is being deceptive. I honestly believe the Artist is being deceptive, with the Adsense and the following line, it could be his downfall.

"You have reached the site of Keith Urban

To Those Who Don't Know, Oil Painting
Is One Of My Hobbies "

So it comes down to, can the Singer prove the Artist is trying to confuse it's visitors? I know I would be if i came across the site.

Edit to add:

I think the lawyers will will in this case

Gotta pretty much agree with Phil here. It's gonna be close though and it will most likely go to whoever has the best lawyer.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Gotta pretty much agree with Phil here. It's gonna be close though and it will most likely go to whoever has the best lawyer.

booooring lol

But even a good lawyer may not help Keith the artist.

 

[simonj]

What a tosser (the country singer, that is)

 

[DNQuest.com]

What is a tosser?

 

[simonj]

What is a tosser?

Anyone who marries Nicole Kidman.

 

[000]

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this lawsuit, but personally I would agree that the artist appears to be intentionally deceiving visitors and potential customers with his wording on the site.

 

[slipondajimmy]

I don't think this at all. Hell the guys name is Keith urban . Its his name just as well as the singers name

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this lawsuit, but personally I would agree that the artist appears to be intentionally deceiving visitors and potential customers with his wording on the site.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I don't think this at all. Hell the guys name is Keith urban . Its his name just as well as the singers name

But the problem here is that he is deceiving people into thinking that he could be the Singer. If you went to the site not knowing it was for an artist, would you think it was the Singer? If the answer is yes, then you proved TM status and you proved deceit. Just because he has the same name doesn't not give him a right to do anything he wants. If it is proven that he is breaking a law, then there are consequences.

PS- did you go to the site at all????? I am guessing not because if you did, then you would see the Adsense for the singer posted as well.