I am being threatened by the father of an Internet celebrity!

[FilaRaffa]

The domain name of an Internet Celebrity

First, I am new, learning a lot about domains. I do not know much of anything. I hope you welcome me. I come hear for some advice.

In the interest of privacy, this will be an analogy of the situation. I think the situation is best understood by me using an analogy.

There is this girl on MySpaceTV, a teenager, who claims her real name is Bree, but I am certain that this girl is an actress. If true, she is the best actress I have ever seen.

When her real name was made public, I quickly registered this name, so I own this domain name right now - not really, this is an analogy.

This girl continues her videos, while I have my website up! It is a junkie looking fan site. The father of this girl wants my domain! He is demanding a transfer of ownership. There is the threat of legal action if I do not comply!

How do I protect my domain? This is an underage actress with a father who has made demands that I transfer this domain to him. I need advice on what to include or exclude from my website? Do I focus on the real person or the actress? Do I give this domain to the father?

P.S. - Please do not turned this into a guessing game!

 

[-REECE-]

Okay, lets see if I understand.

You find out the real name of a MINOR celebrity and register the name. You reveal the real name of the person trying to keep anonymity, and wonder why th e parent is angry? How would you feel if it was your minor daughter ,who could be put in danger by revealing her real identity. Celebrities don't want their personal lives mixed with their professional lives,particularly child actors and their parents. That's the same reason they hate paparazzi.

Do you have a right to the name? Maybe.

Do they have a common law TM? Probably not, if it's not the professional name she's known by, but this is one of they grayest areas of UDRP decisions.

Have you created an invasion of Privacy? I would say yes.

Was your registration in bad faith? My opinion is yes. If you were a real fan, you probably wouldn't have revealed the personal-professional link against their will at least until she becomes an adult. You registered because you see this person being famous someday and the domain becoming valuable. This just helps prove you have have financial thoughts for the future of the domain.

And if you were a real fan, you'd do the right thing -- give the name to the rightful owners. If you really cared about this celebrity, why would you want to do anything which could cause her harm? If she doesn't want a fansite, she doesn't want a fansite... I'm sure they'd be willing to refund you your registration costs... Leave it at that.

 

[FilaRaffa]

Thank you everybody! I do not agree with the safety argument. A search of the name will produce hundreds of results. This is a public figure, but if this were not, I agree, the privacy of such person should be respected and not made public. This is just my opinion. This was a topic before the creation of the site. I have only seen like two links to the website, although I have not checked my statistics or referrals?

I just happen to have the domain name, never was there personal information, never was there advertising, nor did I ever have any link to an outside website. I thought that this was squatting. This was a fan site. I did NOT have a disclaimer, but after speaking with an attorney friend I included one - no affiliation, etc. He is not an expert in this area of law, but he told me legally I should be safe with this disclaimer.

I know my intentions are questionable. I wonder how much of the advice given thus far has been skewed because of the belief that I have intentions to profit? There is no evidence of this. If you get that impression from my posts, this is one thing, but how does my website show this to be my intention? What if this was never my intention? Why was I the first to grab the domain? Reason, I followed the "happenings" of this person because I am a fan!

I except the truth, but I think it is a bit biased because I am not believed nor understood. There is mention of domain squatting, but I keep telling that there was none of this. Also, I have read up on this, holding a domain to make a profit is not domain squatting. This is not to say that it is legal or ethical, but with all due respect, please don't accuse me of something I have not done.

IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS MORE OF AN OPINION FORUM THAN A LEGAL FORUM. I AM FALSELY JUDGED TO HAVE BAD INTENTIONS SO I AM WRONG, I LOOSE, THEY WIN. ETHICS ASIDE, I ASK ABOUT THE LAW. WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR CHILD.... blah!

Thanks you to those who have participated in this discussion. I still don't know what to do, but I have learned a lot, much appreciated, such a complicated issue. Are they able to recoup legal expenses in an ICANN dispute? What if I just leave it as it is and let things play out, not fight a complaint, just leave things as they are? I am just tossing out ideas trying to grasp the complexity of all this!

 

[Dave_Z]

Are they able to recoup legal expenses in an ICANN dispute? What if I just leave it as it is and let things play out, not fight a complaint, just leave things as they are?

No. No one knows until the father carries out his threat, but the chances of
his taking the domain name can be high if he pulls it off and you don't reply.

The sentiment you got here really isn't any different than from asking people
in the offline world. Just expect that next time.

If you really want legal advice, you can only get that through a lawyer who
eats these things for breakfast. Good luck.

 

[Domainate.com]

IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS MORE OF AN OPINION FORUM THAN A LEGAL FORUM. I AM FALSELY JUDGED TO HAVE BAD INTENTIONS SO I AM WRONG, I LOOSE, THEY WIN. ETHICS ASIDE, I ASK ABOUT THE LAW. WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR CHILD.... blah!

People have given you many legal reasonings behind the fact that you don't have a right to the name. It doesn't matter what your use of the name is...the registration of it was made in bad faith, because as has been mentioned before, it's her name and you clearly registered it knowing who she is because of her celebrity status.

Just because you have the name that you have though doesn't mean you're ALWAYS going to be contacted by the person or in this case their mother/father and lose the name, but it means you run the risk of it. In this case, that's what they did, and if you really want to hear a legal opinion, ask jberryhill. Many of us have seen posts on similar issues by him and have learned what we know on TM law from his wise legal posts. Just don't be surprised if he says what 90% of the people in this thread have already said.

 

[FilaRaffa]

People have given you many legal reasonings behind the fact that you don't have a right to the name. It doesn't matter what your use of the name is...the registration of it was made in bad faith, because as has been mentioned before, it's her name and you clearly registered it knowing who she is because of her celebrity status.

Just because you have the name that you have though doesn't mean you're ALWAYS going to be contacted by the person or in this case their mother/father and lose the name, but it means you run the risk of it. In this case, that's what they did, and if you really want to hear a legal opinion, ask jberryhill. Many of us have seen posts on similar issues by him and have learned what we know on TM law from his wise legal posts. Just don't be surprised if he says what 90% of the people in this thread have already said.

There are many unofficial websites with the name of a celebrity. Why should this be any exception? I don't understand this being a trademark issue? This is a fan site, no intentions to sell shirts or bobble head dolls. I don't understand the trademark issue here? I wish more people would give me the benefit of the doubt, but I appreciate all the opinions. I think what it may come down to is NOT the domain name itself, but the content that I include on my site. You notice the first two posts mention this not being a trademark issue. I am not yet convinced either way?

Also, getting a domain name of a person who is a celebrity for the purpose of making a fan site is acting in bad-faith? I think not or they would all loose in arbitration.

Also, if there is an established website for this person, why could I not transfer the domain over to this admin, assuming they would take it? Is it correct that I cannot transfer? This was a question, but I am going to get, "Why don't you just give it up to the dad?" If I gave it to the dad, what if another person with the same name then disputes him having it - not probable, but what I am trying to show is the logic of many here does not make complete since. I think the best answer is that there is no right answer. This is an interesting discussion! I wish that someone who eats this stuff for breakfast would chime in, but I think I am going to put this topic to rest.

 

[stukcup]

You might want to check out: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/tmcybpiracy/repcongress.pdf
I'm new to domains, also....but have cancelled all domain names I previously 'owned' that belonged to celebrities. Better to make my millions (?lol?) with domain names not affiliated with something or someone famous (or potentially so). Hope you work this out.
bb

 

[IAmAllanShore]

I wish that someone who eats this stuff for breakfast would chime in, but I think I am going to put this topic to rest.

You are not looking for opinions, and you are not trying to learn - you are looking to be vindicated, which will not happen here.

-Allan

 

[labrocca]

There are many unofficial websites with the name of the a celebrity.

And most that get contacted by the celebrity LOSE the name.

PierceBrosnan.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0519.html

CarmenElectra.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0852.html


JulieBrown.com (former MTV VJ)
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1628.html

Read the respondants reply in the Julie Brown decision.

The Respondent asserts, in a lengthy submission, much of which appears rhetorical:

- that its use of the juliebrown.com site has changed so as to provide pages for a legitimate Fan Club pages;

- that the Complainant was never approached to buy the domain name or site;

- that the Complainant remains free to adopt other domain names incorporating her name;

- that there is no evidence of registration primarily for the purpose of disrupting a competitor's business;

- that the Complainant's name was used merely in a descriptive fashion and attracted users to the site only by such references;

- that the Fan Club was prominently stated to be "Unauthorised" and therefore could not mislead -- moreover it was not commercial;

- that the Fan Club has been linked for two years to Celebrity 1000 and this has given the Respondent an association with the domain name;

- that the Respondent made non-commercial and fair use of the name, which did not produce confusion with the Complainant nor any tarnishing of her name.

Sound familiar?

And their decision....

7. Decision

The Panel decides, in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4:

- that the domain in dispute is identical to or confusingly similar with the trade mark comprising the Complainant's given name;

- that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of that domain name; and

- that it has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel accordingly requires that the domain name,<juliebrown.com>, be transferred forthwith to the Complainant.

 

[FilaRaffa]

You are not looking for opinions, and you are not trying to learn - you are looking to be vindicated, which will not happen here.

-Allan

Really? I had no idea!

 

[mwzd]

you are looking to be vindicated, which will not happen

:tu: :tu: :tu:

Each person must find his own ethical standpoint.

The ones who are giving an opinion here are coming from a higher standpoint than purely profit, imho.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Really? I had no idea!

http://www.namepros.com/domain-appraisals/333787-banyoutube-com.html

You seem to be running a nice little string of issues, no?

-Allan

 

[DNQuest.com]

To back track a bit here....

Yes, people are entitled to run fansites in good faith. I 100% agree and support that. Jsut because someone owns someone elses name, does not mean they are automatically bad. IT is their actions that proves that.

I also believe domain owners who use "fansites" as cover for bad faith intentions should lose the domains.

I do believe bad faith has happened here.

As far as a legal fourm vs opinions... many posters in this thread has many years of experience in the field. We may not be lawyers, but I will say this, we may know more than lawyers do who are not IP specialists Many of our opinions comes from lawyers and experts who do post. We live and learn.

 

[FPForum]

i'm not a lawyer..but I wouldn't say its a TM issue at all..Is the name common? How many different "Jessica Roses" are there out there? I mean if it's a name like "Matt Smith" or something then there is noway it can be proven you purchased the domain because of her...Just my 2 cents I would say consult a lawyer

 

[labrocca]

The ones who are giving an opinion here are coming from a higher standpoint than purely profit, imho.

Umm...I posted actually WIPO decision which imho is directly related to this situation. His defense is extremely similar. This has nothing to do with ethics or morals. It has to do with the letter of law. If the father goes to UDRP...this person will lose the domain and I am fairly confident in that.

 

[bobdigital]

Then you should show some respect and give them the name.

Labrocca, those who live in Glass houses, shouldn't throw Forman grills.

 

[labrocca]

Labrocca, those who live in Glass houses, shouldn't throw Forman grills.

George hasn't contacted me.

And I am not the one asking if my domains are problems.

btw..having a glass house means you spend less on lights.

 

[floatingworld]

The only thing missing in this thread is the green ink.

 

[famous]

Anyone interested in this thread might want to check out the following 2 articles about Allison Stokke, the high school pole vaulter thrown into the spotlight recently. Her story has it all - footage of her being posted on YouTube, website with her name being started by a 'fan', angry father going after website, etc. etc.


L.A.Times - "Pole Vaulting Gets Her Lots of Internet Looks, Not All By Sports Fans"

Washington Post - "Teen Tests Internet's Lewd Track Record"

Interesting reading.

 

[Erdy]

The issue was on TV. Here I found some more news and a video.

 

[Venolus]

Excuse me, with all due legitimate understanding of this issue,
If people around me socially acknowledge that I am a celebrity, be it in media or in technology speaking, can I sue a person who owns my name.com? In my genuine opinion, common nouns cannot be really TM'ed. Like, If I am popular in my region or say my country, and if I change my name to Johnny Depp and register a domain, is their any legibility in the case?

 

[Dave_Z]

can I sue a person who owns my name.com?

Usual answer no. 5: it's one thing to sue, it's another to win.

Apple's a common noun, yet it's also a trademark.

Poor girl, thrust into the limelight that wasn't her fault...

 

[labrocca]

Usual answer no. 5: it's one thing to sue, it's another to win.

Apple's a common noun, yet it's also a trademark.

Poor girl, thrust into the limelight that wasn't her fault...

If you do business under the name...the answer is YES.

 

[sirengirl]

I see the valid points raised by many, and it is likely that the "father" could take legal action and there is a very real possibility that you could lose the name. Are you keeping the name mainly because you are a fan, or hoping the "underage " actress will hit it big to later profit$$ in some way?

My own story: I am a recording artist (a small cult following would apply here) I have a fan in the UK who turns out regged the .uk version of my name. I don't have a problem with it especially if he turns it into a fan site. But I am a parent, and if someone regged my underage sons name for the purposes of squatting I would have issue.

Another story: My father had a website the .org and the .com, he dropped the .org which had PR and was archived. Of course now that I'm a domainer I would not have let him drop our family name, which is now a ppc page on erectile dysfunction. Would I have some recourse to aquire the name, which is not common?

 

[HiSoC8Y]

U have nothing to worry about.

There are thousands of Jessica Rose....

That person cant do anything.

Cheers

 

[DNQuest.com]

U have nothing to worry about.

There are thousands of Jessica Rose....

That person cant do anything.

Cheers

Simply amazing....

How about some background to that statement, laws, precedents, something to support that. Just saying so isn't enough...

BTW- that is a very inaccurate statement

This is getting a little old, tried their best to help. Remember, this is domain law, not TM law. There is a slight difference (hint- domain law is easier to show rights to a domain, notice the word trademark is not mentioned).