.mobi I found a .mobi name with 17,932 overture searchs a day PLEASE HELP

[bosstone]

Ok,
I found a .mobi name that is an actually celebrity's name that is searched 17,932 times a day not month but a day. THis name is still free to register you think it is worth it or do you think it will just cause problems? I need some help. I normaly would just register it and see what happens but a little tight on funds now.

thanks
cc

 

[Broker]

I wouldnt bother, you'll only end up in trouble.

 

[circa1850]

Ok,I found a .mobi name that is an actually celebrity's name

It's a celebrity's name that is searched, not hits on a mobi domain name. Seems like it would be a waste of money.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Celebrity?
Fishing in muddy waters; let it be.
-Allan

 

[bosstone]

Thanks for the advice. Any other thoughts? THat is just so much traffic every day.

 

[mejcdj]

Look away.. look away.
Bad idea.

Mejcdj

 

[A|ien]

I'd steer clear personally, unless of course you can resell it quickly. Risky though.

Let us know what you decide, good luck.

 

[yoyosean]

why is a celebrity name bad to register? are there names trademarked. i dont think you can trademark a name like that can you?

 

[-Adam-]

Define: Trademark

# A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer.

So in other words, yes.

 

[yoyosean]

yes but you cannot trademark a common name such as michael johnson (the sprinter) otherwise nobody else would be able to use the name michael johnson. unless that name is solely identified with the product i.e. i couldnt make another "swanson" tv dinner however i could use swanson.mobi to sell chicken or greeting cards, etc.

you will see many celebs sites that are not the "official" sites using the celebs name, that is because a celebs identity is considered public property as they are "public" beings if you will, this has been proven many times in court. So therefore as long as the site is not slanderous towards the celeb, you are fine to use their name. I believe

Hey IAMALLAN is this not correct?

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Hey IAMALLAN is this not correct?

Not quite... Partly because you have a misunderstanding of TM "rights" - but that's something you can google and get much, much more info on than I have the time to type here.

And we could write volumes on TM's and how they relate to celebrity names (Which are TM's, btw.) and just how far the protections extend as they relate to domain names, etc.

In fact, folks have:
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/indices/title/motsnyi104_abstract.html

And you can see for yourself celebrity names that have gone both ways on WIPO or NAF. (Easy link, http://domains.adrforum.com )

-Allan

 

[circa1850]

And you can see for yourself celebrity names that have gone both ways on WIPO or NAF. (Easy link, http://domains.adrforum.com )-Allan

You are so right, Allan.

This subject appears to becoming up and also featured in the news with more regularity lately. I have been reading where many celebrities, especially athletes, are suing and winning the rights back to their name. No where does this appear to be happening with more regularity than the European countries and particularly cited examples of major soccer stars.

For years, domain speculators have been "speculating" on who the next major star will be and are registering the names even while the person is still in high school or a minor leaguer. Imagine finding your name as a registered domain name long before you become a star athlete, in many cases many years in advnance!

Needless to say, this has also become rampant with young hockey stars in the Canadian leagues and, of course, high school basketball players right here in the USA.

A person's name does not have to be a "registered trademark" in order for that person to have rights to their own name. The sites you reference are useful in case studies and makes one think twice about reg'ing someone's given name.

 

[agregio]

Right on.

Allan and circa are absolutely right.

The bottom line is this: a celebrity has the rights to his or her own name, and if there's sufficient evidence that you've registered the domain because you're trying to sell it back to the celebrity, prevent the celebrity from registering it in the first place, "disrupt" the celebrity's image, or (most importantly), use the well-known name to create a likelihood of confusion that he or she is endorsing your site--it almost guaranteed that you'll lose it, especially if you're trying to get financial gains from it.

It's not automatically illegal to register a celebrity's name as a TLD, but you're certainly running a much higher risk of contention than you are with some clear-cut prefix or suffix to the name that denotes the site's intentions (like xxxxxfans.mobi) rather than a standalone representation of a celebrity's name. Your site's contents would also be a huge determinant of whether or not you found yourself in a dispute.

Put most simply, the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy says the following:

A complainant must establish each of three elements in order to seek relief under the UDRP:

• The domain name registered by the domain name registrant is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights;
• The domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question and
• The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

So if you're registering it to squat, from a legal standpoint I'd say it's totally not worth the possible hassle if you wanted to hold onto it in the long term (which you might not).