Jennifer Lopez wins cybersquatting case

[donq]

Jennifer Lopez has won a cybersquatting case against a U.S. web operator who registered two internet addresses that used her name for commercial profit, a U.N. agency said.

jenniferlopez.net and jenniferlopez.org, must now be transferred within 10 days to the Jennifer Lopez Foundation, which filed the complaint.

Full story http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolo...-cybersquatters/2009/04/10/1239223029902.html

 

[Dave_Z]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0057.html

 

[DubDubDubDot]

Usually there is a clear winner right from the start, but in some cases you can tell the WIPO shoots their arrow first and then draws a bullseye around it.

Here we have a fan site on an old .org and a charity foundation now in need of that .org. It was obvious who they were going to side with, and I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of their decision.

BUT...... The WIPO should focus on domains themselves and remain blind to the content (or lack of content) on the server the domain is pointed to. Domain names and server contents are two different things. Site content disputes are for copyright infringement cases in civil court.

When you look at this merely as FirstnameLastname.org without regard to the site content, I don't think the famous person should have automatic claim to the domain.

 

[prague7]

Usually there is a clear winner right from the start, but in some cases you can tell the WIPO shoots their arrow first and then draws a bullseye around it.

Here we have a fan site on an old .org and a charity foundation now in need of that .org. It was obvious who they were going to side with, and I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of their decision.

BUT...... The WIPO should focus on domains themselves and remain blind to the content (or lack of content) on the server the domain is pointed to. Domain names and server contents are two different things. Site content disputes are for copyright infringement cases in civil court.

When you look at this merely as FirstnameLastname.org without regard to the site content, I don't think the famous person should have automatic claim to the domain.

But surely in most cases you have to look at the content to be able to judge the 'bad faith' aspect of a claim?

 

[bmugford]

Of course, that is part of the whole process. Jennifer Lopez is a popular enough name where the domain itself could not be successfully disputed if the website was for example Jennifer Lopez & Associates, which was a real estate company.

The content does matter for a finding of bad faith.

Brad

But surely in most cases you have to look at the content to be able to judge the 'bad faith' aspect of a claim?

 

[DubDubDubDot]

Of course, that is part of the whole process. Jennifer Lopez is a popular enough name where the domain itself could not be successfully disputed if the website was for example Jennifer Lopez & Associates, which was a real estate company.

The content does matter for a finding of bad faith.

Brad

"Bad faith" is from time to time just something they throw out there when they can't come up with any other evidence, or need to stack the deck.

No matter how you spin it, this was just FirstnameLastname.org.