domain KingArthur.name

[createmx]

KingArthur.name

 

[JMorris]

KingArthur.name

To register a .name top level domain (TLD) it must come from a person's name. This could be the legal name of a person but also a name the person is commonly known by, for example a nickname, pseudonym, alias, or stage name. This name must belong to an individual (like yourself) or a fictitious character to which you have rights, such as a copyright, a trademark, or similar.

I'm not an appraiser, but IMHO, this domain carrys too much of a risk.

Best Regards,

James

 

[JYM]

JMorris has a point, the .name is supposed to be for individual purposes. If anything, .info would work better in this case.

I would say reg fee since although it is probably worth more, the legal issues just aren't worth it. Maybe you could get by unscathed...

Good luck!

 

[Ronald Regging]

What legal issues? Just say your friends call you King Arthur... problem solved.

King Arthur is a fictitious character of which no one owns the rights to, so I doubt he'll be faced with any legal objections to his ownership of the domain.

.name however is practically worthless from my understanding, so I don't know as far as price goes.

 

[JMorris]

King Arthur is a fictitious character of which no one owns the rights to, so I doubt he'll be faced with any legal objections to his ownership of the domain.

Actually, that is not entirely true. If the name is not copyright, then all is good. However, given the popularity of the name, it is plausible that it is indeed copyright, and registering such a domain without the controlling body's approval would be a breach of international copyright laws. Therefore, unless a comprehensive copyright and trademark search reveals that using this name is indeed not a breach of copyright law, then it is too risky.

Basically, it boils down to you should thoroughly do your homework before registering a domain whether it's based on a fictitious character or not.

Best Regards,

James

 

[Ronald Regging]

Given the popularity of the domain, it's safe to assume that it falls under the category of "public domain."

Copyright implies rights to a piece of work, whether it's writing, film, etc... You can not copyright a name... You can only copyright a specific work. Someone owns the copyright to the movie King Arthur, but they don't have exclusive rights to the name, only the completed movie itself. This is why there are tons of movies, books, etc that have the same name.

 

[dsrlolok]

I think King Arthur would be such a universally used name that it cannot be copyrighted, much like the song Twinkle Twinkle Little Star

 

[JMorris]

Given the popularity of the domain, it's safe to assume that it falls under the category of "public domain."

Copyright implies rights to a piece of work, whether it's writing, film, etc... You can not copyright a name... You can only copyright a specific work. Someone owns the copyright to the movie King Arthur, but they don't have exclusive rights to the name, only the completed movie itself. This is why there are tons of movies, books, etc that have the same name.

Very good point. I rescind my previous comments.

Best Regards,

James