DNQuest.com said:
Actually, if you can prove your name is what you use in commerce, it is protected the same as the "Trademarked company" (ie real products in commerce), and it does have the same clout. This has been proven over and over again. It is the burden of the person to do so, but they are protected.
I am confused about the "grandfather" clause arguement. If he was famous before the name was registered, he does have rights to the domain. He would have to challenge the owner and prove he is squatting.
The burden you speak of is very heavy indeeed, and so hard to prove that most do not bother, except in obvious superstar cases like a Britney Spears or a Morgan Freeman. And even then it does NOT carry with it the same clout (or huge legal penalties) as a case where someone obviously squats on a Procter & Gamble trademark.
This recent idea (and recent consideration of it by some WIPO rulings) is "patently" (pun intended) absurd, if one thinks about it for more than a moment. These celebs are now claiming that because they use their names in their livelyhood (singing, dancing, acting, whatever) that should be the same as a TM. This is just as dumb as your local plumber Joe Shnozzolla claiming that he ALSO uses HIS name in his livelyhood as a plumber, and therefore he also deserves TM status!
The stupidity of this "my name should be a TM just like Kleenex" concept is boundless, and there would be no end to it. If WIPO got hooked on it (and we hope they never do) where would the persecution of domainers end? At the level of a "semi-famous" name? Or how about "used to be famous, but is now a has-been"? The whole thing's ridiculous! A person's name is not a true TM - only a company name that produces goods is.
* * *
As to a "grandfathered" name, it referred in this case to one member of the Truman family tree regging a domain name BEFORE another member of the tree. As long as he had the SAME name, and further did not defame said name, then the other Trumans (although they may claim they're "more famous" ones) have no ammo.
Again it points to the potential silliness of the possible future low level squabbles WIPO might sink down to, wherein some "wronged party" will be crying to them "hey, I was in a mini-series in the 1980s once, so that guy can't register my name!"