Ok to register celebrity names?

[JasMate]

Is there any trademark or penalty for registering a celebrity name like "britneyspears.com" or "britneyspears.info" ??

...

 

[whitebark]

Yeah, they can demand you hand it over. They can either do it nicely, or they can have their lawyers do it. Some never bother, others seem to do it rather quickly. Some don't mind "theirnamefanclub.com" etc, others well, as I said earlier - you take your chances. Unless your name is Britney Spears you will lose the challenge.

 

[Silhouette]

My guess is: safest to get the .ORG (act as a fan site)
just MHO

 

[JasMate]

Yeah, they can demand you hand it over. They can either do it nicely, or they can have their lawyers do it. Some never bother, others seem to do it rather quickly. Some don't mind "theirnamefanclub.com" etc, others well, as I said earlier - you take your chances. Unless your name is Britney Spears you will lose the challenge.

Thanks for the response as you say I would be taking my chances.

My guess is: safest to get the .ORG (act as a fan site)
just MHO

How does the .org make it better? I would prefer .info but what is the difference in this case?

 

[Ronald Regging]

You are taking your chances, because decisions have gone both ways... It's not a definite win for the celebrity, but you have a lot against you...

 

[wow!]

The penalty for having britneyspears.info is to listen to her songs for all day long...

 

[Silhouette]

How does the .org make it better? I would prefer .info but what is the difference in this case?

Sorry for the confusion.
I personally prefer ORG over INFO (for fan sites)

I look at it, most celebrities wont mind their fans setting up UNofficial sites for them
but if you are grabbing their .com (mostly for official sites), they come after you.... remember Tom Cruise(??) ? Did he win back his name??

 

[fab]

Yes, Tom Cruise did WIN his .com

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, Tom Cruise did WIN his .com

thanks

The ex-owner should have sold it to him before the court case

 

[faisj]

Its very hard to say.
I do know that some parking programs do not accept the domain names.
(if I am correct fabulous.com is one of them)

I think that if the domain name is used for a fansite it would not be a huge problem
but, the moment it is parked or redirected to for example a casino/sex site it could
result in a email from the managment with the request to hand over the domain name.

 

[Dave_Z]

The penalty for having britneyspears.info is to listen to her songs for all day long...

Ewwww...

 

[netzilla]

Its a toss up if you will get away with it or not. I would think as long as it looks like a fansite then they wont mind because it will boost their ego more. Atleast I know I wouldnt care if it was getting me more publicity.

 

[gingeman]

Yeah, technically, they can demand it back at any time if you have no legal rights to the name. I own a couple of celebrity .infos and even .biz (I know) which have small fansites on them. It can be quite profitable to have a 'set' of minisites linked together around the same niche of celebrities (i.e. sports players etc) but you will have to be prepared that if they ask for it, your going to have to give it to them.

 

[dgridley]

Keep in mind too that even if you sell the domain, the celebrity in question can demand any profit you derived from the sale, plus punitive damages... best not to take the chance for the most part.

I like to think .info sites (or .org) might offer a bit of "fair use" protection but it's still not "legal". You'll always be looking over your shoulder. :D

I've owned a few and either let them drop or gave them away.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Ok guys, here is the real scoop on celeb names (and if you would have searched in hte legal section, this has been covered many times).

Registration is infringing on the celebs TM.
Registration alone is not illegal.
It is what you do with the domain that matters most.
Fansites can come under "fair use", meaning the public has a right to use them.
Any sign of bad faith, you crossed the line of "fair use" and "commercial gain". This means, you make ANY money from it, it is no longer protected as "fair use". Fantsites are a labor of love, making any type of revenue is no longer labor of love. (Notice I said revenue and not profit, there is a huge difference).
The reason celeb sites are won/lost is usage of the domain. tomcruise.com won, whyy? it was used in bad faith. Brucespringsteen lost, why? It came under fair usage.

Now let's talk penalties for cybersquatting...

Loss of the domain
Loss of all revenue you gained with the domain
Pay for all legal fees
Punitve damages
Up to $100,000.00 fine per domain
Labeled a cybersquatter which can be used agaisnt you in future disputes.

 

[dgridley]

Thanks for taking the time to post this.. helpful!

Ok guys, here is the real scoop on celeb names (and if you would have searched in hte legal section, this has been covered many times).

Registration is infringing on the celebs TM.
Registration alone is not illegal.
It is what you do with the domain that matters most.
Fansites can come under "fair use", meaning the public has a right to use them.
Any sign of bad faith, you crossed the line of "fair use" and "commercial gain". This means, you make ANY money from it, it is no longer protected as "fair use". Fantsites are a labor of love, making any type of revenue is no longer labor of love. (Notice I said revenue and not profit, there is a huge difference).
The reason celeb sites are won/lost is usage of the domain. tomcruise.com won, whyy? it was used in bad faith. Brucespringsteen lost, why? It came under fair usage.

Now let's talk penalties for cybersquatting...

Loss of the domain
Loss of all revenue you gained with the domain
Pay for all legal fees
Punitve damages
Up to $100,000.00 fine per domain
Labeled a cybersquatter which can be used agaisnt you in future disputes.