.tv Regging celebrity .tv names

[b2b]

Do you think it's worth regging high profile celebrity names in .tv, where as the com/net/org/info/us/etc... have respectively also been regged?

Do you think they will get type-in traffic?

I've got a few on my list, which I'm quite eager to reg...

Also, if any of you own any, pls elaborate.

 

[Argos]

Do you think it's worth regging high profile celebrity names in .tv, where as the com/net/org/info/us/etc... have respectively also been regged?

Do you think they will get type-in traffic?

I've got a few on my list, which I'm quite eager to reg...

Also, if any of you own any, pls elaborate.

A shame, 50% pathetic + 50% no ethics = 100% cybersquatting.
Why would you reg a name that is not yours, just because ass... did it with other extensions ? Sorry there is something I don't understand here, getting traffic for getting traffic... why don't you become a celeb yourself and generate your traffic instead of stealing the name, popularity, audience, from those who hardly work to succeed ?

 

[gr8trfoo]

A shame, 50% pathetic + 50% no ethics = 100% cybersquatting.
Why would you reg a name that is not yours, just because ass... did it with other extensions ? Sorry there is something I don't understand here, getting traffic for getting traffic... why don't you become a celeb yourself and generate your traffic instead of stealing the name, popularity, audience, from those who hardly work to succeed ?

theres nothing unethical or illegal about it IF you actually publish something under it. this is true even if the celeb in question has trademarked the name. two words: fair use.

 

[DnEbook]

i would avoid it

I think much better to develop product/service

 

[rodash]

Argos is right, this type of thing gives us all a bad name and creates problems for those genuine domain owners who are not cybersquatting.

Also, what Finster said is not correct. There is a law called "passing off" and that is what many claims that end up in front of WIPO (or else which go before the courts) are based on. If you are Joe Smith and are operating a website called MelGibson.tv, you can be regarded as passing off - regardless of what content is on that site. And that's because any reasonable person would go to MelGibson.tv expecting to find information about the actor.

Where fair use can count as a proper defence is if the name (as well being the celebrity's name) is your own name. For instance, if Mel Gibson from Hillbilly Gully in Backwoods, Tennesee, operated a website called Mel.Gibson.tv - and had video on it of his wife and 12 kids - he might have a good chance of holding on to the name. But even then he would need to be publishing original content that had nothing to do with Mel Gibson, or acting, or movies. If he sold DVDs of any description from that site he could be at risk of passing off on Gibson's name (and fame).

 

[gr8trfoo]

tell that to mr don henley who lost his name in a court of law to the person of the same name who happened to play for the eagles. its a uestion beyond "fair use" if we're talking about a person using their own name. sadly this guy lost his anyway. i'm surprised they didnt order the defendant to change is personal name.

regardless, fair use does indeed apply if you are a "legitimate" publisher AND you do not pass yourself off as being official or authorized by the person in question. thought that much would be obviously clear to anyone with half a nut in their noggin. reasonable peoples expectations aside one would be a fairly solid ground if for instance they published a daily log of news about that celeb. every step toward being a legitimate publisher would help so if one would write original articles with some degree of regularity (like weekly or twice daily) in addition to anything else their case would probably be strengthened.

but then again no one should be coming to these forums and expect to get good legal advice. dr berryhill used to hang around different places and you could reasonably rely on whatever he laid down but i dont see him much anymore.

 

[b2b]

Thanks for all your opinions.

If I would register a celebrity name then it would merely be fan based.
They're all loads of celebrity websites out there registered in their own name in com/net/org/etc... And the majority of these are fan based.

I say fan based again, because the more exposure a celeb gets the better, whether is good or bad publicity.

And by using .tv, you're giving exposure again to the extension.

If i was an upcoming singer/actor and a few of my fans made websites about me...hey, who am I to complain?? They're using my name in good intent. However if a celebrity would ask you to handover the domain to him/her, then why wouldn't you?

Also if the site makes a few bucks a month to cover the hosting fees, that's nicely taken as well. You're doing your best to expose your favorite celebrity while getting paid an amount that could help you pay your rent. You're happy, they are happy.

This is not the issue of registering a domain and holding it ransom against the celebrity & milking him/her to obtain it.

Again this is my opinion.

 

[Brand Herald]

No

Personally - I would avoid it like the plague.

 

[dtagr]

What if the name is a nickname given to a celebrity by the media and not the person's given name? For instance "Jlo". No I do not own the domain, just asking for clarification.

 

[Jeff]

but then again no one should be coming to these forums and expect to get good legal advice. dr berryhill used to hang around different places and you could reasonably rely on whatever he laid down but i dont see him much anymore.

I've been actively reading his input and posts in the #1 Namepros Legal Forum™ ... and, regardless of extension, that's probably the best place to address 'celebrity' names, as well! :gl:
PS. I do not think think that these type of ".TV's" will get any natural, type-in traffic? :imho:

Kind regards,
-Jeff