Spitzer Call Girl Files a $10M Domain Name Lawsuit

[simon johnson]

The alleged call girl involved with former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has filed a $10 million lawsuit in a US Court. The defendants are: MRA Holding, LLC a California Limited Liability Company; and Mantra Films, Inc., an Oklahoma Corp.

Dupre is seeking damages for, among other things, unjust enrichment based on videos and DVD’s sold via various domain names which, its been alleged, have been registered in bad faith....

More details at: Domainer Income.

 

[Dave_Z]

Interesting is an understatement.

Good luck to Dupre on holding the parties liable under ACPA.

 

[Timewarp]

I think she has a pretty good case and it doesn't have to do with having a trademarked name as the blogger wondered. There's some law where you can't profit off another persons likeness and I think that extends to other things but not sure of the details. I learned when making t-shirts that pics of celebs are off limits even though they are not TM'ed.

On the other hand pics of politicians are okay (assuming the pic itself isnt copyright) because they have chosen to be 'public figures'

The argument that there are other Ashley Dupre's doesn't hold much water with their sites that feature her prominently.

$10Million sounds very inflated though, as is typical of US litigation!

 

[Dave_Z]

I think she has a pretty good case and it doesn't have to do with having a trademarked name as the blogger wondered.

Which is why I wished Ms. Dupre good luck:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001125----000-.html

(d) Cyberpiracy prevention
(1)
(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person

Now, there's also a section on personal names:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001129----000-.html

(1) In general
(A) Civil liability
Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil action by such person.

It also listed some arguably broad exceptions:

(B) Exception
A person who in good faith registers a domain name consisting of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, shall not be liable under this paragraph if such name is used in, affiliated with, or related to a work of authorship protected under title 17, including a work made for hire as defined in section 101 of title 17, and if the person registering the domain name is the copyright owner or licensee of the work, the person intends to sell the domain name in conjunction with the lawful exploitation of the work, and such registration is not prohibited by a contract between the registrant and the named person. The exception under this subparagraph shall apply only to a civil action brought under paragraph (1) and shall in no manner limit the protections afforded under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) or other provision of Federal or State law.

Kudos to Ms. Dupre if she's able to convince the judge to make an exception.

 

[Ipdster]

Nice. I was going to register her name the minute the scandal broke. I didn't since I was UBER-NOOBISH. Now I'm pretty glad I didn't.

What a whore.