What are the TM rules regarding real names?

[toompas]

I noticed barakobama.com went up for auction at Enom, and I bid quite a bit but lost.

Now I'm interested in another name that I wont mention that is expireing in the next 2 weeks. He's a person considering running for an office in 2006.

If I get the whole name (example: www.JasonScott.com) is there any trademark violations? Does a person with the name have a right to it?

Thank you for your response!
Toompas

 

[sooty]

If this guy is running for office, I see no way you're going to be able to keep the name. Expect swift legal action - when a campaign matters that much, they will get their name. Mind you, maybe a quick payoff to you would do the job for minimal cost.

 

[toompas]

I'm really interested in buying it though. Is it really so easy to take back a domain because of a TM issue? What If I named a company that name, or what if I had the same name?

Does anyone know for sure how hard it would be for them to take it from me? Would it be worth purchasing if it was a potenial US senate winner?

Thank you for your help,
Toompas

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Here's a timely answer. Hillary Clinton won a UDRP today on hillaryclinton.com

http://home.businesswire.com/portal...d=news_view&newsId=20050321005630&newsLang=en

 

[daughterofeve]

wha.... that's crazy! there should be no TM issues, because virtually anyone, depending in their heritage, or if they changed their name- can have that name!
Theres probably hundreds of people in the world today that have the name "hillary clinton''

this is just.. *sigh*

 

[toompas]

Thanks

Thanks for the link, it really helps.

It is a wierd issue. I notice they have in the report that the reason Hillary Clinton won it is also because the user was profiting from it. Does this mean that if it was a Hillary Clinton Info site, it wouldnt be taken away?

Thanks!
Toompas

 

[Dave_Z]

Thanks for the link, it really helps.

It is a wierd issue. I notice they have in the report that the reason Hillary Clinton won it is also because the user was profiting from it. Does this mean that if it was a Hillary Clinton Info site, it wouldnt be taken away?

Thanks!
Toompas

UDRP is a fact-intensive process. Depending on the data submitted by both
the complaining party and the responding party (if the latter replied at all), it
can result in the domain being transferred or denied to the complainant.

In this case yes, the user was profiting from it, and that's considered "bad
faith". What's worse is the respondent didn't reply, and that increases the
chances of the complainant winning.

wha.... that's crazy! there should be no TM issues, because virtually anyone, depending in their heritage, or if they changed their name- can have that name!
Theres probably hundreds of people in the world today that have the name "hillary clinton''

this is just.. *sigh*

The US trademark office has a pdf regarding personal names:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/h1554gb1.pdf

 

[rtonia]

What about kerryedwards.com? It's listed on Sedo and seems lots of people make offers for that domain

 

[dgridley]

Thanks, Dave, for the link..

The short answer is: if the name in question has acquired a secondary commercial meaning, then chances are good it's protected at the very least by common law trademark, EVEN if it's not an officially registered trademark.

Celebrity names, in general, are a no-no... you might squeak by temporarily, you might squeak by for good.. but the more popular the site or domain becomes, the greater the risk.

The US trademark office has a pdf regarding personal names:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/h1554gb1.pdf

 

[AdoptableDomains]

What's worse is the respondent didn't reply, and that increases the chances of the complainant winning.

Actually, unless the oritinal claim is way off based, it pretty much guarantees a finding for the complainant. No answer pretty much means the respondent agrees to the claims of the complainant by default...and loses. There may be an exception, but I've not heard of one.

 

[sunken]

I think it would depend on if the person has trademarked their name. Not all people have, but most stars and public figures do. I think though that if your name was Hillary Clinton, you'd probably have a better case to fight it. KerryEdwards.com's owner, that was his name Kerry Edwards. It just so happened that Kerry and Edwards got together. Course that guy was an idiot. He should have sold it when he had the chance, because now it's not worth much.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

www.JohnMcCain.com simply points to Domain Sponsor...
Don't forget that it's fairly easy to get around political figures "TM's" on their own names because political speech of any kind gets the lowest level of scrutiny, so as long as the site makes some political statement, it's almost a free way out. Not quite that simple in practice, but...
-Allan