alberteinstein.com

[GeorgeK]

A 'good' decision for a change. Nice work, Ari!

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2002-0616.html

[pljones]

This decision only confirms that Burgar can register domain names containing the names of dead celebrities. In cases involving living & famous celebs, the decisions have gone the other way. Interesting decision, but not too groundbreaking. The result probably would be much different with someone living.

One final note, the discussion of laches at the end of the decision is very interesting. According to the Panel: "There is no limitation period in the [UDRP] Policy. The remedy available in an Administrative Proceeding under the Policy is not equitable. Accordingly, the defence of laches has no application."

[GeorgeK]

Burgar did win in the BruceSpringsteen.com case. Although, he lost KevinSpacey.com and CelineDion.com.

I let JulieChen.com drop (had tried to give it to the celebrity, as I did successfully for Mitsou.com, at cost), and it was quickly snapped up by someone else. Seems like many celebrities and their agents are clueless about registering domain names.

[Ari Goldberger]

Thanks for the nice comment. The real credit goes to the panel!

[HOWARD]

Ari

Thanks for quoting from MY case (WIPO Case No. D2000-0706) on the redirection of LIPSERVICE.COM.

[adoptabledomains]

I think whether they're living or dead is not the real issue. it's whether the name provides a real or common law trademark and if so was that passed to heirs or allowed to fade to public domain. This case could have gone either way with the interpretation of just a couple words.

[Ari Goldberger]

Ultimately, the trademark part was not a big issue, since the Panel relied on the registered trademark in France. Respondent prevailed because it was held that Respondent's site dedicated to Albert Einstein established a legitimate interest, and there was no evidence of bad faith. The panel strongly suggested that if this were the case of a living personality it would have been more difficult to prove legitimate interest and lack of bad faith. However, I believe that so long as the web site is very clear that it is an unofficial fan site -- and nothing is done to create the impression that there is an association between the site and the personality -- both a legitimate interest and lack of bad faith should be found.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GeorgeK
[B]A 'good' decision for a change.

*** Yes, it is 'good' mainly for the Media and the TM lobby. The Media will produce more 'Cybersquatters Run Amuck'' reports to reinforce the publics negative image of our industry, while the TM lobby will run around citing this case as an example of what could happen to anyone, riling up politicians worldwide, who will then further diminish domain owners rights


Nice work, Ari.

*** Yes. Truly an excellent job...I mean it.

To begin with - I thought it was very smart to challenge the complainants 'Standing' to claim the mark in the first place.

Second - Somehow, incredibly, the respondents counsel turned the 'Bad Faith Registration' allegation made by the complainant into a 'Good Faith Demonstration' by the respondent...

Third - the defense importantly raised the question as to whether a time 'Statute Of Limitations' had passed before the complainant filed the action.

Ironically, I thought The Panel almost made a stronger case for the complainant in its 'Factual Background' findings than the complainants attorney's entire argument.

Also, maybe the majority opinion felt the complainants were reaching for MORE of Einstein's intellectual property rights than which they were entitled.

[pljones]

This decision could have easily gone the other way, but it appears Burgar caught a lucky break with the panelists and counsel did a great job selling the case. However, in past decisions, Burgar has been found to be a cybersquatter and there are certainly panelists out there who do not think his conduct is good faith use of celebrity names. I'm sure another case will come up again, and we'll get to read an interesting decision on this area of domain names.

[dtobias]

While I don't disagree with this decision (the complainant's case for exclusive rights to the name of a public figure dead for nearly 50 years is weak), I think the respondent can be termed a cybersquatter; his habit of registering tons of celebrity-name domains and directing them all to a rather generic celebrity-related site isn't really the most logical or defensible use of the names in my opinion; it's not really the same as a bona fide fan site about a particular celebrity that the site author really cares about. If you want to put up a generic site about celebrities in general, you should come up with an original name for it yourself and use that, rather than trying to get cheap traffic by grabbing the names of as many celebrities as you can.