Famous People

[DNQuest.com]

Ok, a member since December 2004 and you have over 2600 posts... did you even bother to read anything here at all in the 3.5 years you have been a member. LOL Sorry, but this question is usually by someone who just joined.

Anyway....

Intent to profit from a "living well known person" can be viewed as cybersquatting. Usually, famous people do use their name in commerce and are afforded protection under TM law. There are so many factors involved, but intent and usage will show the true nature of the situation.

Man is this was a different forum, what would I say at this moment?? hmmm lol

[fab]

Ok, a member since December 2004 and you have over 2600 posts... did you even bother to read anything here at all in the 3.5 years you have been a member. LOL Sorry, but this question is usually by someone who just joined.

Anyway....

Intent to profit from a "living well known person" can be viewed as cybersquatting. Usually, famous people do use their name in commerce and are afforded protection under TM law. There are so many factors involved, but intent and usage will show the true nature of the situation.

Man is this was a different forum, what would I say at this moment?? hmmm lol

Yes I have read Dave Zan's post, and this was related to the TM issue only that John discussed. As you can see from the responses of his post their has been new information exposed here.

Dave Zan's post relates to US law, and probably doesn't affect UDRP.

Thanks for your patience.
I'm sorry if you think that this is redundant and newbe, but TM issues are very unclear, see the previous thread and John's post.

The names that were stated previously like Yves, JC Penny are extremely well know names used in commerce.

John McCain, Barack Obama aren't.

[dvdrip]

This have been covered in hundreds of posts in the past.
I see nothing new in this thread.

[fab]

This have been covered in hundreds of posts in the past.
I see nothing new in this thread.

Including post 10?

[dvdrip]

Yes, try searching the forum.

[jberryhill]

So, if that's the case, politicians who don't market themselves for any goods, can't be a TM.

Fab, don't extrapolate from my "can be" to assume that every other condition means "can't be". That's logically fallacious.

Your question was "Can a personal name be a TM?" My answer was to point out that anything used as a TM can be a TM, there is nothing magic about personal names in that regard.

[Dave Zan]

probably doesn't affect UDRP.

Just remember that a complainant can opt for UDRP or court, whichever they
see is more effective despite its costs. But even if the respondent wins UDRP,
the complainant can always sue in court and possibly stall it until resolution.

As mentioned earlier, it's actually been discussed before. But to serve as sort
of a "refresher course" for especially new members, personal names, famous or
not, can be TMs if used as such.

The parts I quoted from Cornell (kudos actually to Brett Lewis on that) are a
few specific and exceptionally limited scenarios where one can maybe dispute
a registrant's domain name-sake registration even without a TM. Beyond that,
a personal name still needs to be used as a TM to have any hope of disputing
the domain name-sake anyway.

Say, isn't there some bill in New York about that also? Then again, it's only for
New York, I think...

[jberryhill]

Say, isn't there some bill in New York about that also? Then again, it's only for
New York, I think...

There are quite a few other laws besides the ACPA, and indeed there are significant state laws.

As one might expect, California state law has extensive provisions dealing with rights of publicity.

And this is probably a good jumping off point for noting that there are "trademark-like" rights that operate independently of trademark law.

In Europe, for example, one important trademark-like right is the "appellation of origin". A French wine cannot be called a Bordeaux, a Medoc, a Champagne, etc., unless it actually comes from that region and is certified as such by the regional agency that controls the use of the term as applied to wine. This is true of parma ham in Italy, of feta cheese in Greece, and so on. The appellation may apply to a region, process, or collective organization that determines what may be, and what may not be, parmesan cheese.

There were several UDRP cases early on which considered the trademark-like "right of publicity" that applies to the name or likeness of a celebrity. Some panels have taken a strict view that the UDRP applies only to "trade or service mark" rights as written, and some panels have taken a more expansive view.

If you would like an extensive discussion of rights of publicity versus, say, fair commentary on a public figure, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been involved in litigation relating to trading cards and bobblehead dolls depicting him as "the governator". He owns certain rights in his depiction as "The Terminator", but as governor he is fair game for satirical or parodic comment, so the cases have had to distinguish between souvenir or toy items that primary depict him as a governor, as a super-hero, or use aspects of the super-hero character as a symbolic comment on his role as governor.

Celebrities and their agents are often quite pleased when domainer fans are willing to assist them in obtaining a domain name. This whole notion of "make a fan site and then sell it to them" is pretty stupid. If you truly admire someone, then why are you trying to rip them off. On the other hand, many are happy to provide autographed items, tickets, or other suitable tokens of gratitude.

[DNQuest.com]

Dave Zan's post relates to US law, and probably doesn't affect UDRP.

Well, US law could be used to support a stance in a UDRP and are generally accepted. UDRPs are, in essence, TM challenges. IF there is a law stating a TM exsists, the panelists will accept it since it is backed by a government agency.

[jberryhill]

UDRP panels can apply whatever legal principles they deem relevant to a dispute. The "Complainant's rights" and the "Respondent's rights" may arise from entirely different jurisdictions. The question is often whether each party has shown "rights" of any kind, from whatever legal basis may apply to them.

[jberryhill]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-0474.html