KeithUrban.com Fight: Singer vs. Artist

[KaneCo]

I think common names will have this battle more and more in the future every time a new star comes out they will want there name...etc. I believe the original Keith urban had no knowledge of Keith urban when he registered the domain and continues to not exploit his name!

[DNQuest.com]

What does that mean? Check your first post in this thread. It’s one-sided and your facts are all wrong. Anyway the ‘bad rep’ has probably got more to do with “bad-faith” intent to profit from the benefits of trademark belonging to someone else. Not some thought patterns on a forum

.

And if you read the posts, it is the general view upon domaining as an industry, not this board. I have stated this many times on this board.

The singer broke into the biz in 1990 and not 1997 as you say DNQuest. Urban signed with EMI in Australia and recorded his first solo album, which charted four No. 1 country hits in Australia.

I went by the Singers Bio, so what you proved here is that his TM dates to 1990. I believe this is a bit before the .com was registered. So exactly what point are you trying to make here?? That the .com was registered AFTER the TM??

funny, I really thought that you might be a lawyer until I read this post. Perhaps we should make a clear distinction between lay people who have studied the law, and the qualified lawyers.

I have never passed myself off as one. As I have said many times before, I have researched and attained knowledge from my personal research (reading posts here, listening to the lawyers, reading thousand and thousands of UDRPs, reading the laws the past 6 years in this business). And I try my best to pass that along to to follow domainers as to save them time, money and headaches.

You describe yourself. Knee jerk reactions and personal opinions. Rude of you to insinuate that other members posting here are cybersquatters, just because they have a one-sided opinion here.

All you need to do is read the posts around here to see exactly what I am talking about. But cybersquatting (in the most simple and basic form) is the practice of obtaining revenue by usage of a TMed domain which you have no authority to use. It could be simple like Adsense or major like John Z. But as an example, if you steal a candy bar and I steal a car, we both stole didn't we? We both can be prosecuted right? So people who advocate Adsense or feel it is ok sell TMed domains are doing so in "bad faith". Just because you don't get caught does not mean it is still wrong. Yes, there are circumstances which selling a domain may not be bad faith, I am just being general, not concrete in this statement.

Evidently you don’t necessarily need to be new to the board to get all the facts wrong and only read what you want to read.

The one fact I messed was the registration date. Don't know how I did it, but it does not change the fact that he was in the US in 1997 ( http://www.keithurban.net/site.php?content=bio) and as you pointed out, 1990. This was not stated in his bio, that is where I got my info.

Sounds like you have an over-inflated ego at the moment.

Maybe it is well deserved self confidence... or is that too much to fathom?

Now, do you have any substantial to say about this subject or just superficial arguments about my post? The only point I missed is the registration date (which does not make a difference in this case). If you want to argue his debut, I just took what was on his site. So what legal point have I made which is wrong? you haven't pointed any out.

I did do a test, I brought the site up and had my 14yo daughter look at it. She she, "It's Keith Urban.. cool" I asked her "who is Keith Urban". She says "Come on dad, he is a singer... cool, he is selling his paintings". Then I asked "what else jumps out at you?".. she pointed out the Adsense, specifically the tickets and a chance to win a pair of his jeans, she rambled on, so I couldn't quote it. But this shows that people will mistake this as the Singers site.

[Creature]

I went by the Singers Bio, so what you proved here is that his TM dates to 1990. I believe this is a bit before the .com was registered. So exactly what point are you trying to make here?? That the .com was registered AFTER the TM??

The point I was making was simply that your own facts were wrong even though you demand in the same thread that domainers get their facts right before posting.

You also said that, “There is a reason why domaining has a bad rep, it is thought patterns as some above where they think from only one point of view regardless of the facts.” However, you appear to display a very one sided opinion about this case even though we do not yet know all of the facts.

I just think that it’s a bit self righteous and insulting of you to loosely accuse others here of cybersquatting, not presenting the facts properly and not showing common sense, when I very much doubt that you are so perfect yourself.

[DNQuest.com]

Creature, did you even read the statements I isolated and responded to? If you really read them, you will understand why I said that. And yes, there are people who do only look at the domaining side cases. And if someone says something which contradicts law or previous precendants, it needs to be corrected so people here who are researching or following along will get the correct information. what is wrong with that? This is the legal section.

If it's your own personal name, you get to keep it. First come, first served.
Why should the artist have to say he is NOT the singer on his website?
Bully tactics if you ask me. Maybe he needs money for rehab.
Do you think the singer could have deliberately tried to bid Adsense onto the site of the artist

These are the statements that were made here. And I see now why you are upset with me, one of these were your statements...

[Creature]

Creature, did you even read the statements I isolated and responded to? If you really read them, you will understand why I said that. And yes, there are people who do only look at the domaining side cases. And if someone says something which contradicts law or previous precendants, it needs to be corrected so people here who are researching or following along will get the correct information. what is wrong with that? This is the legal section.

If it's your own personal name, you get to keep it. First come, first served.
Why should the artist have to say he is NOT the singer on his website?
Bully tactics if you ask me. Maybe he needs money for rehab.
Do you think the singer could have deliberately tried to bid Adsense onto the site of the artist

These are the statements that were made here. And I see now why you are upset with me, one of these were your statements...

Thanks for that. Just to clarify, the 2 'statements' I made in your list were actually questions. I don't pretend to know the law, just find it really interesting, hence the questions rather than statements. I think there's only one solid statement in that list anyway, and that's not mine. I'm really trying to guess the link between the above statements/questions and actual cybersquatting or cybersquatters..........but I just can't see it. If it's the "thought patterns" you talk of that make someone a cybersquatter then I'm even more confused. Sorry to argue with you but there seems to be so much to argue about.

[Dale Hubbard]

If it's your own personal name, you get to keep it. First come, first served.

That was mine and I'm sticking to it. Why pull me up? Who has the hard evidence that it's being abused?

[DNQuest.com]

I think common names will have this battle more and more in the future every time a new star comes out they will want there name...etc. I believe the original Keith urban had no knowledge of Keith urban when he registered the domain and continues to not exploit his name!

Actually, if you do not use the domain in bad faith, then you have a very good chance to keep the domain, just as long as you do not use it in bad faith. On the flip side, having a Tm does not give automatic exclusive rights to any domain with the TM mark. The TM holder must prove bad faith. As far as your second statement, may I ask what you base that on? and I am reffering to "no knowledge). The only way you can know that is if you were there and know the artist personally. As far as "not exploit his name", did you mis the several references in this post where we list the adsense of the Singer? Wouldn't that be exploiting?

As far as the rap of domainers, in the real world, we are not viewed as a real business practice. We are looked down upon as creatures who try to screw over TM holders one way or another. Why do you think they have passed all the laws they did?

That was mine and I'm sticking to it. Why pull me up? Who has the hard evidence that it's being abused?

Did you read my response to that? Well, to save you time, If you use a domain in bad faith, you can lose it. This site has Adsense for the Singer. The artist clearly kept the ambiguity as to confused any visitors. I did perform my own test on this, please see my post on that. You cannot do as you please with your domain, if you break any laws, there are consequences and you can lose the domain.

[Creature]

As far as the rap of domainers, in the real world, we are not viewed as a real business practice. We are looked down upon as creatures who try to screw over TM holders one way or another. Why do you think they have passed all the laws they did?

Since my handle is 'creature', that's an interesting perspective. Anyway, I'll stand down until this case has been decided.

[Dave Zan]

May I make a suggestion here? This discussion is about one Keith Urban going
after another, so there's no need to engage in personalities.

It's all nice and dandy to believe we can do anything with the domain names
we register as we please. But that's not how it works in the real world we all
live in.

This post:

if you break any laws, there are consequences and you can lose the domain.

Practically nailed it.

Keep watching this dispute until it's concluded, and learn from it to hopefully
avoid this possibly happening to you.

[Creature]

Updates:

www.keithurban.com
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs....D=200770405027

[DNQuest.com]

The funny thing, his site still has the singers ads up. This will be interesting, but I believe the painter knew what he was doing and is now playing the ignorance card. It looks like it is going to be a bunch of fluff and use of the media for the "oh whoa is me" story and I bet this settles out of court with teh painter getting a nice cash settlement.

[Creature]

The funny thing, his site still has the singers ads up. This will be interesting, but I believe the painter knew what he was doing and is now playing the ignorance card. It looks like it is going to be a bunch of fluff and use of the media for the "oh whoa is me" story and I bet this settles out of court with teh painter getting a nice cash settlement.

I see the singer ads were somehow removed recently. Isn't that an admission of guilt?

[sashas]

Why does the fact that the owner (the painter) didn't put up a bio matter? If I own a website, its my choice to not put up personal information. There is something called right to privacy too, right? If I am a private individual and don't want to be known, I certainly have the right to keep no personal info/bio on my website. Its not some decree that everyone owning a website should put up a bio...there is no law that directs one to do that.

I don't know much about domain laws, but in my layman view, if its my domain, my property, I have the right to not put up any personal information or bio. My blog has no personal info whatsoever. Why? Because I don't want anyone to invade my privacy...

[Dave Zan]

I don't know much about domain laws, but in my layman view, if its my domain, my property, I have the right to not put up any personal information or bio.

While it's fine to adopt such a view, that means nothing when applicable laws
and legal/administrative decisions say otherwise.

Tell you what: read up your registrar's contract, Anticybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act, Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, and any other laws involving
trademarks. If you're up to it, anyway.

In this case, let's just say someone is forcing the issue in court since both of
them just can't agree. It remains to be seen what's the eventual result.

[DNQuest.com]

Why does the fact that the owner (the painter) didn't put up a bio matter?

He is claiming commercial usage, but if he would distinguish himself frm teh singer, it would help him with his story. But any normal person going to the site will be confused and think it is the singers paintings and buy them by that fact alone.

[sashas]

But don't you think that someone could counter-sue because of this compulsion to put up a bio, as it infringes on his right to privacy?

[DNQuest.com]

But don't you think that someone could counter-sue because of this compulsion to put up a bio, as it infringes on his right to privacy?

Um, correct me if I am wrong, this is the "world wide web", right? The artist chose to create the site and chose to sell items. What e has done is mislead the public, or better yet, chose not to clarify, thus could be creating confusion. The singer has TM rights and the artist knows it , the artist could have saved a lot of trouble by either putting up a disclaimer saying it was not the singers site, or he could have put up his bio, thus resolving any confusion. This is a commercial site, and in doing do, kind of puts himself into the WWW limelight. Kind of like celebs, right?

Now be honest, nobody here knew of the artist before this post. And if you went to the site, I would bet each and every one of us would have thought it was the singer's site. At that point, the artist caused public confusion and crossed into no-no law of TM law.

No he didn't want to put up a bio page, but why is that if he is trying to sell his own paintings?

[intellect]

If you name happens to be "Keith Urban" then you should not have to clarify that you are not the "Keith Urban" someone else thought you were. Trademarks need to be associated with something. If the guy was selling music cds then yes i can see a trademark conflict but oil paintings? If they guy had adsense related to the singer then i can see your points dnquest but when i looked today it was ads related to Disney World.

[DNQuest.com]

If you name happens to be "Keith Urban" then you should not have to clarify that you are not the "Keith Urban" someone else thought you were. Trademarks need to be associated with something. If the guy was selling music cds then yes i can see a trademark conflict but oil paintings? If they guy had adsense related to the singer then i can see your points dnquest but when i looked today it was ads related to Disney World.

He was selling the Singers CD's through Adsense. That has caused consumer confusion. So one sees the Singers ads, they see the paintings by the name of the singer, they buy the painting thinking it is the singer. Do you believe this is the right thing to do?