legal exercise

[draqon]

this is strictly an intellectual exercise, not a practical question, for reasons that are too complicated to explain in one sentence.

Anyway:

Lets say that a person has a domain name in the form of [CelebrityName].com like KevinCostner.com etc. Lets say the owner of the domain contacts the celebrity's agent, and informs him that he is willing to sell the domain name to the celebrity for one dollar, in exchange for the celebrity phoning two of the domain owner's friends for a couple minutes per phone call. Is this bad faith registration/usage or not? On one hand, UDRP policy allows people to "sell" domain names to trademark owners for equal or less than the cost of the registration, without it being bad faith. On the other hand, perhaps a person could argue that the phone call increases the "value" of the deal to the point where it exceeds registration fees, thereby rendering the transaction in bad faith.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that the current usage of the domain was for a non-commercial fan site for the celebrity, in good faith.

[HOWARD]

Interesting question and novel approach. If this web site has indeed been used as a fan site and in good faith, then the "cost" of transference to the celebrity cannot be measured in dollars and cents and , in fact, helps to enhance the celebrity's image which was the reason for the site in the first place. It could therefore not be considered an offer to sell in bad faith.

[jberryhill]

Attitude is everything. I am aware of a number of situations where celebrities and their agents have been genuinely wonderful once they realize, despite an initial suspicion, that a domain registrant was doing them a favor by reserving a domain name for them.

Autographed pictures, for example, are a valuable token of appreciation in such circumstances.

[dtobias]

Originally posted by jberryhill
Attitude is everything. I am aware of a number of situations where celebrities and their agents have been genuinely wonderful once they realize, despite an initial suspicion, that a domain registrant was doing them a favor by reserving a domain name for them.

On this issue, see my article: "I Cybersquatted Her, and She Thanked Me For It!"

[dtobias]

Originally posted by draqon
For the sake of argument, lets assume that the current usage of the domain was for a non-commercial fan site for the celebrity, in good faith.

Then it would, of course, be in an appropriate TLD for such a noncommercial site, like .org or .info, and the issue of "cybersquatting" the .com name wouldn't come up!

[GeorgeK]

.org doesn't have to be non-commercial. .com can be non-commercial, if the domain holder wishes.

[Banned: nicpal]

Once again, JBerryhill is right. It definitely matters how you approach the situation. The nicer the better. I have received everything from autograph jerseys to tickets to sporting events. You'll get the occasional person who is not so happy with your registration, but just be cordial and it will be an amicable transaction.

[Ovicide]

Then it would, of course, be in an appropriate TLD for such a noncommercial site, like .org or .info, and the issue of "cybersquatting" the .com name wouldn't come up!

Please read:

http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm#G
"In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four have limited purposes."

http://www.internic.net/faqs/domain-names.html
"The .com, .info, .name, .net, and .org TLDs are open and unrestricted."

[dtobias]

Some other reading:

http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc1591.html
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies.

[Ovicide]

Originally posted by dtobias
Some other reading:

http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc1591.html
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies.

I believe I understand your point, however that page is ten years old, and is hosted at Ohio State University. More authoritative sources are www.icann.org and wipo.int.

My understanding is that using a .org to infringe someone's mark doesn't offer much protection.

See: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2000-1277.html
Discussion and Findings: "...because .net and .org were not restricted gTLDs, many commercial enterprises have registered domain names in that space, just as many non-commercial entities have registered ".com" domain names."

[dtobias]

Originally posted by Ovicide
My understanding is that using a .org to infringe someone's mark doesn't offer much protection.

See: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2000-1277.html
Discussion and Findings: "...because .net and .org were not restricted gTLDs, many commercial enterprises have registered domain names in that space, just as many non-commercial entities have registered ".com" domain names."

On the other hand, there are the occasional panelists that actually have a clue about the distinction between the TLDs...

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/95250.htm
"The top-level domain "org" customarily is in usage by non-profit or "miscellaneous" entities and not by a supermarket chain such as Complainant’s."

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/102817.htm
"Since there is a greater possibility that <.info> domain names are registered for non-business & non-commercial purposes such as dissemination of useful information unlike <.com> and <.biz> used for business & commercial purposes, necessity of layperson's free use shall be considered as well as protection of a specified person’s exclusive right in interpreting 'Legitimate Interests' or 'Bad Faith.'"

[JuniperPark]

I bought Dumbstick.com in hopes of hearing from Lucy Leu (It's a term she uses to refer to the 'thinking part' of a man in Ally McBeal). Does that count?