Names of famous people domains

[catchmesleeping]

Is there any rule of thumb about registering domains names of famous people? For example, the domain name HinesWard.net is expiring from GoDaddy:

https://auctions.godaddy.com/trpItem...=hinesward.net

... same for names of famous actors, politicians, etc. Can you register these kinds of names without fear that you'll eventually be stripped of them?

thanks!

[Cartoonz]

without fear?
...not if you are a sane person.

[Mark Talbot]

Only if you own it BEFORE they become famous, and they trademark their name.

Even then,...

[dmyre]

Save your money...

[urlurl]

not worth the risk (unless its your name)

[Acro]

You can change your name to that name you're trying to register. Hey, that's not a bad idea

[urlurl]

you could, but the content on the site would have to be about you (not as interesting) and not about the celeb or youwould be back to square one.

[bigboydog_0]

do not buy

[catchmesleeping]

Thanks for the fast feedback on this - I definitely won't be changing my name to 'Hines Ward'

[katherine]

If you develop a fan site you may be 'safe'.
Look up WIPO for past cases.

Now anybody can sue about anything, there is no guarantee you will never be hit with a complaint one day.
These names are TMs and carry a certain level of risk.
IMO these names are not worth the hassle in general.

[wantedfree]

You need to be careful with the DMCA rules - they can take that domain away from you if they're really anal about it.

[Dave Zan]

You need to be careful with the DMCA rules - they can take that domain away from you if they're really anal about it.

DMCA could work on the domain name's web site content, if any, depending on what's in there. If you mean the act of registering a domain name bearing that famous person's name, DMCA doesn't apply.

After all, DMCA means Digital Millennium Copyright Act. There's no "T" for Trademark in it.

[Maxwell]

Do not take this as legal advice.

It's my opinion that in this particular case, you ought to save yourself the time and the money.

However, in general, it depends. To be more specific, it depends on how serious your "target" is about their name, and how serious YOU are about using your first amendment rights to defend your ownership of the domain name.

What determines each of these is a deeper level of dependence. Namely, how much the "target" relies on their name, and how much you rely on being able to own the domain name consisting of said name.

If they've sent you a cease and desist letter, or attempted to take you to WIPO over it, they obviously rely on their name to great enough of an extent that you really need to be serious about keeping it.

Using the example of Hines Ward, this would be VERY difficult to defend, as it's an uncommon name, and therefore you would have a harder time pulling the "common name" argument.

If I were you, and the name in question was truly worth the battle for (i.e. keeping it will generate a justifiable volume of revenue, or is likely to result in a worthwhile settlement from your adversary), you may want to consider setting up a fan site which acknowledges, and is in line with, the intellectual property which is that person's name, but as a very key point, does not profit off of things relating specifically to that mark.

A perfect example of this is the ladygaga.org case in September... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...l-fight-239805

The owner of this name was able to retain ownership as it was merely a fan site, perfectly acceptable within free speech, but no wares of any sort were being offered with respect to Lady Gaga's name. Therefore, no infringement was found.

The NAF decision can be found here: http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ns/1403808.htm

(pretty cool name that respondent has, isn't it?)

So, to specifically address this situation, forget about it. It's not worth it, especially because from a demand standpoint, the way traffic is driven in relation to football players is much different from that of recording artists such as Lady Gaga.

[Tim Schoon]

I would only buy such a domain if it would be a historical figure/icon who doesn't live anymore. That way you could build an informative/biography page. For example AlbertEinstein dot com.
Most other cases aren't worth the risk to me, so I'd simply stay away.

[eeedc]

I would only buy such a domain if it would be a historical figure/icon who doesn't live anymore..

The state and country laws are different, but you have to wait quite a few years, decades.
For example, GeoregWashington.com, like GeorgeWashington Widgets would be safe, but
I don't think AlbertEinstein has been dead long enough (James Dean still gets royalties under USA/CA law)
I don't think it's worth the trouble or legal fees, and any buyer will also not want the trouble.

Maxwell, above, has identified a fair use exemption, and even though they won, they did get sued. They might have been better off with GagaFanClub.

[BacklinkMafia]

Despite all the shortcomings, I like the idea of registering domains names of famous people