Person Cybersquatting People's Names - Can plaintiffs combine forces?

[Crown]

Hello,

Here is the situation:

One guy is buying the first and last name's of people in a certain industry who are are not famous but are trying to make a name for themselves on a small scale in life in their field. Most of these names are unique enough that few (sometimes no one) in the country share the name. (not a real name but make believe example: Danisha Laprot - very rare name.. not like "john smith") It's also clear who he is targeting because he takes out groups at a time.

There is a clear pattern that he is in the business of just taking people's names. He also has lost many ICAAN disputes. Most end with him never appearing but suspiciously changing the whois contact right before to a made up person with that name he makes it look to appear is in another country. He never wins these decisions. (unlikely to win even if he did ever appear)

He lives in US but isnt american. He doesnt listen to legal threats. He claims that his names arent actually his, he just puts his name up as a whois privacy shield for his customers in another country. However, years of background show he just uses that as a lame excuse.

In this case, he bought a group of friend's first and last names. All pretty unique. Everyone is upset. Paying $1500 to bring it to ICAAN each is not an option. So the main question is.... can everyone get together and dispute all 5 names against him at once? If everyone chipped in the cost of fighting would be much less. Moreover, could 100 people do this all at once if I knew of a 100 other people he is doing this to?

If not is there anything that can stop him from doing this to people? any other way to get the names back for no fees?

For now, I'm thinking... taking all his names that he owns which is MOSTLY names he is ripping off from people and then reporting each violation to his PPC company again and again until he runs out of them. However, these people still wont have their names.

Thanks for any thoughts or suggestions.

[victornumber]

I say wait until the names expire. The more you show you care, the more the person will do it.

[denny007]

certain industry...Danisha Laprot

Sounds like porn...

[eurodomain]

A good idea would be to register your own name IF YOU CARE, or to forget it if you don't.
Not likely that he will develop a SITE on the domain and so SEO for it so it would show up in Google so basically nobody will know about it, and if you didn't care to register it before - why do you care now?

And as suggested - register it next year when it expires.

[Crown]

Thank you all for your opinions on the situation. I appreciate your time. Just a quick response so that someone who can answer the question doesnt get discouraged on it being solved: the names get renewed each year (assume names registered for 10 years), its not porn (ha, funny though), and SEO and timing is not the issue. Again thanks to all who chimed in.

Looking for legal answer if plaintiffs can file dispute together for all their various names for same price so long as it is the same defendant. There are many cases in which one company pays same price for many different names against the same defendant (ex. read the lego case which was just posted).

[Doc Com]

I personally think you have very little chance.

The simple fact that someone else regged the name first is not a call to action.

There is a growing trend for people to register the names of a newborn as a "gift" and perhaps he is trying to capitalize on this.

Sounds to me that he is pissing away his money.

Why piss away yours?

[nameadvertising.com]

Buying first and last names is NOT illegal. Famous or not.

[Crown]

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it always when anyone has anything to add The person is trying to sell the names for profit. This is expressly against the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. However, I do not want to even explore that part so lets assume its completely irrelevant. I would just like to stick to the issue on ICAAN assuming we have what we need to go to a dispute. Asking domainers a way to fight a domainer may ruffle some feathers, hit close to home, and can easily go off topic, haha. So just to save the topic from going astray to a different issue:

With respect to the $1,500 fee, ICAAN - WIPO (not a court of law), can plaintiffs file a dispute together for all their various names for same price so long as it is the same defendant?

Ex. There are many cases in which one company pays same price for many different urls against the same defendant (ex. read the lego case which was just posted).

Thanks again to all who posted and anyone out there with the answer.

[denny007]

With respect to the $1,500 fee, ICAAN - WIPO (not a court of law), can plaintiffs file a dispute together for all their various names for same price so long as it is the same defendant?

There is possible to UDRP several names in one but the fee increases with more names. Also the respondent MUST BE same. Can't say if complainant can be multiple persons or not, guess not, but it could be probably done with some agency representing them and filling on their behalf. John B will know better, just wait if he popups in this thread

[victornumber]

do the person hold the names long? Is there a pattern of the person dropping it if no one shows interest?

[Cartoonz]

Originally Posted by Crown

The person is trying to sell the names for profit.

So what? I hate to be callous - and make no mistake, I am completely against TM infringement or TRUE "Cybersquatting"- but I don't see this as even remotely anything like that. Yeah, I get why you and your pals are pissed... but maybe you should have registered your own full names before? Obviously, there is more to this issue between the Registrant and your select group of people... isn't there?

Originally Posted by Crown

This is expressly against the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

Are the people that Famous? NO
Did they TM their own names? Again, NO
So... IMO,the statute you refer to doesn't even remotely apply.

Originally Posted by Crown

However, I do not want to even explore that part so lets assume its completely irrelevant.

Good... Because it IS irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Crown

I would just like to stick to the issue on ICAAN assuming we have what we need to go to a dispute. Asking domainers a way to fight a domainer may ruffle some feathers, hit close to home, and can easily go off topic, haha. So just to save the topic from going astray to a different issue:

With respect to the $1,500 fee, ICAAN - WIPO (not a court of law), can plaintiffs file a dispute together for all their various names for same price so long as it is the same defendant?

Nope.
And we obviously (us evil domainers) can tell that you are completely pissed off and not thinking very clearly even from your first post, so our feathers are not getting ruffled in the least... most of us are having a laugh.

Originally Posted by Crown

Ex. There are many cases in which one company pays same price for many different urls against the same defendant (ex. read the lego case which was just posted).

Nice try. No Soup for You.

Look, bottom line is that without a TM on the name (personal names do not automatically become TM's) or without a ridiculous level of individual Fame, you don't even have a WIPO case, it blatantly FAILS on the first test.

I could register JohnSmith.com and all the millions of John Smith's in the world can just keep wishing... WIPO isn't going to favor any of them, even though my personal name is not John Smith.

I could also register IvanpohGerveniaschnitzle.com and if some poor sap that actually is saddled with that as his personal name wants it, he isn't likely going to be able to just "take" it away, even if he wanted to.... unless he is a really famous person.

Just my opinion. Yours will most certainly vary.

I guess the REAL question is... Exactly what did your group of people do to piss this guy off?

[Crown]

Originally Posted by denny007

There is possible to UDRP several names in one but the fee increases with more names. Also the respondent MUST BE same. Can't say if complainant can be multiple persons or not, guess not, but it could be probably done with some agency representing them and filling on their behalf. John B will know better, just wait if he popups in this thread

Hmm, which each person being a part of the same agency it would be interesting to know if the agency could do that. Greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by victornumber

do the person hold the names long? Is there a pattern of the person dropping it if no one shows interest?

In some cases yes. He registered the names of each person as they joined a certain group banking on each person's fame level rising. Over time these names begin to generate traffic until he eventually writes an email requesting money for the name noting their fame and popularity would otherwise come to a halt without proper internet exposure. As the fame grows for each person the traffic grows so he'll renew them year after year.

Thanks to both of you for staying on topic and your responses.

[Cartoonz]

Too funny... because my answer doesn't pander to your way of thinking, it is "off topic" then?

...noting their fame and popularity would otherwise come to a halt without proper internet exposure

Is this the cart or the horse?

[Dave Zan]

Originally Posted by Crown

any other way to get the names back for no fees?

Other than a C&D, unfortunately no. And also look up "cyberpiracy protection
for individuals" online, though it's very specific.

After that, see a lawyer. That's what they're for when people have disputes
with others.

[Onward]

I know there are people who scout out High School Sports stars...and reg those names...or reg all the names of people auditioning for American Idol....I wonder if your situation is something like that.

I don't think there is anything you can do about it except to warn any new group members to snag their name before joining...or just ignore the guy.

Maybe instead of trying to group together and spend 5-8k on a WIPO & attorney...try to settle with him on all the names for like 2k...and then warn new members.

[Doc Com]

There are numerous cases of people winning their names. But the burden of proof can shift to the claimant (plaintiff) to show why the respondent (defender) has no rights to the name.

To say I am going to be famous one day is not much of a claim against the defender.

As for an industry sector, I work in and develop for a very niche market. Again, its a public space we are talking about, even though it is a specialized industry.

How many times have I or you seen a newly regged name and say, Dammit. Why didn't I think of that first!

Unless there is something damaging, damning, or inflamatory towards the person, I am not sure why there is cause for concern.

You can email me (at) Gerry dot mobi. The point I am trying to make is how many people named Gerry would have a claim? Or Donna. Skippy, Vickie, and so on.

Welcome to the world of domaining.

[marcorandazza]

Originally Posted by nameadvertising.com

Buying first and last names is NOT illegal. Famous or not.

Really?

Why don't you take a look at 15 USC s 1129 and tell me if it is not illegal.

And to answer the original poster's question, yes, these people could combine forces and file a claim under 15 USC 1129 and most likely prevail. They will probably only get the domain name plus their attorneys' fees, as I can't see what true damages they could prove.

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2005/0...r-individuals/

Originally Posted by Onward

I know there are people who scout out High School Sports stars...and reg those names...or reg all the names of people auditioning for American Idol....I wonder if your situation is something like that.

I don't think there is anything you can do about it except to warn any new group members to snag their name before joining...or just ignore the guy.

Maybe instead of trying to group together and spend 5-8k on a WIPO & attorney...try to settle with him on all the names for like 2k...and then warn new members.

No, this is a really bad idea.

Under the UDRP, panelists are very unpredictable when it comes to personal names. Under 15 USC 1129, the path to victory is relatively clear.

Wasting $1500 on a filing fee to most likely lose is not that great of a move. Plus, under 1129, they can get their attorneys fees back from the guy.

[Onward]

Originally Posted by marcorandazza

Really?

Why don't you take a look at 15 USC s 1129 and tell me if it is not illegal.

And to answer the original poster's question, yes, these people could combine forces and file a claim under 15 USC 1129 and most likely prevail. They will probably only get the domain name plus their attorneys' fees, as I can't see what true damages they could prove.

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2005/0...r-individuals/



No, this is a really bad idea.

Under the UDRP, panelists are very unpredictable when it comes to personal names. Under 15 USC 1129, the path to victory is relatively clear.

Wasting $1500 on a filing fee to most likely lose is not that great of a move. Plus, under 1129, they can get their attorneys fees back from the guy.

What ???? Did you read my post? Please try reading it before commenting.

[marcorandazza]

Originally Posted by Onward

What ???? Did you read my post? Please try reading it before commenting.

ooops... my bad.

[nameadvertising.com]

Hey Marc,
I was referring to single first and single last names. It IS NOT illegal to own them. Your case below may be an exception. Don't give me a case study to prove me wrong. Keep your law education to your practice. I don't need to know that. Try getting a few I have and I will make sure they will bleed. Literally!

Originally Posted by marcorandazza

Really?

Why don't you take a look at 15 USC s 1129 and tell me if it is not illegal.

And to answer the original poster's question, yes, these people could combine forces and file a claim under 15 USC 1129 and most likely prevail. They will probably only get the domain name plus their attorneys' fees, as I can't see what true damages they could prove.

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2005/03/01/§-1129-cyberpiracy-protections-for-individuals/



No, this is a really bad idea.

Under the UDRP, panelists are very unpredictable when it comes to personal names. Under 15 USC 1129, the path to victory is relatively clear.

Wasting $1500 on a filing fee to most likely lose is not that great of a move. Plus, under 1129, they can get their attorneys fees back from the guy.