Registering famous peoples names

[nstephens2k3]

I was wondering what the issues and legalities are when registering a famous persons name as a dot com. (example: firstnamesecondname.com).

If the domain name hasn't been taken and you registered it, what are the chances that the famous person (or associates) will contact you and demand that you hand it over to them, or sell it at a very low price - obviously threatening lawsuit action.

Which brings me to my final question - is it worth (the hassle) registering a famous persons name.com? No hyphons - pure and simple firstnamesecondname.com.

Look forward to reading your replies - thanks!

[EnricoSchaefer]

Not recommended. Could expose you to substantial liability.

Personal and Proper Names Protected Under Cybersquatting Act

[DDC_Cyn]

It's done all the time for fan sites, but as mentioned above, it's pretty easy for the name owner to take the name away anytime they want. I'm always surprised by actors and athletes, etc who don't own their own name. It's a cheap investment in your own career and it keeps others from exploiting it.

[fab]

Try looking here:
http://www.dnforum.com/f26/famous-pe...ad-303365.html
BTW, the picture is not mine, it's my son-in-laws. He's the famous one.

[marcorandazza]

Under the UDRP, if you register a famous person's name, that generally means you registered it in bad faith -- but not always. I have listed some decisions here:

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/0...-and-the-udrp/

The decisions are pretty inconsistent, but a *legitimate* fan site might be okay. However, if you are simply buying the domain as a good investment, that is probably bad faith.

Here is where you can get into real hot water: As Enrico pointed out above, the Salle v. Meadows case (which I handled) resulted in a pretty large attorneys' fees award against the defendant under 15 USC Sect. 1129. However, had the plaintiff been famous or well-known, it also would have resulted in cyberpiracy damages ($1,000 to $100,000) under 15 USC Sect 1117(d).

Finally, although Salle v. Meadows says that 1117(d) damages are not available to a plaintiff just because the domain was his personal name, the language in Section 1125(d) (the cybersquatting statute) suggests another interpretation.

Consider a "famous name" to be that famous person's trademark.

[carlton]

It's great to see the right conclusions and advice being offered in this thread. Goes to show how valuable a site like this can be when you have well-educated members sharing knowledge & experience. A definite advantage to the industry, and especially helpful to new domainers, when important guidelines get explained in this way.