Scarlett Johansson Wins ScarlettJohansson.com

[Doc Com]

Not the first time and certainly not the last time we will see a celebrity win their name. Irregardless of what the previous owner did, just possessing a domain name of a famous living (or even dead) person can be cause to lose the domain in a WIPO decision.

Scarlett Johansson Wins ScarlettJohansson.com Domain Name

Actress wins domain name at WIPO.

Actress Scarlett Johansson has won rights to the domain name ScarlettJohansson.com in an arbitration decision at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Johansson has starred in numerous movies including Lost in Translation, Match Point, and The Ghost Whisperer and been nominated for several Golden Globe Awards.

The details of the domain name arbitration case are rather interesting. Apparently the owner of the domain, Tristan Dare, set up a contest on the site that invited people to win a shot at a “threesome” with Johansson. However, the threesome was actually just the chance to go to Johansson’s movie Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona with two other people. Contestants had to send an e-mail explaining why they should be the winner.

As an indication of how much traffic the domain received, Dare said the site had 100,000 visits over 4 days and 10,000 people entered the contest. It also received media attention.

Johansson had nothing to do with the contest, but Dare said an “anonymous” person e-mailed him offering $10,000 to run a campaign promoting the movie. When Dare declined, he claims the person offered $20,000. He said he wouldn’t take money because he’s an artist, but created the site as a parody for non-commercial gain. Dare didn’t provide the e-mails to the WIPO panel.

Dare is certainly a creative artist if his explanation to the panel is any indication. Among his claims were that “The “contest” reflected the Respondent’s “nihilistic” approach, and was intended to question, examine, and highlight the nature of corporate greed, whereby an “anything goes” attitude trumps anything else as long as it serves a bottom-line agenda”. He also registered the domain name with an address of “900 Pound Guerrilla Way”.

The panel didn’t buy it and handed the domain over to Johansson.

[Seraphim]

I bet every time Scarlett exits a photography studio, you can actually hear a sonic boom as she mentally downshifts from a 10 to an "out on the street 2+".

[Ownager]

Silly of him to throw that contest :p

[Azi A]

I always think of this whole misery this way.

The guy who owns the domain should get at least something for the domain. I mean it is stupid that the guy registers the name and gets nothing because of some law.

I mean Scarlett is RICH we all know it, for her to give the guy $100 is no big deal, why be so hard on some DOMAINERS. I mean with all honesty if I were Scarlett and someone had my domain I wouldn't even bother going through all the issues, I will just pay the person. Of course if the price is reasonable but again if you are making millions a year $500-$5k is not much..

my 2 cents..

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Azi A

give the guy $100 is no big deal, why be so hard on some DOMAINERS.

I am sure Google, Microsoft, and every other TM holder would agree with you.

Court after court has awarded domain names to the person...Hillary Clinton won hers...and European courts have been particular hard on domainers who have star athletes' names.

They find that the name is a birthright granted by their parents. And that a domain holder deprives them of that birthright not to mention the millions $$$ of potential endorsements.

A couple of years ago I read an article of how common it was to reg the name of a potential football star (soccer) even when the kid was 14 or 15 years old.

One such star (I can not remember the name) had his name regged by a brit for at least 10 years or so. Not only as the name awarded to the star but also monetary damages.

The guy who regged this name should be thankful it was done on the WIPO level and not in a circuit court.

[allanh]

how can anyone say they have the birth-given right to any name? There could be hundreds of people of people in this world named " Scarlett Johansson ".

A famous "Scarlett Johansson" doesn't mean she has more right to that name than any others.

[Azi A]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

I am sure Google, Microsoft, and every other TM holder would agree with you.

Court after court has awarded domain names to the person...Hillary Clinton won hers...and European courts have been particular hard on domainers who have star athletes' names.

They find that the name is a birthright granted by their parents. And that a domain holder deprives them of that birthright not to mention the millions $$$ of potential endorsements.

A couple of years ago I read an article of how common it was to reg the name of a potential football star (soccer) even when the kid was 14 or 15 years old.

One such star (I can not remember the name) had his name regged by a brit for at least 10 years or so. Not only as the name awarded to the star but also monetary damages.

The guy who regged this name should be thankful it was done on the WIPO level and not in a circuit court.

Dear
All I wanna say is that, if you are a Millionaire, making a killing, we all know Scarlett does make load of cash, what will she lose if she pays the guy some cash. Things could get serious if the domainer wants way too much for it. But I guess 5k is worth it, if you want your name you pay the guy who was smart enough to grab it.

Further like another member said, how come she has right to own it from birth? lol there are many Scarlett Johansson.

I am a Domainer and to be honest I will always give the Domainers side, no matter what, this is after all a business, everything is far in love and war, and Domaining business is kinda war.

I think those that grab celeb names are smart people, and celebs who cant even pay the domainer some $$ for the domain they are really jerks..

my 2 cents..

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by allanh

how can anyone say they have the birth-given right to any name? There could be hundreds of people of people in this world named " Scarlett Johansson ".

A famous "Scarlett Johansson" doesn't mean she has more right to that name than any others.

Apparently the court decides. But I am sure they also factor in who the person is and if someone else is profiting from that person's name.

Can you imagine the name Michael Jordon? There are perhaps thousands of them. But, if you have the name and are using it as a means of profiting off someone else's good fortune, I would I imagine that comes into play in the decision making process.

Someone naturally born person who happens to be named Scarlett Johansson or Michael Jordon in possession of the name perhaps has a stronger case against taking the name away.

[DNBA]

some actors dont even use their birth given name. The owners mistake was to associate the name to the actor.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Azi A

Dear
All I wanna say is that, if you are a Millionaire, making a killing, we all know Scarlett does make load of cash, what will she lose if she pays the guy some cash. Things could get serious if the domainer wants way too much for it. But I guess 5k is worth it, if you want your name you pay the guy who was smart enough to grab it.

Further like another member said, how come she has right to own it from birth? lol there are many Scarlett Johansson.

I am a Domainer and to be honest I will always give the Domainers side, no matter what, this is after all a business, everything is far in love and war, and Domaining business is kinda war.

I think those that grab celeb names are smart people, and celebs who cant even pay the domainer some $$ for the domain they are really jerks..

my 2 cents..

well, my 2 cents wishes you well in your domain quest.

I am a Domainer and to be honest I will always give the Domainers side, no matter what, this is after all a business,


Did you ever give thought that perhaps a WIPO panel would have nothing to do if it were not for domainers regging such names?

Naw, not an issue is it.

Originally Posted by alldrop-com

some actors dont even use their birth given name. The owners mistake was to associate the name to the actor.

That perhaps was the domain owners mistake.

Best to lay low.

Originally Posted by Azi A

I think those that grab celeb names are smart people, and celebs who cant even pay the domainer some $$ for the domain they are really jerks..

I hope you don't plan on using this defense on your own behalf in the future.

Let us know how this works out for you.

[jberryhill]

I can never understand why every time some celebrity wins an uncontested WIPO decision, it gets a lot of press.

It's like running a headline for "Scientists Determine Water Is Wet" every three months.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

I can never understand why every time some celebrity wins an uncontested WIPO decision, it gets a lot of press.

It's like running a headline for "Scientists Determine Water Is Wet" every three months.

We are a culture obsessed with celebrities.

[EnricoSchaefer]

how can anyone say they have the birth-given right to any name? There could be hundreds of people of people in this world named " Scarlett Johansson ".

And each one would have a viable defense under the UDRP. But this registrant wasn't named Scarlett Johansson and was clearly trying to derive financial benefit off the celebrity of that name. That makes it cybersquatting.

[dadster]

Actually the name 'Michael Jordon' would not be a violation if you are referring to the basketball legend Michael Jordan - unless of course he has rights to other different spellings of his last name.

[mulligan]

All I can say is ... Whoohoo .. gime some lovin of ov the back of that WIPO (Hang on, anybody got an email for Scarlett and an English to Danish dictionary?)

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by dadster

Actually the name 'Michael Jordon' would not be a violation if you are referring to the basketball legend Michael Jordan - unless of course he has rights to other different spellings of his last name.

My bad. Misspelling.

JORDON is the spelling of one of my buddys in Ethiopia at present.

JORDAN is the legend.

However, if the registrant was parking and monitizing based on the basketball star I would imagine that would also be deemed "in bad faith" and the same cybersquatting would apply to this as would MicroSofft.com, Gooogle.com.

If you have the keywords set up to the real deal and links point to that actual known site or name most likely it would be lost in a WIPO decision.

[PokerPie]

I would give up every domain I own to spray my java script all overScarlettJohansson.com

[DomainsInc]

I wonder if another person with the same name were to give her a wipo for the domain, would they lose?

[marcorandazza]

Yes they would.

First off, no matter what the other person argued, Scarlett Johansson would still have legitimate rights to the domain name. End of case.

[Carter]

Scarlett Johansson = hot chick