Selling domain names of recognizable people

[jjfletch]

Long, long ago, like maybe five or six years, I purchased a large amount of domain names of certain political figures. The original idea was to forward these to a separate forum-based domain where the bios, political endeavors and philosophies, etc., for these particular people would be spelled out and discussed by people interested in doing so. The end site would have a forum, potentially a blog, links to other resources, and some google / amazon-related widgets to generate some ppc income.

That was the *original* plan. Then life happened... had a baby, took a different route in life, etc., and now, I'd just like to offload them for as much as I can. Some of the names are great, some not so much, but I would like to sell as many of them as I can.

My question is this: I wonder about any potential legal touchiness (although, I don't think that this breaks any laws, but things could have changed over the years...) and also how willing / open people are to buying these kinds of domains?

[myst.erio.us]

There aren't any laws that allow someone to trademark their own name. This applies in cyber-squatting cases where sometimes celebrities have shelled out big bucks to get their name dot com because they weren't able to win for cyber-squatting. The flip-side is that if you own someone's name dot com and they're a well-known person and you use the site to defame that person or what they stand for you could face libel suits, but there would be no grounds for them to take the domain.

It can be tricky as in the example of Nissan.com. The automaker has been trying to get that domain from the owner who's last name is actually Nissan and they have been unsuccessful because the current owner has proved that he doesn't use the domain for any defamation purposes or any advertising against the Nissan Company. It's an interesting case and a refreshing relief to see a big corporation not get their own way for once.

As for selling your domains, given that they're politcal figures, they might be desireable today, but not tomorrow. Either way, there shouldn't be any legal hassles with just owning and/or using the domains.

[DomainName]

There is the potential for TM violations here. Check out the WIPO case on T. Owens...football player and how he was able to get his name back. If these people are a common household name then stay away from their .com

[Gerry]

There is the potential for TM violations here. Check out the WIPO case on T. Owens...football player and how he was able to get his name back.

As well as Hillary Clinton

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/414641.htm
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2003-0463.html

[myst.erio.us]

Yes, all those cases are because the person's name was risen to trademark status due to common law. My point was only to say that generally speaking, a person's name could not be trademarked outright.

Also, it still has to be proven that the owner has no legitimate rights to the name. In the case of HilaryClinton.com, the owner was sending people to a generic search page and showing pop up windows and otherwise acting irresponsible so it was rather easy for her to win that case.

Now if someone who's name was Hilary Clinton owned the domain, they would probably still have it today as long as it wasn't used as a smear campaign against the other Hilary Clinton.

[DomainName]

Yes, all those cases are because the person's name was risen to trademark status due to common law. My point was only to say that generally speaking, a person's name could not be trademarked outright.

Also, it still has to be proven that the owner has no legitimate rights to the name. In the case of HilaryClinton.com, the owner was sending people to a generic search page and showing pop up windows and otherwise acting irresponsible so it was rather easy for her to win that case.

Now if someone who's name was Hilary Clinton owned the domain, they would probably still have it today as long as it wasn't used as a smear campaign against the other Hilary Clinton.

I don't think you're getting it Myst. If this guy owns political names then more than likely they will be household names. The only WIPO case that I know of where the owner was able to keep a household name was Madonna.com because the owners name was Madonna...other then that you can waste a ton of $ on names that will eventually be taken away from you.

If you have facts aka cases you know of where the owner was able to keep the name after a WIPO decision then please let me know.

[myst.erio.us]

I get what you're saying, but one example of someone keeping their domain is one I mentioned in another forum. The domain is Nissan.com. The owner's name is Uzi Nissan and of course Nissan Motors wants the domain and they've tried many times to get it. You can read the story here: http://nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php

This guy gets to keep his domain under some conditions including never posting an ads or links to websites defaming Nissan or selling other cars, etc.

All I was saying is that anyone can rise to the point of being a household name, but you don't always have the right to your domain name. There have been several cases in the past where celebrities have had to cough up huge amounts of money because they lost their cases. Bruce Willis was one I believe.

My full name dot com is registered by a real estate agent of the same name. If one day, I became a household name, I would not have the right to go back and "steal" his domain simply because I have more of a right to it. WIPO is simply there to determine who has more of a right and its based on whatever evidence you can provide to make such a claim. Hilary Clinton didn't have to prove much considering everyone knows who she is, but the one factor that swayed the decision is how the domain was being used. I can only speculate here, but I think that if the domain had been used in a more constructive way and/or the owner's name was actually Hilary Clinton, she would have had a much harder time and may have even lost.

I hate to think that we live in a country where any famous person or corporation can just walk in a take domains from legitimate owners because they can afford it. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully against anyone maliciously registering a domain name in order to extort huge amounts of money from a company or individual or creating a flame site to destroy an established image and reputation.

On a side note, there are domains out there that actually have trademarks in them and slam the trademark owners, but can't be touched legally because of some loopholes. Examples of these are PayPalsucks.com, BestBuysux.com and a bunch of other "...sucks.com" domains.

[Gerry]

Yes, all those cases are because the person's name was risen to trademark status due to common law. My point was only to say that generally speaking, a person's name could not be trademarked outright.

Case after case in Europe has found for the complainant, being a celebrity. There have been numerous soccer (football) players who have won their domain from domainers. Domainers have been notorious for registering the names or young promising athletes even when those athletes are in their teens.

Courts have found in favor of the athletes not so much based on trade mark status as that has nothing to do with it. What the courts are finding is that domainers are denying the athlete the right to use their own name for endorsement purposes. Most notably, the courts have found that the domainers are robbing the athlete of something that they can not have...their birthright which is the person's name.

Domainers are not only having to give up the name, but in rare instances are being fined. I am not 100% sure, but I believe some domainers have had to pay damages and restitution for making money of some of the more famous athletes names.

Trademark has nothing to do with it. Hillary Clinton and Terrell Owens are not trademarks. It is simply a matter of someone depriving them of the opportunity to use their own name. And there has already been case after case of like names being contested.

[DNQuest.com]

Trademark has nothing to do with it. Hillary Clinton and Terrell Owens are not trademarks.

Is that a definate fact? Hilary is a published author and a highly paid speaker and T.O. is an athlete who does has a commercially branded line. Additionally, celeb names have routinely been viewed as TMs in previous court and UDRP proceedings.

[domaingenius]

Is that a definate fact? Hilary is a published author and a highly paid speaker and T.O. is an athlete who does has a commercially branded line. Additionally, celeb names have routinely been viewed as TMs in previous court and UDRP proceedings.

In fact I lost a name in WIPO proceedings about 5 years ago to a guy that not many had heard of. He pleaded to WIPO that he was well known in the financial field etc etc and his BS won the day.

DG

[DNQuest.com]

Unfortunately that does happen. There was also a case where a high executive of I believe AOL lost because he did not prove his name was used in commerce (This was about 2-3 years ago). Simply, if a person uses his or her name in commerce in some fashion, they will be afforded TM protection. Especially, in UDRP, you will often see the phrase "for the sake of these proceedings, xxxxxxx will be concidered a trademark" or some form of that.

As always, it comes down to usage and if bad/good faith is established.

[Brett Lewis]

Look at my post under "Presidential Names" in this forum.

http://www.dnforum.com/f26/president...ad-251633.html

[darlanne]

I've wondered this too. I need to familiarize myself with the legalities of this area. I've owned JustinTimberlake.org for several years now and have no idea what to do with it. A similar thing happened a few years ago. I owned JC Chasez's .net and Jive Records contacted me and (nicely) requested I release it and offered to pay my Hosting/reg fees. They, at the time, had been unsuccessful in getting the owner of the .com to be in contact with them so they used my .net until they finally secured the .com.

I think it's just a case by case basis, really. Lots of gray area.

[Dave Zan]

I think it's just a case by case basis, really. Lots of gray area.

It is.

[jberryhill]

It is a case-by-case question, and UDRP decisions should not be mistaken for the trademark law of any particular jurisdiction.

Classically, a personal name can be a trademark when it is used as a trademark, and this is distinct from trademark-like rights, such as a right of publicity.

For example, Steven Spielberg is a movie director. His name crosses the line from being "just a name" to being a trademark when it is used as a designator of goods or services, such as promoting a film as "a Steven Spielberg film". The use of his name there is used as an adjective to modify the noun film. That's a trademark use, which is distinct from "a film directed by Steven Spielberg".