Personal name domains

[cndb]

Not sure if this is a question for the legal section or not, but is there any possibility of infringement with registering combinations of popular first and last names? Example: "Joe" and "Smith" in whatever extension.

Thoughts?

[cbk]

Yes in some instances of bad faith. but not good investments IMO. I see the only possibility for the reason for your post is that in hopes that all the Joe Smiths of the world would contact you to buy their name. Or even worst yet you contact all the Joes Smiths of the world to offer them their name, I wouldnt go there cndb!

[gaetanomarano]

clearly not if your name is Joe Smith while, the laws to register a name that isn't your own name, probably differs from country to country

[Gerry]

Personal name domains

If you are registering someone else's name, then it is not a personal name - it's someone else's name.

[gaetanomarano]

Personal name domains

If you are registering someone else's name, then it is not a personal name - it's someone else's name.

true

[Acro]

No problem whatsoever if your name is "Bustin Jieber"

[Mark Talbot]

*suddenly realizes the potentials for combing throug birth records for domain idea's,...*

[cndb]

Personal name domains

If you are registering someone else's name, then it is not a personal name - it's someone else's name.

I used "personal names" to avoid confusion. If I put in the subject "registering names" or "registering name domains",
then it would either appear I don't know the first thing about domaining, or I'm asking about registering at a certain registrar.

"Personal", Dictionary.com definition 7: "pertaining to or characteristic of a person or self-conscious being..."

---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

*suddenly realizes the potentials for combing throug birth records for domain idea's,...*

Hopefully, the answers in this thread will give an idea of if this is or is not a good idea. But you're basically saying the same thing I was asking, but using a different method.

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 PM ----------

No problem whatsoever if your name is "Bustin Jieber"

Somebody already had this idea apparently.

[Acro]

... or Hank Alvarez

[Mark Talbot]

I also own a couple of name dot coms, excluding my own name.

One thing for sure, make absalutely certain that there is no existing tm or industry related to the name prior to regging.

But if you own it first, and then later someone becomes famous or creates an industry related to their name, they will have to buy it from you eventually.

Unless of course you screw up and try to monetize the name dot com using their fame as a mule.
That will get you in a little hot water I would think.

---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

wanted to add that I asked a very similar question in the legal forum some time back,....
http://www.dnforum.com/f557/time-tra...ad-385820.html

and found precident already exists,...
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ns/1267051.htm

[Gerry]

I used "personal names" to avoid confusion.

Hey, we all knew what you meant. But don't let confuse the issue or take away from the fact that if it is not your name then it is not a "personal name" - it is another person's name.

You can look at the WIPO cases one after another regarding the seizure of domains registered of "personal names" that did not belong to them. Hillary Clinton comes to mind along with numerous sports stars and celebrities.

I hope the person that lost the case did not take it too personal.

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 PM ----------

But if you own it first, and then later someone becomes famous or creates an industry related to their name, they will have to buy it from you eventually.

That is not true in numerous cases. There was quite a craze several years back of regging the names of youngsters in the UK known for their football (soccer skills). Some of the kids did make it big. Lo and behold, their name is regged. Meanwhile, the registrant is making money on the athlete's name.

Judges in European courts ruled that the person regging the name not only regged it in bad faith but found that this practice "deprived" the person of their birthright - their given name.

I am sorry, I can not remember the particular case(s), but the person who owned the name, tried to sell it to the namesake, was making money on the domain name - not only was the registrant order to turn over and surrender the name they were fined for damages (which I believe was in the neighborhood of 100.000 euros or 100,000 dollars).

[Mark Talbot]

OK, so this discussion I have dwelled on for a couple of days, so I decided to read the literal text pertaining to personal names of individuals.
There is I have found specific verbage regarding the very subject of this thread.

But even though it is very clear, I am left to wonder if this only applies to trademark'd personal names used in fame? And if this is not the case, which one of the many individuals that may have the name in dispute personally, has the rights to defend their granted ownership of the one dot com domain name that can actually exist. Or is it first come, first serve.



This quote is from the U.S. Trademark Act - Title 15.

§1129. Cyberpiracy protections for individuals

(1)

In general.

(A)

Civil liability. Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person's consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil action by such person. (B)

Exception. A person who in good faith registers a domain name consisting of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, shall not be liable under this paragraph if such name is used in, affiliated with, or related to a work of authorship protected under title 17, United States Code, including a work made for hire as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code, and if the person registering the domain name is the copyright owner or licensee of the work, the person intends to sell the domain name in conjunction with the lawful exploitation of the work, and such registration is not prohibited by a contract between the registrant and the named person. The exception under this subparagraph shall apply only to a civil action brought under paragraph (1) and shall in no manner limit the protections afforded under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) or other provision of Federal or State law.

(2)

Remedies. In any civil action brought under paragraph (1), a court may award injunctive relief, including the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. The court may also, in its discretion, award costs and attorneys fees to the prevailing party. (3)

Definition. In this subsection, the term "domain name" has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1127). (4)

Effective date. This subsection shall apply to domain names registered on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [enacted Nov. 29, 1999].

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1129.html

[WhoDatDog]

Lots of horrible advice, as usual. Domain names are free to register and are available to all. Personal names are domain names. If there are 5,000 people named Joe Smith in the world and you decide you would like to buy JoeSmith.com with the hopes of making a profit by selling to a person with that name there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Take it from someone who used to have hundreds of personal names. The closer you get to unique names where there is a specific person that everyone thinks of when they hear that name AND that particular person uses the name in commerce it is when you have to worry about violating tradmarks.

You could register a politician's name if you wish. Ted Turner lost a dispute for his names years ago. An example of an obvious infringing name would be ElvisPresley.com, or for that matter ElvisPresley followed by any entension. The obvious intent there is to confuse the consumer/person visiting the page. A site at MichaelJackson.com would be fine, as long as it wasn't music related. There are many people named Michael Jackson in the world and Michael Jackson's estate would have no special claim to the name if they did not already own it.

You guys are going to have to wake up and actually pay attention to what is going on. You can read the cases that have been decided and figure it out. It is all pretty much common sense. I also see lots of jokers around here who huff and puff every single time somone registers a name that is in any way related to a current event that is not such a pleasant event, yet I never hear those same people whining about television shows doing multi-day segments on the same topic while selling advertising for the commercials that play while they talk about the flood, murder, etc.

You guys are gonna have to get your heads out of your asses and start using some common sense. Wake up and figure it out.

[gaetanomarano]

.




what about a .personal or .pn (personal name) TLD for personal domain names?



.

[cndb]

.




what about a .personal or .pn (personal name) TLD for personal domain names?



.

They already have it. It's called .Name, and it isn't really in demand.

[gaetanomarano]

They already have it. It's called .Name, and it isn't really in demand.

yes, you're right, but .pn is shorter