Would these names result in UDRP problems?

[domainAddict]

Would ownership of american celebrity .US domains result in legal problems? IE:
GeorgeClooney.US
MichaelJackson.NET
WillSmith.US
SylvesterStallone.US

I dont own these names, just curious what might happen, since I might purchase some. I see many sites on net, using celebrity names with no problem, so I wonder..
PS: Is there difference if they are still alive or dead?

 

[RON2]

Yes, these are all UDRP bait if the celebs ever decide they want the names. And no, it's no difference if they are alive or dead (unless they've been dead for 70+ years)

Read up on the old UDRP cases involving celebrities. There are many decisions going both ways (most going back to the celebrity)

 

[DNQuest.com]

As I said in a previous post, owning famous names are not bad faith if you actually setup a "fan site. If you sell merchandise or send it to a porn site, you could easily lose it. Though 85% of the decisions goes to the famous person, but the ones that lose (15%) are because they could not prove bad faith. Celebrities are in the public eye and thier names are not a trademark. As long as you don't do anything that would "dilute" thier name, you should be ok.

I have dealt with this last year when I received a letter about a name that I have (.com at that). I wrote back to them and I haven't heard from them in over a year. And this is a pretty famous person.

Anyway, good luck to you.

 

[Ari Goldberger]

There have been a number of UDRP cases involving celebrity domains. The decisions have cut both ways. Many have gone in favor of the celebrity, however other have gone the other way: brucespringsteen.com, edwardvanhallen.com, tedturner.com, jerryfalwell.com to name a few. The best means of protection are to use these names for an unofficial fan site that clearly states no affiliation between the site and the celebrity. Even so, the celebrity is likely to eventually challenge you. As for whether it matters if they're dead or alive, the decision in AlbertEinstein.com which ruled in favor of the registrant turned, in part, on the fact that he had dead for 40+ years, as the panel felt that confusion was reduced under these circumstances. But, I wouldn't recommend you knocking off any of the celebrities mentioned in your post, as that could be considered bad faith.

 

[dvdrip]

Because of the post?

Originally posted by Ari Goldberger
But, I wouldn't recommend you knocking off any of the celebrities mentioned in your post, as that could be considered bad faith.

 

[Ari Goldberger]

That comment of mine was a joke.

 

[domainAddict]

He meant, I should not kill them

Thanks guys, been very helpfull. I will set up fansites, and write a disclaimer. Hope that will do the trick.

 

[jberryhill]

...besides, there are a number of celebrity "dead pools" on the internet that would consider it to be cheating.

The "Dead People Server" at www.deadpeople.info is very useful for those celebrities about whom you are not sure.

 

[HOWARD]

but what happens if you have HALEYOSMENT.COM who sees dead people?

 

[DNQuest.com]

Wouldn't that come under the same precedence as MICHAELJFOX.COM... he saw dead people in Frightners too.

 

[pljones]

You might want to review http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0141.html (the Peter Frampton decision) to make sure your use doesn't conflict with what happened in that case.

Where else but on the Internet can you compare 70's rocker Peter Frampton with gangsta rapper Tupac?

 

[pljones]

Oops, my previous post should have appeared on the Tupac thread. Sorry for the confusion its been a long day. But since you asked about Will Smith and Michael Jackson, the same decision applies. One other note is that Will Smith and Michael Jackson are very very common names in the US. Stallone is pretty unique (I mean really, how many other Sylvester Stallones are there in the US?). Tupac is probably as unique as well.

 

[jberryhill]

Having considered the matter for some 20 years or so, I have come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that I feel like Peter Frampton does.

Although ever since I got one of those ultrasonic toothbrushes, I can do a great impression of him in the morning.

 

[DNQuest.com]

pljones, in the Frampton case, the person who owned it used it to capture the frampton traffic to sell products. That is why he lost. If you use a famous name for a fan site, that is a different set of circumstances.

 

[Mizzoula]

Originally posted by Ari Goldberger
But, I wouldn't recommend you knocking off any of the celebrities mentioned in your post, as that could be considered bad faith.

LOL, now that's a good one

Just curious, if one gets a C&D b/c of a famous person or a trademark, and the domain is an obscure extension or anything other than dotcom for that matter, doesn't that just give the celebrity or trademark "free reservation" of the domain under any given extension regardless if they plan on utilizing it or not? So, for instance, if a company or celebrity owns their name in a dotcom and the .us tld is open, if someone registers the .us then the company or celebrity have free reign to the domain even though they didn't grab it and it was still available by all the registrars for "anyone" to register? Kind of contradicting.

 

[domainAddict]

WTF? I dont think so.. That would totally suck. I think you have right to challenge every domain you want..

 

[pljones]

DNQuest, I cited to the Frampton case with the Tupac thread in mind. With good counsel, most celebs are not going to pursue a "true" fan site. However, "fan sites" with a little extra have lost UDRP cases before. The AllanHouston.net case and the recent KevinGarnett.com decision are examples.

Whether right or wrong, celebrities have used the UDRP to go after domains identical to their personal names.

 

[Ari Goldberger]

I'll be filing a response in philcollins.com with WIPO on Thursday.

 

[Ari Goldberger]

My initial comment is that both decisions were single member decisions. If it is a real valuable domain, always go with the 3-member panel. My specific analysis of these decisions:

KEVINGANNET.COM

This case found no legitimate interest because the respondent only had an "intent" to set-up a fan site, which is consistent with several other fan decisions. You need to have the fan site. Otherwise, it's reasonable to conclude that you're just hoping to sell it someday.


ALLANHOUSTON.NET
I checked allanhouston.net on archive.org
http://web.archive.org/web/20010422004549/http://allanhouston.net/

This guy did have some content up, so I think that decision was potentially wrong. However, the site did not label itself a "Fan site," it just had some content. The decision said there was no club for people to sign up for, so maybe that would have made a difference. Also, the site did not have the magic words: "This is an UNOFFICIAL fan site which is not affiliated or endorsed by Allan Houston."

Here are some things to consider in protecting a fan site:

1- Call it a fan site
2- Prominent disclaimer at TOP of page and on every page that it is an unofficial site not affiliated with the celebrity
3- Post content and links to other fan sites
4- Do not put up any copyright images
5- Query whether or not you put up a link to the official site
6- Do not sell anything. Although some decisions have said selling authorized merchandise is entirely legit.

 

[changejobs]

Originally posted by Ari Goldberger

5- Query whether or not you put up a link to the official site

what exactly do you mean by query whether or not you put up a link to the official site.

regards
larry