KeithUrban.com Fight: Singer vs. Artist

[radioz]

It seems that an oil paint artist named Keith D. Urban register 'KeithUrban.com' in 1999. He uses it as a place to showcase and sell his art. The contry music singer Keith Urabn has decided that he's done great 'harm' to him and is suing him for the name AND monitary damages.

Here's the article:

http://www.NashvilleCityPaper.com

 

[BELLC1]

It seems that an oil paint artist named Keith D. Urban register 'KeithUrban.com' in 1999.

This one will be interesting to see the results of. I wonder if there was any offers to purchase or offers to sell before the lawyers got involved.

 

[Scott]

From what I can tell the painter registered the .com before the singer registered the .net; looks to me like a "bully" move.

Too bad the singer can't get the check book out and make the painter an offer too good to refuse.

 

[DNQuest.com]

From what I can tell the painter registered the .com before the singer registered the .net; looks to me like a "bully" move.

Too bad the singer can't get the check book out and make the painter an offer too good to refuse.

Actually, this has been discussed on another board. By in short, the domain was registered in 2000, The Singer broke into the biz in 1997 with The Ranch, and his first solo CD was 1999. So he can clearly establish in common law TM. Now if you look at the site, The Artist does nothing to show who he actually is and I strongly beleive he has intentionally set it up to keep ambiguity (sp) about the site, hence to mislead people thinking that it could be The Singer. All you have to do is read his site:

You have reached the site of Keith Urban

To Those Who Don't Know, Oil Painting
Is One Of My Hobbies. To View Some
Of My Work Please Enter My Virtual Gallery

He has no bio up stating who he is and no disclaimer that he is not The Singer. He is using the site for commercial gain, but it will come down to if The Singer proves that he is misleading or confusing the public into thinking the site is The Singers. That is deceptive practices. You will also see that the Adsense DOES refer to the singer.

Keith Urban Tour Dates
Ticket info & a chance to win an autographed pair of Keith's Jeans!
www.keithurban.net

Keith Urban
Buy Keith Urban Concert Tickets. Where Fans Buy & Sell Tickets.™
www.StubHub.com



Ads by Goooooogle

 

[Creature]

He has no bio up stating who he is and no disclaimer that he is not The Singer.

Why should the artist have to say he is NOT the singer on his website? Surely the artist doesn't have to explain his own name. Also, I see no mention of music on the KeithUrban.com site that might mislead a user. Therefore (on the face of it) I really can't see the artist losing his domain name.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

No reason for the artist to say anything. It's his own real name and he's doing business under it. End of. My surname is 'Hubbard'. What if my first names were 'L. Ron'? And you don't establish a common law TM by virtue of the use of a domain name that reflects your real own name. If it's your own personal name, you get to keep it. First come, first served.

 

[Creature]

You will also see that the Adsense DOES refer to the singer.

Ah........I just noticed this.........so I'm less optimistic for the artist.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

No singer ads from the UK. Anyway, what does that have to do with the price of fish?

 

[dcristo]

Bully tactics if you ask me. Maybe he needs money for rehab.

 

[Creature]

Do you think the singer could have deliberately tried to bid Adsense onto the site of the artist (as I think the complainant did in the Pig .com case) ?

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Well, he can't directly manipulate keywords so I'd guess the answer is "no".

 

[dcristo]

Well, he can't directly manipulate keywords so I'd guess the answer is "no".

No you can't, but if your bidding on the same keyword as the domain, there's a very good chance you'll be featured in the ad inventory of the site.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

No you can't, but if your bidding on the same keyword as the domain, there's a very good chance you'll be featured in the ad inventory of the site.

Fair point, but I think that's highly unlikely in this case.

 

[Creature]

Checking archive.org.........looks as though the Adsense is a recent addition and so perhaps that's the reason for the timing of this dispute.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I'm going to get heat for this post, but here it goes...

There is a reason why domaining has a bad rep, it is thought patterns as some above where they think from only one point of view regardless of the facts. We have gotten slammed because of cybersquatters and LAWS have been passed to curb the practice of cybersquatting. Squatting is well defined and myself and others come on this board to help with the knowledge we have. I am not lawyer but I have studied the subject. But there are lawyers here who do post and try to direct us in the right direction. This is all done with out of the love of the domaining game, not because anyone is looking to make a buck. We help as best as possible and try to guide people in the right direction.

Then you have these "domaineers" (and I will use it loosely because there are "domaineers" here that are in fact cybersquatters or at least push the envelope) who post with knee jerk reactions and personal opinions even though laws and precedents say otherwise. So someone new to the board will only read what they want and think what they are doing is ok. This is why I post, to make sure the proper information is presented. So when the reaction is defend the domain owner without looking at the facts and using common sense, that hurts our community and then a back and forth posting fight goes on. More people seem more worried aobut personal agendas than they do about what is right and wrong.

Why should the artist have to say he is NOT the singer on his website?

It is called deception, that is why.

If it's your own personal name, you get to keep it. First come, first served.

As long as you don't break any laws. In this case, if he is using deceptive practices, then he can lose it.

Bully tactics if you ask me. Maybe he needs money for rehab.

Maybe the artist wants to protect his name ti which he has every right. Maybe you like to post to see your name up on the board.

Do you think the singer could have deliberately tried to bid Adsense onto the site of the artist

Why would he want to do this? But to inject some reality, the Singer ads were up when adsense was put up. Do you think the Singer ask the Artist to put up Adsense so he could have his ads there?????



I apologize for the rant again, but sometimes domaineers have no sense of common sense.

 

[Fearless]

Checking archive.org.........looks as though the Adsense is a recent addition and so perhaps that's the reason for the timing of this dispute.

He's making more off of Adsense than his paintings. He needs it for lawyer fees.

 

[Creature]

I'm going to get heat for this post

I’m glad you think so.

There is a reason why domaining has a bad rep, it is thought patterns as some above where they think from only one point of view regardless of the facts. We have gotten slammed because of cybersquatters and LAWS have been passed to curb the practice of cybersquatting. Squatting is well defined and myself and others come on this board to help with the knowledge we have.

What does that mean? Check your first post in this thread. It’s one-sided and your facts are all wrong. Anyway the ‘bad rep’ has probably got more to do with “bad-faith” intent to profit from the benefits of trademark belonging to someone else. Not some thought patterns on a forum.

Ref: http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section_id=9&screen=news&news_id=54493

By in short, the domain was registered in 2000, The Singer broke into the biz in 1997 with The Ranch, and his first solo CD was 1999.

The domain keithurban.com was registered in May 1999 and not 2000 as you say DNQuest. That was before the November 1999 release of the debut US album.

Ref: http://whois.domaintools.com/keithurban.com
Ref: http://www.amazon.com/Keith-Urban/dp/B00003WGDZ

The singer broke into the biz in 1990 and not 1997 as you say DNQuest. Urban signed with EMI in Australia and recorded his first solo album, which charted four No. 1 country hits in Australia.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Urban
Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/snc/stories/s1310341.htm

I am not lawyer but I have studied the subject. But there are lawyers here who do post and try to direct us in the right direction. This is all done with out of the love of the domaining game, not because anyone is looking to make a buck. We help as best as possible and try to guide people in the right direction.

Funny, I really thought that you might be a lawyer until I read this post. Perhaps we should make a clear distinction between lay people who have studied the law, and the qualified lawyers.

Then you have these "domaineers" (and I will use it loosely because there are "domaineers" here that are in fact cybersquatters or at least push the envelope) who post with knee jerk reactions and personal opinions even though laws and precedents say otherwise.

You describe yourself. Knee jerk reactions and personal opinions. Rude of you to insinuate that other members posting here are cybersquatters, just because they have a one-sided opinion here.

So someone new to the board will only read what they want and think what they are doing is ok. This is why I post, to make sure the proper information is presented.

Evidently you don’t necessarily need to be new to the board to get all the facts wrong and only read what you want to read.

I apologize for the rant again, but sometimes domaineers have no sense of common sense.

Sounds like you have an over-inflated ego at the moment.

 

[leo]

Where is my popcorn

 

[Dave Zan]

Where is my popcorn

opcorn:

Anyone else want some? (especially the lawyers around here...)

 

[BELLC1]

Glad my name isn't BobbySmith.com - Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of Bobby Smith's there are? There is 12 in my rural community alone. And it would be real fun listing all the other Bobby Smith's on my website to avoid confusion with those outside my sphere of influence and notoriety. Come to think of it, one paints (houses) and another is in a band.

Who got it first? Who cares. The other Keith could have bought it first but didn't. Maybe he should just share Nicole's website. Personally, I never heard of singer Keith Urban until I saw this thread. But then again, I think I did hear of a painter by that name...