Presidential names

[domain_investor]

Sedo just wrote me and said they got a "complaint of potential trademark infringement" that I had various "JohnMcCain" or "McCain" presidential type of names. You know, like JohnMcCain08.org.

1) It's that reasonable by Sedo, and 2) is that really an infringement if they contacted me directly? I thought there was a big case where someone would not give Bush a name with his name in it.

McCain's campaign is dead anyway after his immigration stance, IMO, but I'm curious about this.

 

[DNQuest.com]

1- yes
2- could be

Usage plays an important part determining bad faith. Since you got a letter from SEDO, I will assume it is parked with ads and you have it for sale. If you had a fan-site up, that is one thing, but bad faith usage is another. Though politicians are public figures, their name could be concidered TM under certain circumstances (like in a UDRP where I feel it is pretty easy to declare TM status "for the sake of these proceedings"). He does paid speaking engements, which could be concidered commercial usage.

Much would have to do with how thye come at the subject and the opinion of a panelis/court to declare, in this case, "celeb status" Hence the name would be his TM.

EDIT TO ADD:
Was a little bored, I looked, I found a little site up this alley where a blogger posted the following....

"The whole concept of politically-oriented domain names is so interesting to me I ended up buying a few for fun and (hopefully) profit."

See in this case, the intentions and the amount of names registered that were listed could be viewed as cybersquatting practices and an outright admittance of the practice is clearly there. So whatever you do, don't do what this guy did, you would be toast. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[domain_investor]

Here's another question in a similar vein. I have several [president last name][VP first name].tld names that could have a chance of being one of the 2008 tickets. What does anyone think about this case? Consider that I had purchased the name combo before the relationship actually existed. There was no "entity" prior to my registration of the name.

 

[domaingenius]

I once got threatened by the present UK Government's lawyers that my comments on a particular domain about a specific Minister were very harsh and that they would be taking action. Soon as I told them I was going to send copy of their letter to the Press they went very quiet.

DG

 

[cyberlaw]

I think that anyone registering these types of names, no matter what the ticket, name, or otherwise, would face a very tough case if the affected campaign ever brought suit.

The only way I might see these domains staying in the original registrant's name is if the site were used as a non-profit fan site, as mentioned. It might be a closer case if the domain were used as a non-profit "[candidate]sucks" type site.

I think anything for-profit, however, would be a pretty sure loser IF the campaign actually wanted to fight about it.

 

[domain_investor]

I think that anyone registering these types of names, no matter what the ticket, name, or otherwise, would face a very tough case if the affected campaign ever brought suit.

The only way I might see these domains staying in the original registrant's name is if the site were used as a non-profit fan site, as mentioned. It might be a closer case if the domain were used as a non-profit "[candidate]sucks" type site.

I think anything for-profit, however, would be a pretty sure loser IF the campaign actually wanted to fight about it.

Eric Menhart
CyberLaw® PC
http://www.cyberlaw.pro

But the ones I'm holding are unparked and not in business use. I also purchased them prior to the entity of the "combo" existed. What you are saying would detract form a domainer buying the name to develop it, but the actual campaign might want to buy it.

 

[BELLC1]

I have BushSex.com but apparently it could have multiple meanings...

 

[cyberlaw]

You're on better ground with those facts, though I would certainly not put you in the "invincible" category. Reasoning: at its heart, you're attempting to profit on the famousness of a name or combination of names.

It's unlikely that a campaign would really fight hard over it, but if they really want to, they would certainly have a basis, if not necessarily a winner.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Everyone better read post #2 again and read the "EDIT TO ADD: " there was a reason I posted it and it is a good reason why this could be viewed as a bad faith registration, right OP?

 

[stevesko]

It might be a closer case if the domain were used as a non-profit "[candidate]sucks" type site. [/url]

What if it were a "news" site... reporting on how the candidate sucked... or making statements and asking for users to vote if they think the statement is true or not. I own a domain like that... anotherXXlie.com where the XX is a front runner (and husband is a former president)...

I was considering putting a site up but fear for my life.. they have a history of accidents happening to their "friends" ...what do they do to their enemies?

Steve

 

[domain_investor]

What if it were a "news" site... reporting on how the candidate sucked... or making statements and asking for users to vote if they think the statement is true or not. I own a domain like that... anotherXXlie.com where the XX is a front runner (and husband is a former president)...

I was considering putting a site up but fear for my life.. they have a history of accidents happening to their "friends" ...what do they do to their enemies?

Steve

HaHa...I actually published a book on "the former president" in the early 90's that in part chronicled the "accidents" that befell some enemies. I also published the Gennifer Flowers' book. I know what you mean about what you said.

But that's a good question, what if it is a news or such site, with no ads or commercial attempts whatsoever?

 

[ivoy]

IMO you have nothing to worry about. Maybe Sedo has a problem with it, but aren't they usually pretty unreasonable and unnecesarrily cautious? They were even scared to list my thenewyorgrimes(.)com and NYgrimes(.)com fearing that perhaps The New York Times would come after them... Nonsense!
Just to give you an example of how helpless a government administration is when it comes to claiming domains they wish they had, please look at bush2004.com - a spoof website openly ridiculing George Bush and his every action. This domain was very actively pursued by the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004 with offers as high as $135,000.oo - but it was not for sale!
Here's an article for the Political Wire:

Bull Market For Political Domains
Despite offers of as much as $135,000, the Internet domain name Bush2004.com is not for sale, Wired reports. The domain was snapped up by Brian Rodgers and he isn't selling it to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Said Rodgers: "He's a sorry son of a bitch and I'll do anything I can to bring him down."

"The fate of Bush2004.com is an oft-repeated example of what happens when politicians neglect to snap up websites containing common variants of their name and election year. While the Bush campaign controls many of the obvious sites, including BushCheney2004.com, GeorgeBush.com, BushforPresident and GeorgeWBush.com -- the official campaign website -- other domains, including GWBush.com and Bush2004, remain in the hands of speculators and satirists."

"These days, with campaign season in full swing, speculation in political websites has spawned its own mini industry. Banking on candidates' fears that desirable domains will wind up in the wrong hands, speculators in some cases are buying up domains containing names of prominent politicians even before their electoral intentions are made public."

 

[MobileDesigner]

hmm.. makes me wonder
i have several .com with the female candidate in it with Madam (PresidentHxxxxxxCxxxxx.com and MadamHxxxxxxCxxxxx.com, etc) nothing is on it though wondered if they or someone would buy it from me. I fear that someone could get wacked by some jackbauwer-like person if they wrote something on it that would damage their campaign.

 

[DNQuest.com]

IMO you have nothing to worry about.

Did you happen to read post #9? (Which then refers to post #2). It seems some people don't like to research so I will be a little more blunt. The OP stated his intentions to (hopefully) profit of of the name along with several others he registered. He registered the names with the intention of bad faith.

 

[ivoy]

Did you happen to read post #9? (Which then refers to post #2). It seems some people don't like to research so I will be a little more blunt. The OP stated his intentions to (hopefully) profit of of the name along with several others he registered. He registered the names with the intention of bad faith.

I am answering the person that started the thread, not your assumption-based creations. Did you happen to read post #6? - "But the ones I'm holding are unparked and not in business use..." - doesn't sound like much of profit makig to me.
And talk about research prior to voicing opinions - I actually found a specific example of a similar situation backed by articles in the press. It clearly shows that you do not necessarily need a "fan" site, which according to you would be the only way to go here. It is just fine to have a mock/satire/anti-subject type of website. It also shows that there are no ads to profit from, but at the same time it is ok to accept donations (and I know people who do profit slightly from those - it's just called differently).
I do agree that as far as website development goes, there is not much of real profit making potential here due to legal issues. But I was also suggesting that registering domains of this sort is not a crime and coud turn into a serious "profit" (what else would you call this) if you get a $xxx,xxx offer for it.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Ivory, they statement I shown IS from the the OP. His intentions are to make money from the domains. Give all the examples you wants, but in his own words, he registered them in bad faith.

 

[stevesko]

HaHa...I actually published a book on "the former president" in the early 90's that in part chronicled the "accidents" that befell some enemies. I also published the Gennifer Flowers' book. I know what you mean about what you said. /QUOTE]

Perhaps you can "add" content. That is if I work up the nerve to put up a real site. For now, it's not even parked.

NO INTEREST in making money off it. (see post 2)

Steve

 

[domain_investor]

A followup question on my domain presidential domain names. I understand that my best bet is to not park the names and to remove the listings from any broker sites like Afternic and Sedo.

The names are hosted at Godaddy and I changed the nameservers from sedo to the default Godaddy nameservers. But, this causes the pages to display ads on Godaddy's own parked pages. However, I don't make any money off them. Is this okay, or should I just point them to a hosting account of mine that will have no matching web sites, so then they will just say "page not found" or something like that. Would that be better?

 

[Brett Lewis]

First off, the cybersquatting laws only apply to domain names in which a third party owns trademark rights. Does John McCain own trademark rights in his own name? That depends. Has he used the name in commerce as an identifier of source? Being a Senator or running for Congress is not use in commerce. Has he written a book? Does he have a line of JOHN MCCAIN clothing or salad dressing? If not, chances are, John McCain lacks trademark rights in his name. I have not looked into whether John McCain actually has trademark rights in his name and have no opinion on the matter.

That said, there is another provision of the ACPA that may apply: "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." New York has a similar provision with greater damages. The statute is ambiguous enough to potentially cover domain names that are less than the full name of a living person, including a politician. Thus, as in all things ACPA, the inquiry boils down to the intent of the person registering the domain names. If you want to register a political name domain name to put up a website to support a candidate, or even to criticize a candidate, you are probably okay, but even then, public figures have filed meritless actions to acquire legitimately-held domain names. If, however, there were some indication that the domain names were held for possible sale to the politician, there could be substantial liability -- up to $100,000 per domain under the ACPA or up to $1,000 per day for those subject to New York's law.

 

[domain_investor]

Thanks Brett. That's interesting. What do you think would happen if I owned JohnSmith.com for example? With so many John Smith's just who would be able to claim the rights to the name? Surely there isn't just one John Smith that would have the legal right to it.