TomCruise.com UDRP

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

It looks like Tom Cruise is finally going after the TomCruise.com domain name at WIPO:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/cases/2006/d0400-0599.html
http://arbiter.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/CaseCatReport?lang=eng&case_id=9040

The Respondent is none other than Alberta Hot Rods, who we've discussed before, e.g.

http://www.dnforum.com/f26/upcoming...zureus-com-knot-com-others-thread-145353.html

in relation to their upcoming JeffreyArcher.com UDRP, and their past famous wins and losses.

I'll predict that this won't be a "Mission Impossible" for Tom, and that he'll be victorious in this battle.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/20/south_park_repeat/

"but the million-year war for earth has just begun!" :laser:

 

[GeorgeKGeorgeK is verified member.]

Tom wins!

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0560.html

 

[Luc]

Thanks for the update George. Interesting read.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Good call, George.

 

[jdk]

Nice read. Very informative and I learned a few things I didn't know before the read.

 

[Ian]

yea, quite tough ruling!!

 

[beatz]

I find this commentary quite interesting:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/23/tom_cruise_dotcom_win

While i do not support "cybersquatting" per se, i think the panel's reasoning is not convincing really.The 2 factors they put the most focus on are the ones that should not have played a role at all in this case, i.e respondent's history of similar cases and the fact the site used 3d-party ads and making money with it.

 

[simon]

nice read, thanks

 

[DNQuest.com]

While i do not support "cybersquatting" per se, i think the panel's reasoning is not convincing really.The 2 factors they put the most focus on are the ones that should not have played a role at all in this case, i.e respondent's history of similar cases and the fact the site used 3d-party ads and making money with it.

Why should it not play a role? I am real interested to hear the reasoning behind that statement. As I have sated many times here, you make money, you make the domain commercial use. As far as pattern, it goes to the sincerity of the respondant. A true fan is a true fan, but stock piling domains and claiming "fansite" is another story. This guy is not a fan, he is making money off ads and the panel scored it correctly.

 

[MikeinFlorida]

Thanks for the info George. Now I wonder if Tom will put the name up for auction and donate the funds to his church? -- just a thought.

 

[Theo]

Tom responded by jumping up and down the couch:

"I LOVE THIS DECISION!"

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

Tom responded by jumping up and down the couch:

"I LOVE THIS DECISION!"

:whoo:

 

[carlton]

In a sense, celebrity names are not too different from trademarked company names. Celebrities sometimes form production companies that are built on the fame and credibility the star has developed. While I never thought about it, I would assume some other non-famous Tom Cruise would have succeeded in UDRP for obvious reasons (legitimate rights in his own name).

 

[DNQuest.com]

Celebrities names are their TM. They use their name in commerce to generate revenue. With the analogy of "non-famous" Tom Cruise, that is a different story. 1 - the non famous Tom could not claim TM status. (no one knows him) 2 - Could not prove the domain was registered in bad-faith since no one knows about non-famous Tom. 3 - How is non-famous Tom hurt? It isn't like you are diverting traffic from him.

 

[cursal]

Originally Posted by beatz

While i do not support "cybersquatting" per se, i think the panel's reasoning is not convincing really.The 2 factors they put the most focus on are the ones that should not have played a role at all in this case, i.e respondent's history of similar cases and the fact the site used 3d-party ads and making money with it.

DNQuest:

Why should it not play a role? I am real interested to hear the reasoning behind that statement. As I have sated many times here, you make money, you make the domain commercial use. As far as pattern, it goes to the sincerity of the respondant. A true fan is a true fan, but stock piling domains and claiming "fansite" is another story. This guy is not a fan, he is making money off ads and the panel scored it correctly.

DNQuest:

Celebrities names are their TM. They use their name in commerce to generate revenue. With the analogy of "non-famous" Tom Cruise, that is a different story. 1 - the non famous Tom could not claim TM status. (no one knows him) 2 - Could not prove the domain was registered in bad-faith since no one knows about non-famous Tom. 3 - How is non-famous Tom hurt? It isn't like you are diverting traffic from him.

@ DNQuest : Couldn't agree more.

The ruling is corrent IMO.


Nice prediction George

 

[ptesite]

I can't believe they didn't touch on the argument that Cruise isn't his legal last name. Granted, it is his professional name, however he is Thomas Cruise Mapother IV.

WIPO, in my opinion, erred in this ruling.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Ok, what does that have to do with anything? You do realize it is about TMs and demonstrated bad faith, right? So why should his legal name matter?

For what reason do you believe they erred?

 

[labrocca]

I can't believe they didn't touch on the argument that Cruise isn't his legal last name. Granted, it is his professional name, however he is Thomas Cruise Mapother IV.

WIPO, in my opinion, erred in this ruling.

If anything that shows he does have a TM. It's his creation.

 

[Dave Zan]

I can't believe they didn't touch on the argument that Cruise isn't his legal last name. Granted, it is his professional name, however he is Thomas Cruise Mapother IV.

But people know him as Tom Cruise. It doesn't matter that's not his real
name, what matters is he's poured time, money, and effort "building his brand".

The registrant got a free ride from his "brand" until TC finally decided enough
is enough.