Would these names result in UDRP problems?

[Ari Goldberger]

Yeah. I saw that as ambiguous right after I hit submit.

I meant that I'm not yet sure if that's a good idea. I think it is, since you're making it clear you're unofficial and, hey, if you want the official site, here it is... But, I'm not convinced that it might not end up being used against you.

 

[pljones]

Ari, thanks for keeping us informed on the PhilCollins.com case, it should be an interesting decision.

Generally I agree with your recommendations on fan sites. If the sites are kept as a true "fan site" as you recommend, then the celebs generally will not have a problem with the site unless they want to own/control it for themselves. If the registrant fan site operator starts selling goods, using copyrighted material, etc., expect a fight and expect to lose based on the large number of decisions in favor of sports personalities and celebrities.

 

[Ari Goldberger]

But what about the fan site selling authorized goods without using unauthorized copyright material. I think Tupac.com said it was ok to sell authorized materials. The celebrity is getting the same royalties from the sale as it would through any sale, so what's the harm?

 

[izoot]

Tupac is also dead...so the vanity aspect is not as strong.

( Meaning ) Tupacs family may not feel as strongly about using Tupac.com as Tupac himself would have if he was around..he definately had an ego as alot of big stars do.

Also if the Family/Celeb was running the fan site that sold goods...they would make licensing fees and profit on sales as well as any affiliate money. Where as if they didn't run the site they get only licensing fees. The $$ loss could be substantial.

So while a fan running the site may not harm the celeb by selling authorized good....He does limit the potential profit that the celeb could make if they owned the site themselves. That could be considered harm...at least I would feel harmed if someone had their hand in my pocket.

My 2¢

 

[domainAddict]

But the fansite operator has expenses as well. Somehow he has to cover the bandwidth and hosting bills, so I guess Affiliate links to Authentic goods shouldnt be problem. If they use that against you, its just lame. Judges should consider it from this aspect as well.. I can be fan for free, but being a fan wont pay my hosting bills.

 

[domainAddict]

BTW: Thanks Ari and all you guys for participating and developing this thread. Lots of interesting info..

 

[izoot]

Theres always freeservers.com.

 

[avs162]

could a querry such as the above be used to show dissodence or
malicious intent as post buy and these results will show in google sometimes.

would think general querrys might be more suitable for public forum but would be good to know if can be used or not

 

[jberryhill]

Minor legalese note: "query X" is used as shorthand in discussions of legal issues to say "there is an issue here".

What law school does is to take good, decent human beings and turn them into paranoid pessimists who are good at seeing where there is a potential "problem" or area for argument. That skill is called "issue spotting".

An example would be a federal tax final exam I had in which most of the questions related to a long and tortured story of a man who made a lot of money via illegal gambling, used the proceeds to maintain a mistress in property he owned jointly with her, sold the property at a profit and used some of the proceeds to pay the mistress a fictitious "salary" in a small business he owned with his wife.

The first thing I noted was the "good news" that, despite having a lot of illegal income to report, and some "deductions" that wouldn't qualify, that he at least would be able to file a joint return with his wife under a married status.

What I should have said was "Query whether his wife would consent to filing a joint return with him, upon learning about his gambling and his mistress".

Some sites have "linking licenses" which are pretty silly, by and large....
(see, http://www.dontlink.com )

But some UDRP panelists, looking for a reason to find "bad faith" will opt for any port in a storm.

 

[HOWARD]

John;

The REAL question in that tax example is whether the small business was a proprietorship, a partnership or a sub-S corp. If a proprietorship, he can expect an audit, because Schedule Cs are targets for the IRS, especially when his wife was involved in the business. If a partnership or Sub-S Corp, his wife would DEFINITELY know about the mistress, and if she divorced him because of it, they couldn't file a joint return. It's definitely a no-win situation for him (unless, of course, the mistress was both beautiful AND wealthy).

 

[DNS Kidd]

Some registrations of famous names really should be the subject of an UDRP, and more.

If a student were to check on martinlutherking.org , they might expect to find history, speeches, biography, etc. They can download a PDF of pictures that show King, and the web page.

What's this? Looks like this is actually an anti-King site, with plagerism examples, slanted views on history, jews, Communism, etc. The PDF file comes from duke.org, a site owned by David Duke.

The whois record shown the site is owned by stormfront.org

A check of that site shows "White Power World Wide", a white nationalist resource page.

Does anyone think this is a fair use of the Martin Luther King name? I don't. I would pay to initiate an UDRP against this site. It sucks.

This is an abuse of the name of a famous person by individuals intent on their own agenda, including presentation of a slanted view of history. The fact that this parades an an authentic MLK site, to coufuse and anger unknowing students, is the most annoying part of it.

Dave

 

[domainAddict]

Originally posted by avs162
could a querry such as the above be used to show dissodence or
malicious intent as post buy and these results will show in google sometimes.

would think general querrys might be more suitable for public forum but would be good to know if can be used or not

Are you talking about my inquiry? I dont think it can be used against me in any way. Im not doing nothing wrong, as a matter of fact, im consulting with people who have experiences in this field, in order not to do any mistakes. So im trying to play by rules. I dont see any bad intent in this..

 

[domainAddict]

Well, Im for freedom of speach. So even thi MLK site should be left as is, although Im against white power and all that crap. Freedom of speach should be allowed to everyone, the only thing i would do is make them state that their site is not an official MLK site, and that they are in no way affiliated or endorsed with him (or in this case, whoever is appropriate)

 

[RMF]

You think you could get away with redirecting a celebsname to an affiliate program like Amazon?.

RMF

 

[jberryhill]

"The REAL question in that tax example is ..."

...precisely the point.

As Howard points out here, using specific examples as launchpads to explain the kinds of issues that may be relevant to a situation - i.e. getting to the "REAL" question - is what a public forum such as this is good for.

Soliciting, and expecting to receive, individualized legal advice - i.e. seeking to have someone practice law on a bulletin board - is a different matter altogether, and is not a good idea.

And, yes, if you have a federal tax question, don't ask me. I got a C in that class, and I'm willing to bet Howard did much better.