BREAKING NEWS: ronpaul.com Domain Name Battle update

[newbitech]

I don't get all this bickering within our ranks here or why anyone thinks Ron Paul isn't following free market principles.

I read the letter of the "offer" and I came to a basic conclusion. The $250k was not to cover the domain name, it was to cover the merchandise that the owners already invested into. They very obviously state the reason they don't want to change the domain name is because of their merchandise. The real Ron Paul has no desire to pay for that merchandise, he just wants the internet traffic that's intended to be his. It's not his fault they ran a "fan site" to sell merchandise. They took a market gamble, might have broken a rule, and now it's biting them in the ass. Stop this non-sense that Ron Paul is unjustly shafting them, they made their own bed.

link to where someone said Ron Paul is unjustly shafting them, please.

 

[newbitech]

Been around the Internet long? This was a typical case study - here a link from 2006 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3285015...-Trademarks-Copyrights-and-Unfair-Competition

No, i just got my v90 modem last month

Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to check it out and dismiss it out of hand since I am an idiot and also just learned to read the other day..

 

[PatriotOne]

Stop what? So if some one sent you an email with the email address [email protected] claiming to be a Ron Paul representative and asking you to do something, you'd be all enthusiastic and do that thing without question cause the email said he was a Ron Paul rep? What's your email address?

Well it's been over 2 years since Ron's rep and Ron's son inquired about the website and they still didn't know their names, address and phone number. Pretty sure I could have verified who I received the email from in a short amount of time.

 

[MisfitToy]

link to where someone said Ron Paul is unjustly shafting them, please.

You sound a little defensive.

 

[newbitech]

Been around the Internet long? This was a typical case study - here a link from 2006 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3285015...-Trademarks-Copyrights-and-Unfair-Competition

Another reference - http://www.coxsmith.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/intelliun-105-5228/media.name=/SALSA%202010%20Presentation_3108749_1.pdf

So your link has nothing to do with the comment I made. Thanks for nothing? And it also has nothing to do with the post I commented on, or the post that that post was commented on.

What were you trying to say with your link and comment cause its very vague especially considering the doc you linked was about US trademark as related to cyberspace rather than an ICANN arb case. Did Ron Paul file a Trademark lawsuit and I miss it?

 

[newbitech]

You sound a little defensive.

And you sound like you are making stuff up.

Link it, or it didn't happen.

 

[angelatc]

I don't get all this bickering within our ranks here or why anyone thinks Ron Paul isn't following free market principles.

I read the letter of the "offer" and I came to a basic conclusion. The $250k was not to cover the domain name, it was to cover the merchandise that the owners already invested into. They very obviously state the reason they don't want to change the domain name is because of their merchandise. .

They didn't invest in any merchandise - it's a zazzle store. As in, print on demand.

 

[PatriotOne]

Been around the Internet long? This was a typical case study - here a link from 2006 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3285015...-Trademarks-Copyrights-and-Unfair-Competition

Another reference - http://www.coxsmith.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/intelliun-105-5228/media.name=/SALSA%202010%20Presentation_3108749_1.pdf

That's interesting. As I read it, RP could have also elected to sue them for damages up to $100k according to that document. I was wondering about that.

The ronpaul.com owner(s) should be thrilled RP decided to go the WIPO route instead of the courts. If he had gone through the expensive court process, he probably would have asked for statutory damages also.

 

[MisfitToy]

Read the media and you'll see a whole lost of conspiracies about Ron Paul.

More importantly, do you agree or disagree that they're trying to cover their merchandise expenses with their offer?

 

[Pericles]

So your link has nothing to do with the comment I made. Thanks for nothing? And it also has nothing to do with the post I commented on, or the post that that post was commented on.

What were you trying to say with your link and comment cause its very vague especially considering the doc you linked was about US trademark as related to cyberspace rather than an ICANN arb case. Did Ron Paul file a Trademark lawsuit and I miss it?

One of the big internet jokes of the 1990s was the fact that the americanairlines.com domain was registered by an individual with a one page website at www.americanairlines.com with the following text "If you would like to purchase this domain ....."

Ah - the days of static HTML ....

 

[newbitech]

Read the media and you'll see a whole lost of conspiracies about Ron Paul.

More importantly, do you agree or disagree that they're trying to cover their merchandise expenses with their offer?

Do I agree that who is trying to cover what?

In general, a merchandiser would cover their expense with sales. That's the basic idea behind capitalism no?

 

[sailingaway]

Eh, I still don't care. Ron Paul abandoned his trademark intentionally to further his political career. He shouldn't be allowed to come back and claim it now.

I disagree that he did that.

 

[angelatc]

Read the media and you'll see a whole lost of conspiracies about Ron Paul.

More importantly, do you agree or disagree that they're trying to cover their merchandise expenses with their offer?

They don't have any merchandise expense. It's a Zazzle store.

 

[newbitech]

One of the big internet jokes of the 1990s was the fact that the americanairlines.com domain was registered by an individual with a one page website at www.americanairlines.com with the following text "If you would like to purchase this domain ....."

Ah - the days of static HTML ....

yeah, my time on the internet hasn't really been spent on joking around or playing games. So, do you have some kind of link for this joke that would answer my original question on this particular subtopic? Honestly, if I thought is was worth my while, I am sure I would find out wtf you are talking about, but I really don't think it would shed any light on the issue. But, I am willing to learn about it and have an open mind if you wouldn't mind trying to persuade me.

 

[sailingaway]

like it matters. They offered the control of the .org for free!

You are kidding. The domain rules specifically prohibit certain actions and from this and other information (about back filling in info after the dates and back dating) sure makes it seem like this is one of the prohibited uses in connection with using Ron's name.

 

[angelatc]

I disagree that he did that.

He did nothing to protect it. He never once objected to people making their own Ron Paul themes merchandise and selling them. That's considered abandonment.

 

[newbitech]

I disagree that he did that.

Yeah me too. I think you actually have to have a trademark in order to abandon it. However, I will conceded that sometime between Nov. 2009 and now, Ron Paul may have earned acquired distinctiveness for the mark RON PAUL, but that burden of proof is on him and so far I haven't seen a convincing case as to WHEN that actually occurred.

 

[sailingaway]

In the cases that lost, this is what a web site looks like when they lose the domain: http://bobbarr.com/

You don't have 'all' the websites lost, and the many claims turned on different features.

 

[angelatc]

You are kidding. The domain rules specifically prohibit certain actions and from this and other information (about back filling in info after the dates and back dating) sure makes it seem like this is one of the prohibited uses in connection with using Ron's name.

Their web site clearly states they bought all these sites to keep the enemies from having them. That's why they didn't hesitate to offer him the .org for free.

 

[newbitech]

You are kidding. The domain rules specifically prohibit certain actions and from this and other information (about back filling in info after the dates and back dating) sure makes it seem like this is one of the prohibited uses in connection with using Ron's name.

like it matters. They offered the control of the .org for free!

is your comment denying that? I am not sure what you are trying to say about domain rules specifically prohibiting certain actions. How does that change the fact that they offered the .org for free? Back filing? What are you talking about? Back dating what?