BREAKING NEWS: ronpaul.com Domain Name Battle update

[angelatc]

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.

How do you account for the .org being vacated if he didn't abandon the trademark?

You know how I feel about that. I think it was intentionally lapsed, and now they've decided they want it after all.

 

[MisfitToy]

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

Personally I think they're trying to shaft Ron Paul with the price but they have artwork for bumper stickers, t-shirts, posters, mugs, speakers, mousepads, shoes, ties, and more. Not sure how much they make on said merchandise anymore however if their domain changed to something like RonPaulfansitedotcom, they would have to re-do all that art and lose their "brand". People have said Ron Paul is stepping on their free market rights, however all he wants is the traffic that's intended to be his. Do you believe he's stepping on their market rights or is he just following through with what he can lawfully claim?

 

[newbitech]

How do you account for the .org being vacated if he didn't abandon the trademark?

the act of registering a domain name does not confer secondary meaning status. I will dig up case precedent if you would like. Just like being famous does not confer secondary meaning status. The proofs for secondary meaning are laid out quite eloquently. See the ruling for abercrombe and fitch for a good breakdown for the definitions for secondary meaning.

 

[angelatc]

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

Every claim I've made is accompanied by an example. You never do. How am I supposed to respond to all these differences if you won't tell me what they are?

 

[PatriotOne]

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

So would I if I was a cybersquatter and making money off of ronpaul.com selling merchandise/ads in hopes they would take the bait.

 

[angelatc]

Personally I think they're trying to shaft Ron Paul with the price but they have artwork for bumper stickers, t-shirts, posters, mugs, speakers, mousepads, shoes, ties, and more. Not sure how much they make on said merchandise anymore however if their domain changed to something like RonPaulfansitedotcom, they would have to re-do all that art and lose their "brand". People have said Ron Paul is stepping on their free market rights, however all he wants is the traffic that's intended to be his. Do you believe he's stepping on their market rights or is he just following through with what he can lawfully claim?

You have no idea how a Zazzle store works. They won't lose their store, or the artwork, if Paul gets the domain name.

It's not even true that all that traffic is supposed to be his.

I have made it perfectly that I think he's selling out his free market principles in order to take something he didn't previously want. I do not think he can lawfully claim this. If he wanted to lawfully claim it, he should have purchased it.

 

[PatriotOne]

Their web site clearly states they bought all these sites to keep the enemies from having them.

Cybersquatters aren't known for their truthfulness.

 

[newbitech]

So would I if I was a cybersquatter and making money off of ronpaul.com selling merchandise/ads in hopes they would take the bait.

As would a legitimate site owner and Ron Paul supporter trying to avoid what we have today and maintain his principles and dignity. The point is, what is going on in this thread is a rather weak argument for the trashing that his been going on of the ronpaul.com people, its completely irrelevant to the arbitration, and it is a blatant dismissal (or ignorance) of the good faith in negotiation that it represents regardless if the intent was malicious or otherwise.

 

[angelatc]

Cybersquatters aren't known for their truthfulness.

Cybersquatters aren't known for building fan sites, either. If this is a huge sham to cover their asses with ICANN, why is BobBarr so sparse? What other sites have they devoted so much time and effort to?


You have no proof that they were lying. The fact that they immediately offered him the .org indicates they were telling him the truth.

 

[PatriotOne]

As would a legitimate site owner and Ron Paul supporter trying to avoid what we have today and maintain his principles and dignity. The point is, what is going on in this thread is a rather weak argument for the trashing that his been going on of the ronpaul.com people, its completely irrelevant to the arbitration, and it is a blatant dismissal (or ignorance) of the good faith in negotiation that it represents regardless if the intent was malicious or otherwise.

They were cybersquatters posing as Ron Paul supporters so they could sell merchandise and ads. Now they are just trying to bilk them out of 250k before they turn the site over.

You and Angela need your eyes checked because I think your both going blind .

 

[PatriotOne]

Cybersquatters aren't known for building fan sites, either. If this is a huge sham to cover their asses with ICANN, why is BobBarr so sparse? What other sites have they devoted so much time and effort to?


You have no proof that they were lying. The fact that they immediately offered him the .org indicates they were telling him the truth.

Who the hell would buy Bob Barr merchandise or visit a Bob Barr website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Bob Barr as a draw.

 

[angelatc]

They were cybersquatters posing as Ron Paul supporters so they could sell merchandise and ads. Now they are just trying to bilk them out of 250k before they turn the site over.

You and Angela need your eyes checked because I think your both going blind .

And I think I can smell bullshit when I see it. They weren't just aggregating news - they were producing original content. I have no doubt they were Ron Paul supporters, because he is and always has been the only candidate that stood for internet freedom. If they are making a living on the internet, then of course they support Ron Paul. Who else they gonna support - the people who want to make it illegal to be anonymous on the internet?

 

[newbitech]

They were cybersquatters posing as Ron Paul supporters so they could sell merchandise and ads. Now they are just trying to bilk them out of 250k before they turn the site over.

You and Angela need your eyes checked because I think your both going blind .

cybersquatters posing as Ron Paul supporters.

Do you have any actual evidence to back this up? I don't I am the one being blinded by Ron Paul's brilliance. To use this analogy, drivers are taught when driving at night in to oncoming traffic, close one eye so that after the oncoming headlights pass, you can open that other eye and it won't have to readjust to the darkness.

This keeps you from having that bright aurora in your vision on an otherwise dark road that effectively blinds you for a moment until you eyes can readjust.

Personally I have found this useful in many other circumstances where I need to make sure my vision is not impaired. Basically I take advantage of the fact that my eyeballs actually do work independently from each other.

Take that for what it's worth. I might be blinded in one eye by the RonPaul(tm) phenomena, but my other eye sees perfectly clear.

 

[MisfitToy]

It's not even true that all that traffic is supposed to be his.

The website is dedicated to Ron Paul. It's intention is entirely for and about Ron Paul. You read about Ron Paul on the website. I'd say the traffic is his.

I have made it perfectly that I think he's selling out his free market principles in order to take something he didn't previously want. I do not think he can lawfully claim this. If he wanted to lawfully claim it, he should have purchased it.

Hey newbitech, I think we have a confession

It seems that according to ICANN he can claim it and as far as the complaint goes, that's what the argument is for. They've listed other cases that were won to validate their claims so you can't say he doesn't have a right to it.

Zazzle won't lose their store, not what I'm saying at all, but they'll have to change their logos if they change the domain. Kind of silly to print RP.com t-shirts when your domain isn't RP.com.

 

[angelatc]

Who the hell would buy Bob Barr merchandise or visit a Bob Barr website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Bob Barr as a draw.

Well, so far they've been accused of buying the RP site to sell it when it became more valuable so I was assuming they did the same thing with Barr. He's been in the news lately, so it would make perfect sense for them to start "pretending" to run a fan site if that's the way they protect themselves from ICANN claims.

 

[newbitech]

Who the hell would buy Bob Barr merchandise or visit a Bob Barr website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Bob Barr as a draw.

beginning of human history until what 2007-2010(maybe?)

Who the hell would buy Ron Paul merchandise or visit a Ron Paul website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Ron Paul as a draw.

Sounds like someone who had been following libertarians stuff for a lot longer than myself started to see the writing on the wall. Eventually a libertarian was going to rise up.

Shows me they didn't target a person or a brand. They targeted a philosophy and decided that investing in the public personalities behind those philosophies might help to spread that philosophy and in turn position themselves to take advantage of a core tenant of that same philosophy, free market capitalism.

But, if we think that way, then we risk the possibility that the people advising Ron Paul (and perhaps Ron Paul himself) might not get what they want. I guess that is bad. Or not.

 

[PatriotOne]

Well, so far they've been accused of buying the RP site to sell it when it became more valuable so I was assuming they did the same thing with Barr. He's been in the news lately, so it would make perfect sense for them to start "pretending" to run a fan site if that's the way they protect themselves from ICANN claims.

Too much trouble to run a Bob Barr website if they can't make $ off of him. Let's turn this around. If they arent running a fansite for Barr, why are they holding his domain name? To protect him from the enemies? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[newbitech]

The website is dedicated to Ron Paul. It's intention is entirely for and about Ron Paul. You read about Ron Paul on the website. I'd say the traffic is his.



Hey newbitech, I think we have a confession

It seems that according to ICANN he can claim it and as far as the complaint goes, that's what the argument is for. They've listed other cases that were won to validate their claims so you can't say he doesn't have a right to it.

Zazzle won't lose their store, not what I'm saying at all, but they'll have to change their logos if they change the domain. Kind of silly to print RP.com t-shirts when your domain isn't RP.com.

why would that be silly if people buy them and you can make money off it?

 

[angelatc]

It seems that according to ICANN he can claim it and as far as the complaint goes, that's what the argument is for. They've listed other cases that were won to validate their claims so you can't say he doesn't have a right to it.

Zazzle won't lose their store, not what I'm saying at all, but they'll have to change their logos if they change the domain. Kind of silly to print RP.com t-shirts when your domain isn't RP.com.

Oh here we go again. ICANN hasn't ruled on the case yet. Some of are not convinced that he can indeed claim it.


Came into the conversation, mind already made up - no reason to do any homework. We've gone over those cases and discussed at length why they are different than this case, Now you're going to join the conversation without reading anything that we've already discussed, making your mind up after only reading one side of the argument.

 

[newbitech]

Too much trouble to run a Bob Barr website if they can't make $ off of him. Let's turn this around. If they arent running a fansite for Barr, why are they holding his domain name? To protect him from the enemies? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

better question, why doesn't Bob Barr own the domain and why isn't he filing an ICANN arb?