VIDEO: Ron Paul files suit for RonPaul.com (Fox News)

[PaulConventionWV]

It was earlier today, you'd have to look back. I think Angela posted it. Politicians don't have the same claim as other celebs do. I am guessing it is because their fame comes from public service, but that is just my guess.

So someone who is not a celebrity has no claim to their name? Who decides who is a celebrity and who is not?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I hear your argument, but it is just an argument. Ron used his name when he was out of office to publish and speak, and intends to do more with it. How the arbitration will weigh all the facts is yet to be determined

Yes he did, but his fame during the time between his congressional terms was in direct result of his first term. No one bought his newsletters and books because he was an OB/GYN.

 

[sailingaway]

So someone who is not a celebrity has no claim to their name? Who decides who is a celebrity and who is not?

There is a lot more to it. There are a lot of factors looked at. Until the arbitration rules, we don't know how it will be decided.

Personally, I think both parties lose by this situation and that they should settle, however, before it even gets there.

 

[sailingaway]

Yes he did, but his fame during the time between his congressional terms was in direct result of his first term. No one bought his newsletters and books because he was an OB/GYN.

It was because of his views. No one bought investment letters because of Congressional position but because of the views he was expressing. Again, arbitration will be the one to decide.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You must be young and have no idea about the Kitty Kelley bios.

Maybe you haven't been to a book store lately, but there are a ton of Obama bios that I am sure he didn't approve of.

Fine. I don't know how bios work, but clearly there were guidelines for the domain the site was made in.

 

[sailingaway]

Fine. I don't know how bios work, but clearly there were guidelines for the domain the site was made in.

Yes, there are rules you have to agree to to have a domain, and this claim is under those rules.

 

[angelatc]

I hear your argument, but it is just an argument. Ron used his name when he was out of office to publish and speak, and intends to do more with it. How the arbitration will weigh all the facts is yet to be determined

Ron also published under "Ron Paul Enterprises," and not just the non-descript "Ron Paul." Even he wasn't clear on his brand.

Meanwhile, have you noticed that the banner on C4L changed over the years? It was "Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty" but now his name isn't above the title any more.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

So someone who is not a celebrity has no claim to their name? Who decides who is a celebrity and who is not?

Beyonce tried to trademark her daughter's name, and it was denied. Public figures are pretty much fair game for writing about them. That is why the tabloids can exist. But, celebrities have a claim to their brand, likeness, etc. I know this because I am acquaintances with the son of a very famous singer. Politicians though, do not have the same claim (again I presume it is because their fame came from public service).

So I can sell all the Ronald Reagan shirts I want to, but I cannot sell anything with Audrey Hepburn on it, because someone owns the rights to her images. Reagan's are in a sense public.

I can make a Ronald Reagan website, and have no issues. But if I made an Audrey Hepburn site, there is a good chance I would get a cease & desist for copyright infringement.

 

[sailingaway]

Beyonce tried to trademark her daughter's name, and it was denied. Public figures are pretty much fair game for writing about them. That is why the tabloids can exist. But, celebrities have a claim to their brand, likeness, etc. I know this because I am acquaintances with the son of a very famous singer. Politicians though, do not have the same claim (again I presume it is because their fame came from public service).

So I can sell all the Ronald Reagan shirts I want to, but I cannot sell anything with Audrey Hepburn on it, because someone owns the rights to her images. Reagan's are in a sense public.

I can make a Ronald Reagan website, and have no issues. But if I made an Audrey Hepburn site, there is a good chance I would get a cease & desist for copyright infringement.

Dead people have different issues as well.

But Hillary Clinton won her case.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Dead people have different issues as well.

But Hillary Clinton won her case.

Because it met all the requirements for cyber squatting.

 

[sailingaway]

Because it met all the requirements for cyber squatting.

But her being a politician didn't prevent it. So we will have to see if arbitration determines this situation is against their rules.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

But her being a politician didn't prevent it. So we will have to see if arbitration determines this situation is against their rules.

Yes we will. Did anyone ever determine if the domain was available during that 2003-05 period where there is nothing on the web archive for the site? Was it abandoned?

 

[angelatc]

Yes, there are rules you have to agree to to have a domain, and this claim is under those rules.

Bill Clinton loses domain claim

Lady Gaga Loses Claim for LadyGaga.org

[URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/10/beck_domain/] Glenn Beck loses domain case[/URL]


Reading the Lady Gaga case, it seems like the monetization of the site might be the fail for them, but looking at the Clinton case, the aggressor would have to prove they registered the name in bad faith. I don't think anybody is asserting that.

 

[sailingaway]

Bill Clinton loses domain claim

Lady Gaga Loses Claim for LadyGaga.org

[URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/10/beck_domain/] Glenn Beck loses domain case[/URL]


Reading the Lady Gaga case, it seems like the monetization of the site might be the fail for them, but looking at the Clinton case, the aggressor would have to prove they registered the name in bad faith. I don't think anybody is asserting that.

To sue someone for cybersquatting, you have to show that they acted in "bad faith," meaning they deliberately registered a certain domain in order to profit off your name. For example, if someone buys JenniferLopez.com and puts ads up to generate income from random visitors, that's considered bad faith. Same with trying to sell the site back to its rightful owner for a hefty profit,

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...008/12/is_cybersquatting_against_the_law.html

there seem to be arguments that it is, so it will come down to which arguments the arbitrators find apply here.

 

[angelatc]

Because it met all the requirements for cyber squatting.

Yes. In the Clinton case, the defendant didn't even bother to file a response. The site contained no information related to Hillary Clinton - it was all Google ads, generic search engines and pop-ups.

 

[CPUd]

This might also be in the other thread:

 

[fr33]

My name is not on the constitution yet I'm subject to it but I'm supposed to feel sorry for ronpaul(dot)com for signing a document then violating it. Pfft.

 

[angelatc]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...008/12/is_cybersquatting_against_the_law.html

there seem to be arguments that it is, so it will come down to which arguments the arbitrators find apply here.

That Slate quote pertains to the Clinton site, but not the Ron Paul site. They aren't focused solely on generating revenue from random visitors, they're running a fan site devoted to Ron Paul.


Sure, but they proudly announced they were buying the site to support Ron Paul, because Ron Paul didn't want it at the time. They announced that they bought it to keep it out of the hands of political enemies.

IMHO, Ron waited far too long to claim "bad faith" especially when everything they've posted has been pro-Ron Paul.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yes. In the Clinton case, the defendant didn't even bother to file a response. The site contained no information related to Hillary Clinton - it was all Google ads, generic search engines and pop-ups.

I wonder if the fact that Ron Paul made no attempt at purchasing the domain name from the Ron Paul consultant guy, either through direct contact, a broker, or the auction would have any bearing on the "bad faith" argument. In my way of thinking, Ron Paul didn't want the .com, so someone else bought it, developed a information site on it and made some money sure, but that's no crime. Now if the site owner put up a google ad page and nothing else, along with buy this domain for 250K then that would be bad faith for sure.

 

[sailingaway]

Sure, but they proudly announced they were buying the site to support Ron Paul, because Ron Paul didn't want it at the time. They announced that they bought it to keep it out of the hands of political enemies.

IMHO, Ron waited far too long to claim "bad faith" especially when everything they've posted has been pro-Ron Paul.

I guess we'll find out what the arbitrators think if it doesn't settle.