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

[angelatc]

well first off, ICANN is not in control of arbitration other than to require it in their dispute process with approve agencies. One of the approve agencies, NAL(an alternative that Ron Paul could have used) has a specific complaint type that does take into consideration US Federal and State laws.

So there is/was and alternative if Ron Paul was interested in pursuing a complaint that takes into account his own personal and publicly made values. He probably just didn't know about it because his advisers are either incompetent, OR wanted to avoid a 1st Amendment defense.

My guess is that his lawyers are aware in the differences in venues. Which makes this even worse.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

This is your view but I have set out ways these elements can be made. I think your statement that bad faith is 'typically' for fake portal sites ignores the ones I've already mentioned to you where the site is being sold at a hold up price. In this case the site was on the market, the guy wasn't keeping it himself, and he asked what Paul apparently thinks based on an estimate he got, is a hold up price. He may have the value wrong, in which case the site owner should suggest a fair way to value it that Ron can have confidence in, imho. I can easily believe Ron himself has no idea how to value it. but to the extent the price was blown out of proportion only because of his own fame or because they 'had him over a barrel for his own name' that seems to be exactly the reason the rules of the domain the site owner agreed to exist to protect the guy with the name.

I want them to settle though, so I hope the site owner is making a new offer, stating WHY he thinks his site is valuable and maybe offering to plug all the 301s or whatever in transfer that I suspect Ron has no idea about either, which probably are what give it the page ranking it has. Or some other offer the site owner thinks would be good.

To be perfectly honest, I think Ron's hardest point will be to prove point 2. And I think the fact that someone from Ron Paul solicited the owner to buy the domain demonstrates that they believed he has a right to that domain - if not then why offer to buy it in the first place? Remember than RP approached them first.

 

[angelatc]

. In this case the site was on the market, the guy wasn't keeping it himself, and he asked what Paul apparently thinks based on an estimate he got, is a hold up price. .

It looked to me like they had instructed their agent to have the site on the market for $850,000 to any Tom, Dick or Harry that was interested. When they learned that Ron Paul himself wanted it, they immediately offered him a steep discount because they were fans.

The valuation of the site has nothing to do with any of the 3 prongs, btw. "Bad Faith" doesn't mean asking more than a buyer wants to pay.

 

[sailingaway]

To be perfectly honest, I think Ron's hardest point will be to prove point 2. And I think the fact that someone from Ron Paul solicited the owner to buy the domain demonstrates that they believed he has a right to that domain - if not then why offer to buy it in the first place? Remember than RP approached them first.

Because unlike you, not everyone is about the bottom line?

Ron did it because he wanted to do what was right considering this was a guy who had supported him and if it had been a hit site all those years it could have caused him trouble. He thought he was dealing with a supporter and wanted to give what he understood to be fair price regardless of domain rules. Only when something happened, maybe his son was convinced the $250K was the last offer and given Ron's estimate he thought that was a slap in the face when he was trying to do the right thing, or maybe something else happened. But he tried not to go this route.

I agree if there is an issue it is likely to be on issue number two, however, I don't think anyone but an expert in this area could predict which way they will find, given the decisions I've seen, and even then I doubt they'd make a high dollar bet.

All the more reason the parties should settle.

 

[nayjevin]

I do not believe the site benefited Ron Paul, I believe it always has been a confusion and a net detriment to him. Never has this been more the case than now, they are actively slandering the man and misrepresenting him.

1. It is the number one ranked site for his name. But it is not him
2. Media confused it with Ron's official site
3. People looking to donate to Ron Paul accidentally donated to RonPaul.com instead
4. Internet traffic for people trying to find Ron Paul found RonPaul.com instead
5. People visiting the site came away thinking 'Ron Paul just wants my email address like any other politician.'
6. The site content was not original, it was coattail traffic (not always bad)
7. The site owners have always had the power to slander Ron Paul by owning his name domain. They have clearly used that power.
8. Every dollar and click and view the site gained would have occurred elsewhere had the site not existed. Searches for Ron Paul would have found Ron Paul instead of the charlatans.

1.) That is irrelevant. Right now the #1 thing that comes up is Campaign For Liberty. It's about domain authority, not the site name.
2.) Media recently confused a near miss asteroid with global warming. This is not an argument.
3.) And what was the response of the site owner if that claim is true? Evidence?
4.) They also found wikipedia/Ron_Paul, campaignforliberty, dailypaul, ronpaulforums, news articles, etc etc etc... are you claiming the site was not about Ron Paul?
5.) speculation, opinion. People also came away with information they were looking for.
6.) sweeping generalization. Lots of original content, like the discussion about the topics. A lot like this forum. Are you accusing them now of copyright violation?
7.) Everyone has always had that power at any time. Slander is not telling the truth about someone.
8.) Patently false. Strawman. You cannot back this up with evidence, at all.

Nothing personal but these don't sound like arguments or present new facts to the discussion. I think you want RonPaul to have the site at any cost (except the money cost). It is absolutely 100% necessary to make these folks look bad to get the desired result (RonPaul getting the site for free). So, that is why you are speaking out this way, sort of adding to the formal complaint.

I don't think its right to treat someone like that.

Very well done I must say.

1) Not completely irrelevant. Had they never purchased the name and SEO'd it, there would be no argument that 'taking over the domain will break links!' etc

2) You are correct. But it is evidence that confusion actually occurred. I believe a portion of revenue can be attributed to confusion.

3) Good point. If people in fact accidentally donated to RonPaul.com, thinking it was the real Ron Paul, RonPaul.com would be obliged to refund. They really should have known to make the site CLEARLY not affiliated with the campaign. If I had the site, I would have had a popup that said "I AM NOT RON PAUL!" instead of one that harvested email addresses. Anything less, to me, is conduct unworthy of ownership (in the moral, not legal sense). Anything less, to me, shows a desire to profit off of confusion of the identity of the site owner.

4) None of those other sites appear to be Ron Paul. My point is that it was EASY for people to believe RonPaul.com was an official site. It would have been EASY for the owners to keep that from happening. It also would have been easy to squat ronpaul.com, or redirect it to Ron's official sites (and more productive for liberty). It also would have been easy to buy RonPaulSupporters.com instead. They chose not to, and are rationalizing that decision in myriad ways.

5) You are correct, I am speculating, somewhat wildly, that folks felt that way about the email harvesting (note my word choice bias). I think it's safe to say some people thought that. It may be a nearly insignificant number.

6) Not copyright infringement, no, that's not my issue. That folks commented on unoriginal posts is not relevant, they would have commented elsewhere, the way I see it. To me it is like inflation, making all other sites less valuable.

7)Cannot equate the power of freedom of speech with the power of owning the .com of the man's name and showing deliberate willingness to cause harm to his name. Also showing unscrupulous practices such as not making it clear that it's unaffiliated with anything 'official'. This shows me Ron is alright going ahead with what it takes to get them to cease and desist. ICANN policy be damned - that's not my moral code.

8) I don't believe it's false that the dollars would go somewhere else. I don't see that RonPaul.com was convincing people to buy that wouldn't have otherwise. If they did, it would be by pasting Ron Paul's words or someone else's video into the site.

 

[sailingaway]

It looked to me like they had instructed their agent to have the site on the market for $850,000 to any Tom, Dick or Harry that was interested. When they learned that Ron Paul himself wanted it, they immediately offered him a steep discount because they were fans.

The valuation of the site has nothing to do with any of the 3 prongs, btw. "Bad Faith" doesn't mean asking more than a buyer wants to pay.

Valuation to determine whether it is trading off of Ron's trademark and self as opposed to a fair market evaluation/estimate of the site is used to show it is being used for the precise thing the site agreement prohibits though.

 

[sailingaway]

Very well done I must say.

1) Not completely irrelevant. Had they never purchased the name and SEO'd it, there would be no argument that 'taking over the domain will break links!' etc

2) You are correct. But it is evidence that confusion actually occurred. I believe a portion of revenue can be attributed to confusion.

3) Good point. If people in fact accidentally donated to RonPaul.com, thinking it was the real Ron Paul, RonPaul.com would be obliged to refund. They really should have known to make the site CLEARLY not affiliated with the campaign. If I had the site, I would have had a popup that said "I AM NOT RON PAUL!" instead of one that harvested email addresses. Anything less, to me, is conduct unworthy of ownership (in the moral, not legal sense). Anything less, to me, shows a desire to profit off of confusion of the identity of the site owner.

4) None of those other sites appear to be Ron Paul. My point is that it was EASY for people to believe RonPaul.com was an official site. It would have been EASY for the owners to keep that from happening. It also would have been easy to squat ronpaul.com, or redirect it to Ron's official sites (and more productive for liberty). It also would have been easy to buy RonPaulSupporters.com instead. They chose not to, and are rationalizing that decision in myriad ways.

5) You are correct, I am speculating, somewhat wildly, that folks felt that way about the email harvesting (note my word choice bias). I think it's safe to say some people thought that. It may be a nearly insignificant number.

6) Not copyright infringement, no, that's not my issue. That folks commented on unoriginal posts is not relevant, they would have commented elsewhere, the way I see it. To me it is like inflation, making all other sites less valuable.

7)Cannot equate the power of freedom of speech with the power of owning the .com of the man's name and showing deliberate willingness to cause harm to his name. Also showing unscrupulous practices such as not making it clear that it's unaffiliated with anything 'official'. This shows me Ron is alright going ahead with what it takes to get them to cease and desist. ICANN policy be damned - that's not my moral code.

8) I don't believe it's false that the dollars would go somewhere else. I don't see that RonPaul.com was convincing people to buy that wouldn't have otherwise. If they did, it would be by pasting Ron Paul's words or someone else's video into the site.

There are comments on the guy's facebook page saying they thought it was Ron's site. The media several times reported it as in fact Ron's site. (I didn't see that they had put that in the complaint, though, and I sure would have.) Many of the links to the site were RON'S old site with the authority having initially been his to begin with, so that could also be viewed as someone trying to get every last drop of blood out of his persona, in a dispute like this. UP to this point, since it was a positive site coming up though, it was a good thing, which is part of why I really hope this is just worked out.

On the other side, from the complaint, I think Ron's knowledge of this is very hazy. They cite the domain price of $30 or something, don't they? I don't think Ron knows this was bought on ebay. I think 'his people' whomever they are now, weren't the ones who made decisions then, and kinda doubt Ron even knew to begin with. I DO think there is value in the authority that may not be included in Ron's estimate, I'm not getting that his new people are any more truly internet savvy in a tech sense than his old ones. I think these discussions about 301s and 404s which I am bewildered by but absolutely see value from should be packaged into an offer by the site owner with an offer to help with this transition.

I think energy should be put into finding the value and packaging an offer, in words someone who doesn't know the internet will understand. Attorneys have to bring offers to their clients, and whatever was translated verbally hand to hand up to this point doesn't seem to have made the site owner's point.

As to your #7 remember that now the site is for sale to anyone at a huge price. What if some Adelson funded group like the Emergency Group for Israel or whatever that one is, got it to cause him trouble in his next project? Not everyone who might buy it is a friend, and Ron can't compete with the funding some of them have. Concern that it might be on the verge of transfer to someone who might misuse it could be part of what precipitated this when he found the guy wasn't selling for what he considered (rightly or wrongly) to be a fair price. It IS his name, and there are reasons he would have first right to it. I see value in those.

Libertarian views on intellectual property, some valuing it as any other, others not valuing it at all, seem to be a big part of the dispute here.

 

[angelatc]

Valuation to determine whether it is trading off of Ron's trademark and self as opposed to a fair market evaluation/estimate of the site is used to show it is being used for the precise thing the site agreement prohibits though.

I don't quite understand that. Which clause of the agreement are you referring to?

 

[sailingaway]

I don't quite understand that. Which clause of the agreement are you referring to?

The rules about cybersquatting. I'm only going off of what was posted here and the elements of the claim which I read but part of it was about not trading off people's trademarks.

 

[nayjevin]

The site is 'preaching to the choir' as well as I can see, that's why I see it as inflation. This site, for instance, brings in folks looking for info on the Constitution, liberty in general, ron paul, justin amash, 2nd amendment, the paleo diet, etc etc etc. RonPaul.com largely snagged up traffic already looking for Ron Paul and delivered unoriginal information available elsewhere, instead of allowing that traffic (and its financial benefits) to be directed toward Ron Paul and other original content providers. This is my moral argument for 'do what it takes' to get them to stop.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Because unlike you, not everyone is about the bottom line?

Ron did it because he wanted to do what was right considering this was a guy who had supported him and if it had been a hit site all those years it could have caused him trouble. He thought he was dealing with a supporter and wanted to give what he understood to be fair price regardless of domain rules. Only when something happened, maybe his son was convinced the $250K was the last offer and given Ron's estimate he thought that was a slap in the face when he was trying to do the right thing, or maybe something else happened. But he tried not to go this route.

I agree if there is an issue it is likely to be on issue number two, however, I don't think anyone but an expert in this area could predict which way they will find, given the decisions I've seen, and even then I doubt they'd make a high dollar bet.

All the more reason the parties should settle.

The point is though that Ron needs to establish as one of the three points that "The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name". If, that is the case (which Ron is asserting by filing for the arbitration hearing) why then would he offer to purchase it in the first place? If the present owner has no rights to the domain, then there is no reason to approach him to purchase it. By doing so, in my opinion, Ron Paul acknowledged that the respondent had a right to the domain - i.e. a right to sell it, and therefore a right to own it in the first place.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

The site is 'preaching to the choir' as well as I can see, that's why I see it as inflation. This site, for instance, brings in folks looking for info on the Constitution, liberty in general, ron paul, justin amash, 2nd amendment, the paleo diet, etc etc etc. RonPaul.com largely snagged up traffic already looking for Ron Paul and delivered unoriginal information available elsewhere, instead of allowing that traffic (and its financial benefits) to be directed toward Ron Paul and other original content providers. This is my moral argument for 'do what it takes' to get them to stop.

In all honesty, that has no bearing on whether or not the current owner has the right to own and operate the site. Remember, Ron has to prove three things in order to be awarded the domain:

1) That the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
2) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the respondent

If he cannot prove number one, then two and three are moot. If he proves one and cannot prove two, then three is moot. If he proves one and two then he has to prove three as well. Essentially, all three points must be proven, for Ron to be able to seize the domain name. If he doesn't then he can either negotiate to by the domain from the owner at a mutually agreed upon price, or walk away from it all.

 

[romacox]

RonPaul'.com
Posted by Lew Rockwell on February 13, 2013 08:31 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/132275.html

 

[newbitech]

from the rockwell blog, dude is just wrong about this. What else is he wrong about? come on lew, this just proves to me that Ron Paul's inner circle isn't looking out for his best interest. Who's interest are they really protecting?

--Ron is not calling on the UN. ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN. Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt. The UN itself is not involved, though note—whatever else is wrong with it—the UN is not a State.

below is a screen shot from NAF, a United States based APPROVED ICANN arbitration service. Here is a very recent decision from them.

Don't try to tell me that Ron Paul was forced to take "the international route". What the hell is that anyways? Some shit lew just made up, that's what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Skeptics

and here is the case if you want to read. See the NAL letter head. DO NOT lie about this shit or continue to give FALSE info. It is really tarnishing the credibility of Ron Paul's inner circle and message.

DAMNIT!

http://www.udrpsearch.com/naf/1474711


[TABLE="class: rgMasterTable, width: 1203"]
[TR="class: rgAltRow rgHoveredRow, bgcolor: #C5C5C5"]
[TD]1474711[/TD]
[TD]australiansceptics.com, australiansceptics.org, australiansceptics.net, australiansceptics.info, realaustraliansceptics.com[/TD]
[TD]Australian Skeptics (Victorian Branch) Inc / Australian Skeptics Inc v Australian Vaccination Network / Meryl Dorey[/TD]
[TD]UDRP[/TD]
[TD="class: rgSorted, bgcolor: transparent"]12/20/2012[/TD]
[TD]Claim Denied[/TD]
[TD]01/21/2013[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[MarcusI]

RonPaul'.com
Posted by Lew Rockwell on February 13, 2013 08:31 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/132275.html

"[...] --Ron is not calling on the UN. ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN. Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt. The UN itself is not involved, though note—whatever else is wrong with it—the UN is not a State.[...]"

That was one point I wanted to make - it is an international case so it has to be solved internationally. And if the international arbitrary institution is associated with the UN - so what?

 

[newbitech]

"[...] --Ron is not calling on the UN. ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN. Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt. The UN itself is not involved, though note—whatever else is wrong with it—the UN is not a State.[...]"

That was one point I wanted to make - it is an international case so it has to be solved internationally. And if the international arbitrary institution is associated with the UN - so what?

cause that is flat BULLSHITE...

 

[MarcusI]

Why do you think an american arbitrary institution is in any case better suited than an international one?

 

[newbitech]

incidentally, when one goes through the trouble of legally registering a trademark in the US Federal Registry, it is added to the international registry via treaty, to which I am SURE Australia is a party to.

 

[newbitech]

Why do you think an american arbitrary institution is in any case better suited than an international one?

Not the point. Strawman. People first started saying Ron did not go to the UN. THEN when that was proven false, they started saying Ron didn't have a choice!

Well guess what shysters? That's a fucking lie too.

Oh now what? It doesn't matter cause the UN is not a state? LMFAO. Please..

How about taking some fucking responsibility for the BULLSHIT advice given to Ron Paul? Hmm?

ronpaul.com isn't the people tarnishing Ron Paul's image or whatever the fuck. It's his advisers. AND WHY?

 

[nayjevin]

The point is though that Ron needs to establish as one of the three points that "The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name". If, that is the case (which Ron is asserting by filing for the arbitration hearing) why then would he offer to purchase it in the first place? If the present owner has no rights to the domain, then there is no reason to approach him to purchase it. By doing so, in my opinion, Ron Paul acknowledged that the respondent had a right to the domain - i.e. a right to sell it, and therefore a right to own it in the first place.

I disagree, though that may be the case in the arbitration. It should have no bearing whether the owner has 'legitimate interests' unless that is defined differently than the words generally mean. Profit is a legitimate interest, therefore it could never be proven. There's a difference, it seems, between what is right and what the arbitration rules are. That's irrelevant though - the domain owner agreed to these terms.

In all honesty, that has no bearing on whether or not the current owner has the right to own and operate the site.

Well, 'the right' is problematic language. I agree that you are accurately assessing the arbitration guidelines (from my limited understanding).

Remember, Ron has to prove three things in order to be awarded the domain:

1) That the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
2) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the respondent

If he cannot prove number one, then two and three are moot. If he proves one and cannot prove two, then three is moot. If he proves one and two then he has to prove three as well. Essentially, all three points must be proven, for Ron to be able to seize the domain name. If he doesn't then he can either negotiate to by the domain from the owner at a mutually agreed upon price, or walk away from it all.

'in which the complainant has rights', 'Bad faith', and 'legitimate interests'