I'm not an expert by any means. But IMO there's no way he can force you to give him this domain. Just because she has the same name as the domain name it doesn't mean it is her property. It's not like a TM issue.
I'm guessing it's scare tactics with him threating to take legal action. He knows that you have such a great domain name and wants it for his own.
Actually come to think of it... It's probably not even her father at all. Just some scammer trying to get a domain that will be worth alot of money.
Bottom line is I don't think he has a leg to stand on. You own the domain. There is no TM issue. He can't take a domain from you simply because his daughter has the same name as the domain...
As Swefx said, unless this "celebrity's" name is trademarked. You're safe as far as I know...
Wrong and wrong.....
There are many vaiables in this senario. Too many to cover everything, so I will be a bit broad here.
First and foremost, if the actress in underage, then the parents hold her legal right unless she was legally emancipated. So the father does have some say so.
Second, Celebs names are their TM. It DOES NOT have to be filed. This has been proven over and over. You acknowledge the person is a celebrity, and in essence, acknowledging their TM.
Third, you called her an actress and you know she is one,, you even admit she was very good. What you have done is shown you known of her and you registererd her name based on that fact. This could be called bad faith registration.
Forth - You say you had a "junkie" fansite. There are certain criteria for being a legitamite fansite, Did you offer any advertising, adsense, ot offer the domain for sale? My personal opinion, I am betting that you are performing some sort of bad faith.
Fifth - If "bad faith" can already be proven, then it does not really matter what you do here. It will be said you changed it after you were contacted just as a ploy, and not surprising, many panelists will agree with that.
Sixth - They can come after you, and if they can prove bad faith, chances are slim that you would be able to keep the domain.
Seventh - He can have a leg to stand on (the father), and he can do whatever it takes to get what he things he is entitled to. Ultimately, it is up to a panel (or judge) to decide if he is right...
How would you feel if someone did the same thing to you in taking your name?.
Besides that, I think you'd lose in court...
An interesting one, but these are few and far between: http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/220007.htm.
(And just because it is the obligatory reference: http://whois.domaintools.com/brucespringsteen.com )..
It is NOT trademarked, but there are other issues......
What? You mean it isn't a registered TM, not that it isn't TM'd (You don't get to make that call, unfortunately.).
What other issues?..
Let me simplify; if this domain name is not your actual name there is always a chance you could lose it and the risk increases as she becomes more popular. On the other hand I would never give a domain to anyone I haven't spoken with, i.e. the owner of the company, the legal team, etc... Never give in to threats with no actions behind them, just be aware that making up a domain with someone's name other than your own is risky business, therein lies the definition of cybersquatting...
This is a good point that I have not considered, but placing myself in that situation, you are correct, it would make me angry. I am curious, maybe someone has made a fan site about me. There is a legitimate use for this domain, but the site could be much better - the intent is to promote this person and create a community. I just don't know?..
Need a shovel for your hole?.
Why are you going to spend all the time and energy on this guy? (Please don't tell me it's that guy with the advice thing...).
At the end of the day, what you describe just doesn't make sense, and makes you look like the bad guy, imho.
I guess it's time to correct you here...
You mean it is not a REGISTERED MARK (meaning it is on file with USPTO).
One can attain COMMON LAW TRADMARK STATUS without having to file a thing and still be protected as a trademark.. such as a celebrity.
Learn the difference and you will see how you can be wrong. You recognized her as an actress, that means she is somewhat famous and could be afforded protection.
Allan, the ANS case was could have been handled better from the start. They bungled it, then again, the panel found the site to be a true fansite which is also afforded protection under the first amendment. Look at Sting and Brucespringsteen, and they are more popluar than ANS (well, maybe not now). But as I said, I think "bad faith" could be found here, jsut by what I read on this post...
The other issues, like those the person posted above.
This is a mess of a situation because I am a fan of a actress who prefers not to be known by her real name. If a person will not own up to their real name, how can this name be trademarked?..
You are in the wrong and legally speaking on poor grounds for defense. DNQuest pointed out a few things that are important. Seriously you're a squatter...you are caught...and you should just give up the name. Don't pretend as if your are innocent or have rights to this name because you are not innocent and you don't have rights to the name.
And for those poking their noses in things they know zero about...you should just keep quiet. Then you should show some respect and give them the name...
How dare you call me a squatter! If I was, how are you to know this? This is a big assumption! What is DNQuest? I may not be the best at understanding the law, nor be able to make the best fan page before I get taken. I take the best precations not to infringe on the rights of others. I have more right to the name then they do, I am just trying to better understand this and stay within the law - these are threats and threats don't mean the person harrasing me is correct? If I don't have rights to the name, then who does? There are over a hundred other people who have this name, but unlike this person, they would admit to it, so you are out of line! This is just a person who does not agree with my content, so who gave him rights? Why do you say things that are not true? I appreciate the advice I have been given here, but again, you are out of line. Are you going to poke your nose into me? I come to get advice, not to be stalked by people!.
Your position is that every fan should bow down to the requests of the person they are a fan of and all people who do not have a certian name should never register it, to make a fan site, to protect the name for the fan or other reasons?.
Also, I doubt you read anymore than the first couple of posts! I may hand over the name, but am I allowed to get advice here!..
Everyone who has been correct has given the same advice - you have ZERO legal right to the domain name now that they have asked for it. You can pretend that you do, but the courts will side against you. You will be labeled a squatter under the law at that time, not just by someone on a forum.
The choice is yours - give up the domain or have it taken from you publicly. These people are trying to help you by telling you the straight and honest unvarnished truth. It's now up to you...
There's no need to take the advice here personally, FilaRaffa. I think that everyone here is trying to save you a lot of hassle, time, and money.
You're in the wrong legally here. That doesn't mean we're telling you that you're a bad person it's just that you clearly don't understand the laws regarding this issue.
Best of luck,.
I think there is nothing wrong with having a fan site. If you had a fan site by the artists name then this would be alright imo. On the other hand I think you registered her real name and not her stage name. This doesn't look like a fansite to me..
You are excposing her real name while she and her family would rather keep private. You are on the wrong here...
Awe...looks like someone can't handle the truth. I dare a lot of things. I assume this based on the information you provided which I read carefully. Admittedly you don't know the law and you have come here for advice from those that do understand it. Your best precautions have not prevented you from infringing on the rights of others. Wow...that's the most clueless statement you have yet to make.
Harrassing you? No I don't believe they are. You don't happen to be one of those people with the same name? You might not be a squatter if that was the case. You openly admit the name was registered by you because of this famous person. You admit they have a commercial career in acting. Exactly WHY do you have rights to it? Because you got it first? That's not how it works.
Maybe you need to understand what words mean before you use them. Words like "rights" and "stalked". No that's not my position. You just don't seem be the person I would defend for fair-use as I don't believe you have good intentions. If you really were a fan of this person you would want them to have the name.
I read every word...twice...well, three times now. Yes you are allowed to get advice here and we in turn are allowed to give it. No one said otherwise...
To own a fansite and to be a fan of somebody are too different things. You might own a fansite but might not be a fan or the artist. You still have the right to own the site.
I think OP would be perfectly alright if he had registered her stage name. On the other hand he couldn't have done that because as he says the person was famous and her stage name must have been already taken.
What he did is to register her real name. This invalidates the fansite perspective...
Correct me if I misunderstood, but does the domain name's website explicitly.
Reference the celebrity?.
Of course, it's the other party's burden to demonstrate trademark rights first..
If they're indeed prepared to do that, what are you prepared to do?.
And your other question about transferring the domain name to another party.
To possibly avoid liability has been beaten to death before. The answer is no,.
It won't shield you...
Roflmao, this topic was as entertaining as informative.
I didn't register two domains that were 100% tm issues -.
And I have no problem naming them :.
Funnily, they were booked by xyz and sold to what I assume are trademark owners at $10k and $3k respectively. And within 6 months of registration.
In retrospect, I made a mistake of not booking them...
Or did I?.
What do you think?..
Okay, lets see if I understand.
You find out the real name of a MINOR celebrity and register the name. You reveal the real name of the person trying to keep anonymity, and wonder why th e parent is angry? How would you feel if it was your minor daughter ,who could be put in danger by revealing her real identity. Celebrities don't want their personal lives mixed with their professional lives,particularly child actors and their parents. That's the same reason they hate paparazzi.
Do you have a right to the name? Maybe.
Do they have a common law TM? Probably not, if it's not the professional name she's known by, but this is one of they grayest areas of UDRP decisions.
Have you created an invasion of Privacy? I would say yes.
Was your registration in bad faith? My opinion is yes. If you were a real fan, you probably wouldn't have revealed the personal-professional link against their will at least until she becomes an adult. You registered because you see this person being famous someday and the domain becoming valuable. This just helps prove you have have financial thoughts for the future of the domain...
If anything bad happens to that girl, her father will definately find you. I understand why he is so angry. There are many sick people out there...
I'll take it off your shoulders for $100 bucks.
And if you were a real fan, you'd do the right thing give the name to the rightful owners. If you really cared about this celebrity, why would you want to do anything which could cause her harm? If she doesn't want a fansite, she doesn't want a fansite... I'm sure they'd be willing to refund you your registration costs... Leave it at that...
Thank you everybody! I do not agree with the safety argument. A search of the name will produce hundreds of results. This is a public figure, but if this were not, I agree, the privacy of such person should be respected and not made public. This is just my opinion. This was a topic before the creation of the site. I have only seen like two links to the website, although I have not checked my statistics or referrals?.
I just happen to have the domain name, never was there personal information, never was there advertising, nor did I ever have any link to an outside website. I thought that this was squatting. This was a fan site. I did NOT have a disclaimer, but after speaking with an attorney friend I included one - no affiliation, etc. He is not an expert in this area of law, but he told me legally I should be safe with this disclaimer.
I know my intentions are questionable. I wonder how much of the advice given thus far has been skewed because of the belief that I have intentions to profit? There is no evidence of this. If you get that impression from my posts, this is one thing, but how does my website show this to be my intention? What if this was never my intention? Why was I the first to grab the domain? Reason, I followed the "happenings" of this person because I am a fan!.
I except the truth, but I think it is a bit biased because I am not believed nor understood. There is mention of domain squatting, but I keep telling that there was none of this. Also, I have read up on this, holding a domain to make a profit is not domain squatting. This is not to say that it is legal or ethical, but with all due respect, please don't accuse me of something I have not done.
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS MORE OF AN OPINION FORUM THAN A LEGAL FORUM. I AM FALSELY JUDGED TO HAVE BAD INTENTIONS SO I AM WRONG, I LOOSE, THEY WIN. ETHICS ASIDE, I ASK ABOUT THE LAW. WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR CHILD.... blah!.
Thanks you to those who have participated in this discussion. I still don't know what to do, but I have learned a lot, much appreciated, such a complicated issue. Are they able to recoup legal expenses in an ICANN dispute? What if I just leave it as it is and let things play out, not fight a complaint, just leave things as they are? I am just tossing out ideas trying to grasp the complexity of all this!..
No. No one knows until the father carries out his threat, but the chances of.
His taking the domain name can be high if he pulls it off and you don't reply.
The sentiment you got here really isn't any different than from asking people.
In the offline world. Just expect that next time.
If you really want legal advice, you can only get that through a lawyer who.
Eats these things for breakfast. Good luck...
People have given you many legal reasonings behind the fact that you don't have a right to the name. It doesn't matter what your use of the name is...the registration of it was made in bad faith, because as has been mentioned before, it's her name and you clearly registered it knowing who she is because of her celebrity status.
Just because you have the name that you have though doesn't mean you're ALWAYS going to be contacted by the person or in this case their mother/father and lose the name, but it means you run the risk of it. In this case, that's what they did, and if you really want to hear a legal opinion, ask jberryhill. Many of us have seen posts on similar issues by him and have learned what we know on TM law from his wise legal posts. Just don't be surprised if he says what 90% of the people in this thread have already said...
There are many unofficial websites with the name of a celebrity. Why should this be any exception? I don't understand this being a trademark issue? This is a fan site, no intentions to sell shirts or bobble head dolls. I don't understand the trademark issue here? I wish more people would give me the benefit of the doubt, but I appreciate all the opinions. I think what it may come down to is NOT the domain name itself, but the content that I include on my site. You notice the first two posts mention this not being a trademark issue. I am not yet convinced either way?.
Also, getting a domain name of a person who is a celebrity for the purpose of making a fan site is acting in bad-faith? I think not or they would all loose in arbitration.
Also, if there is an established website for this person, why could I not transfer the domain over to this admin, assuming they would take it? Is it correct that I cannot transfer? This was a question, but I am going to get, "Why don't you just give it up to the dad?" If I gave it to the dad, what if another person with the same name then disputes him having it - not probable, but what I am trying to show is the logic of many here does not make complete since. I think the best answer is that there is no right answer. This is an interesting discussion! I wish that someone who eats this stuff for breakfast would chime in, but I think I am going to put this topic to rest...
You might want to check out: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dco...epcongress.pdf.
I'm new to domains, also....but have cancelled all domain names I previously 'owned' that belonged to celebrities. Better to make my millions (?lol?) with domain names not affiliated with something or someone famous (or potentially so). Hope you work this out..
You are not looking for opinions, and you are not trying to learn - you are looking to be vindicated, which will not happen here.
And most that get contacted by the celebrity LOSE the name.
JulieBrown.com (former MTV VJ) http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2000-1628.html.
Read the respondants reply in the Julie Brown decision. Sound familiar?.
And their decision......
Each person must find his own ethical standpoint.
The ones who are giving an opinion here are coming from a higher standpoint than purely profit, imho...
You seem to be running a nice little string of issues, no?.
To back track a bit here....
Yes, people are entitled to run fansites in good faith. I 100% agree and support that. Jsut because someone owns someone elses name, does not mean they are automatically bad. IT is their actions that proves that.
I also believe domain owners who use "fansites" as cover for bad faith intentions should lose the domains.
I do believe bad faith has happened here.
As far as a legal fourm vs opinions... many posters in this thread has many years of experience in the field. We may not be lawyers, but I will say this, we may know more than lawyers do who are not IP specialists Many of our opinions comes from lawyers and experts who do post. We live and learn...
I'm not a lawyer..but I wouldn't say it's a TM issue at all..Is the name common? How many different "Jessica Roses" are there out there? I mean if it's a name like "Matt Smith" or something then there is noway it can be proven you purchased the domain because of her...Just my 2 cents I would say consult a lawyer..
Umm...I posted actually WIPO decision which imho is directly related to this situation. His defense is extremely similar. This has nothing to do with ethics or morals. It has to do with the letter of law. If the father goes to UDRP...this person will lose the domain and I am fairly confident in that...
Labrocca, those who live in Glass houses, shouldn't throw Forman grills...
George hasn't contacted me.
And I am not the one asking if my domains are problems.
Btw..having a glass house means you spend less on lights...
The only thing missing in this thread is the green ink...
Anyone interested in this thread might want to check out the following 2 articles about Allison Stokke, the high school pole vaulter thrown into the spotlight recently. Her story has it all - footage of her being posted on YouTube, website with her name being started by a 'fan', angry father going after website, etc. etc. L.A.Times - "Pole Vaulting Gets Her Lots of Internet Looks, Not All By Sports Fans" Washington Post - "Teen Tests Internet's Lewd Track Record".
The issue was on TV. Here I found some more news and a video...
Excuse me, with all due legitimate understanding of this issue,.
If people around me socially acknowledge that I am a celebrity, be it in media or in technology speaking, can I sue a person who owns my name.com? In my genuine opinion, common nouns cannot be really TM'ed. Like, If I am popular in my region or say my country, and if I change my name to Johnny Depp and register a domain, is their any legibility in the case?..
Usual answer no. 5: it's one thing to sue, it's another to win.
Apple's a common noun, yet it's also a trademark.
Poor girl, thrust into the limelight that wasn't her fault.....
If you do business under the name...the answer is YES...
I see the valid points raised by many, and it is likely that the "father" could take legal action and there is a very real possibility that you could lose the name. Are you keeping the name mainly because you are a fan, or hoping the "underage " actress will hit it big to later profit$$ in some way?.
My own story: I am a recording artist (a small cult following would apply here) I have a fan in the UK who turns out regged the .uk version of my name. I don't have a problem with it especially if he turns it into a fan site. But I am a parent, and if someone regged my underage sons name for the purposes of squatting I would have issue.
Another story: My father had a website the .org and the .com, he dropped the .org which had PR and was archived. Of course now that I'm a domainer I would not have let him drop our family name, which is now a ppc page on erectile dysfunction. Would I have some recourse to aquire the name, which is not common?..
U have nothing to worry about.
There are thousands of Jessica Rose....
That person cant do anything.
How about some background to that statement, laws, precedents, something to support that. Just saying so isn't enough...
BTW- that is a very inaccurate statement.
This is getting a little old, tried their best to help. Remember, this is domain law, not TM law. There is a slight difference (hint- domain law is easier to show rights to a domain, notice the word trademark is not mentioned)...
If I were you i'd transfer this domain to someone or just yourself registered under different country. Lets say Kazakhstan under name of Mr. Bolar.
Let them find and sue Mr.Bolat since your are not owner anymore..
Or any other african country under name of Lumumba MAtumba,,,,..
An ICANN dispute cost $1400+ to file a lawsuit a lot more to litigate and neither is a guaranteed win. I would tell him he can buy it for $1200 or piss off..
JMHO.. (might not want to use those words but you get my point)..
Yet another wrong statement... some people in this thread need to learn some more about domains before posting in legals. Simply amazing.
Just because you get rid of the domain does not get rid of the liability. Plus, if you give it to another person and did not tell then about the TM issues and that you were sent a C&D, they can come after you too...
All the amateurs are coming out in this thread.... Why does domaining have a bad rep????.
Extorting a TM holder over a domain... is that the advice you are giving???..
I'm wondering too.
I guess some people need to burn their fingers to learn..
You might be surprised so see what a father will spend to protect his daughter. In most cases, their suit will also include legal expenses if the law allows, meaning if they win YOU pay those fees for them. Except the fees will actually be MUCH higher in reality if the Judge awards them...
It does not appear that the father is trying to protect his daughter but rather make sure he can secure her celebrity status. I don't see how owning a domain with ones common name say on You Tube is in any way threatening. Am I saying they don't have a case under URDP no they probably do. Do they have a case under ACPA I say no because I don't see how they can possibly show damage just because you bought a domain name. Unless you are showing pictures of the girl and claiming she is in a porno there is no case. So based on what you described I believe his interest is simply in getting the name back.
Even if he comes back with an offer for $600 it's better than nothing. For those of you that think it is extortion you are entitled to your opinion and also free to give away your domains.
One other thing. Check the trade mark databse for the .com name you own and any full TM of the base name if they don't have one filled you could fill one and they would have a very hard time winning a URDP.
In the end I think they will realize that economically nothing other than buying the name or regging a new one makes sense...
I really hope your kidding... Registering a domain under a fake name will get you into even more trouble...
Sounds to me like the father wants his cake and eat it too. exploiting his daughters image on youtube for profit, then claiming to be a protective father. If he was really was concerned for his daughters well being, he should be suing youtube to have his daughters videos removed. Then on the other side if you were a true fan you would contact the father and offer to sell him the name at a reasonable price.
Just my opinion...
Offering the domain for sale is not a good idea as it can constitute evidence of bad faith and can be held against you in the UDRP proceedings..
Besides, UDRP is an arbitration procedure designed to complement but not replace legal procedures. So complainants can take it to the court instead and the US legal system can truly crush people...
I think offering to sale at a reasonable price is a good idea. the father would have to be a fool not to buy. Buy and have it over with or not and possibly drag it on for months racking up lawyer fees. seems like a no brainer to me...
Wrong I am the father of 2 Daughters 22 y and 25 y. I just use common sense to resolve a problem. he obviously just wants control of the domain name otherwise he would have just sent a cease and desist letter, instead of demanding the name be turned over to him...
And exactly what's the difference legally? A C&D isn't a form letter. The demand to turn over the name could be construed as a C&D...
Indeed - And just FTR, didn't say you weren't a father, just betting that you aren't in the same situation (Or even substantially similar )..
You can compose a cease and desisit letter without demanding turnover of the domain..
And I would have never let my daughters when they were at that age post any videos of themselves online, let alone one of the top ten websites in the world...
" Wrong I am the father of 2 Daughters 22 y and 25 y. I just use common sense to resolve a problem. he obviously just wants control of the domain name otherwise he would have just sent a cease and desist letter, instead of demanding the name be turned over to him. ".
"you can compose a cease and desisit letter without demanding turnover of the domain..
And I would have never let my daughters when they were at that age post any videos of themselves online, let alone one of the top ten websites in the world.".
Are you reading this thread? the father did send a C&D, and he wanted the domain name. Why do you keep suggesting he should have sent a C&D? Do you know what a C&D actually is? I agree with Labrocca, the fathers demand can be easily construed as a C&D. They don't have to be nice and they don't have to cite law, they don't even have to make sense. As long as they get the point accross that you infringed and the demand something, that is basically it...
Also, I almost always post the WIPO opinions on questions like these, and I missed my opportunity the first go-round.
2.5 Can a fan site constitute a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name?.
This section only deals with fan sites that are clearly active and non-commercial. There are many UDRP cases in which the respondent claims to have an active non-commercial fan site but the panel decides otherwise..
See Helen Fielding v. Anthony Corbert aka Anthony Corbett D2000-1000 , Transfer.
View 1: An active and clearly non-commercial fan site may have rights and legitimate interests in the domain name that includes the complainants trademark. The site should be non-commercial and clearly distinctive from any official site.
Estate of Gary Jennings and Joyce O. Servis v. Submachine and Joe Ross D2001-1042 , Denied.
2001 White Castle Way, Inc. v. Glyn O. Jacobs D2004-0001 , Denied.
View 2: Respondent does not have rights to express it's view, even if positive, on an individual or entity by using a confusingly similar domain name, as the respondent is misrepresenting itself as being that individual or entity. In particular, where the domain name is identical to the trademark, the respondent, in it's actions, prevents the trademark holder from exercising the rights to it's mark and managing it's presence on the Internet.
David Gilmour, David Gilmour Music Limited and David Gilmour Music Overseas Limited v. Ermanno Cenicolla D2000-1459 , Transfer.
Galatasaray Spor Kulubu Dernegi, Galatasaray Pazarlama A.S. and Galatasaray Sportif Sinai Ve Ticari Yatirimlar A.S. v. Maksimum Iletisim A.S. D2002-0726 , Transfer..
I've dealt in hundreds of celeb sites for over a decade, without any problem. Becuase I've always keep them true good faith fan sites of dead and/or "classic" old celebs. (See this year's Monroe decision.).
But using the REAL name (and one she wanted kept secret, no less) of a CURRENT and UNDERAGE female? This is even grossing ME out! Wish I could give my common advice of "hang in there against the establishment," but there seems to be way too many things wrong with this picture.
If you were a true fan, you'd be using her showbiz name, and not her real one. (I wouldn't even call Cary Grant by the well-known moniker Archie Leach on one of my sites.) And what was your site plan? If you're making money from links and/or trying to peddle the dom to her parents or anywhere else, you've already gone too far into the bad faith shadows. And that only scratches the surface, I fear.
My advice: DUMP it like yesterday's trash. Quick...
Are you dense? You are missing my point! He could have sent a c&d "WITHOUT" demanding the domain be turned over, as opposed as sending a c&d "WITH" demands for the domain and accomlish the same thing. the fact that he wants control of the domain tells me he wants it to promote his daughter...
So the C&D would be for what purpose? Send a C&D to stop using his daughter's name in a domain? So telling him to delete the domain so it goes up for grabs to the next creep that comes along?.
When you try to force the unknown intentions of another actor to conform to your idea(l)s you are only going to run in circles.
Awww.. I wanted to say that! But ya beat me to it.. good points!..
The letter of c&d would be to stop using reference to his daughter on the website. He doesnt need control of the domain to do that...
Last settlement we had with C&D was $2500, but i'll take $250-$500 if I were you.
To avoid legal hurdles, ask the father if he'll take $500 for it (less than legal fees) and out you go.
You have to pick your battle, this one is not a winner... Goodluck!..
You have to be kidding me here ?????.
DENSE?!?!?!? what a freakin joke. You someone is dense here, but it sure in the hell ain't me. Dude, you need to get a clue...
I can't believe this thread is still going on. It it is obvious this name was regged in bad faith. Personally, I can't stand these type of registrations, but I understand that people new to domaining just don't get it.
I think the OP will be doing great if he gets rid of the name at reg fee, let alone a profit...
I think the best advice we could have given the OP was that we are not lawyers and clearly he needs the services of a good domain lawyer.
Now for my opinion...
I think he would lose a WIPO action (bad faith). I think he would lose any court action brought by the father. At least a WIPO action wouldn't cost him any money, but if the father takes it through the courts he is going to probably lose more than just his domain. I think it also morally wrong (if not illegal) to connect the minor's real name to their celebrity name and expose their real name which both the minor and her parents wish to remain secret.
But as I said. This is just my opinion. The OP should consult the services of a good domain lawyer (who ain't cheap either). If the OP is unwilling to spend any money to defend their rights to the domain, then give it up...
I have been following this up and can only agree with the majority of factual information I have seen on this thread..
You are on weak soil. Contact the father and tell him you agree to transfer the domain name as you are a truly fan of her and didnt mean any harm. Ask him if he can meet your following costs as a gesture of goodwill..
These could be e.g. Domain name costs + transferral costs + labor costs. I wouldn't ask more then $300.00 as it would show bad faith (if it doesn't already). Make sure you clearly distinguish the domain name costs with the labor costs. Preferably phone him if you can. I would imagine that he would accept this deal as it will cost the father more time and money (which he could reclaim from you if the UDRP is in his favor) in the longrun.
The more you keep this dragging on, the more you piss him off and the more chance you have of loosing the name + costs.
Don't be stubborn, listen to the helpful feedback from some of the namepros members.
Don't always assume that black is black..
Its not because I tell you that this text here is bold and black that you should believe without any reasoning/theory/structure/factual background.
We all live and learn, trust me you are not the first and I doubt not for a second that you will sooner or later understand the 'whole' and use your common sense to make the right decision.
Be very carefull & in any way whatever the outcome I wish you the strenght and wisdom to understand more about domain law and see in what MAY happen if ...
So, my name is "john smith", it so happens that i'm a 16yr old whizkid that's savvy in recording/editing/publishing video. Smart dude that I am, I publish my videos on youtube, the #1 copyright infringing site on this planet, I do this time and again, before you know it, I have a little fan community trailing my every move. In the end, my little copy scheme of lonelygirl15 worked totally in my favor. However, i've come to the realization that my name in form of a domain has been registered a while ago. Now i'd like to obtain my domain name, because i'm an internet, no sorry, youtube celebrity...
Guys, the chick is publishing videos on youtube, she's about as far away from being a celebrity as Paris Hilton is from getting a Nobel Prize.
How often has she made the news? How often was or is she cited in magazines? When has her name become a brand? And who says that this is not another lonleygirl scam?.
If the father wants the domain then he should make an offer to reimburse the domain holder for his costs and move on. Unless his girl turns into a real celebrity that actually has some level of status, he needs to tune down his act a bit. On the flipside, the registrant should cease the domain for cost and let it be.
It doesn't take rocket science to solve this one amicably. Law suits are not always the solution - which gets to say that the USA is a bit too lawsuit happy.
As always, no need to flame as t'is is..
Intel, I guess you are missing the fact the domain is making money from a UNDERAGE possibly ruled celeb. The OP admitted she is an actress, He admitted it is her real name. Many actors se their real name in the business and they have been ruled TMs. Just becuase she is new to the scene, the domain was registered and used in bad faith in accordance to established laws and precedance. The OP admitted this. You can come up with a gazillion senarios, but I prefer to stay on this topic (actually, I prefer for it to be over and the domain owner do the right thing)...
You need to go back and read the posts! Filaraffa stated in the first few posts that he has never advertised on his Fan website, or had any links to any thing other than the girls videos at You Tube. He stated that the girls FAMILY is making money from her videos at You Tube, and that his domain has been used stricktly as a Fan Site. I think maybe you are just confused...
The last part of the OP was: What do you thing the dollar sign appended to that was supposed to mean? I have my own opinion...
I quoted a WIPO decision a couple pages back that was a fan site that didn't make money...the complaintant won in that case and would do so here as well. This person has not shown any rights to this domain...
Sorry, I should have said "trying" to make money from an underage, possible ruled celeb. Yes, bad faith is written all over this one......
When I become a celeb then I will get my name sacha.com..
Then again, just hope their isn't another famous name like that..
Do you know this man is the actual father?.
Have you got proof, someone may just be winding you up...
Just wondering if fillaraffa is still watching this? Update?.
Please don't be offended by what I am going to say. I have to admit I laughed out loud when you mentioned the .org is a ppc page on erectile dysfunction. I'm pretty sure the name isn't even close to being relevant to such a topic. The internet never ceases to amaze me.
As far as this situation is concerned, this is my take on it.
I think the original poster is showing some sort of bad faith in registering the name. However I have issue with the "supposed" father contacting him. We have no proof this is her father. There are way too many scam artists on the internet to take a stranger's word for it. I also question the legality of this minor being considered a celebrity.
All because you are popular on Youtube does not mean you are a celebrity. What if he made the site about something unrelated to this so called "celebrity"? I think both sides are in the wrong here for some similar & some different reasons.
Either way it is probably safe to say that each side is exploiting a minor...
You're confusing "famous marks" for celebrity status. No TM exists by default, simply because a common person has reached "celebrity" status. There is no such way to measure the degree of celebrity one has achieved...
Acro, you need to read the whole thread.. but I'll give you the short version before you get carried away.... I said she could be ruled a celeb and could have TM status. The OP sated she is an actress, so it is not just an ordinary person getting fame. Then it was stated a celebs name is not a TM. That was my reply.
TMs are earned through commerce, they are not automatically given out, I agree. But a celebs name is their TM, no doubt about that...
Why would I "get carried away" by incorrect statements?.
A TM is not a right by birth. Also, fame cannot be measured on a scale in order to attribute "celebrity status". A person can be famous in their local village, can they claim a TM just because they are the village's most popular person?.
Now, if the domain owner places images of the actress in question and sells merchandice with her name or moniker, that's a different story...
Acro, I guess you are not understainding what I am saying here, but we seem to be agreeing. It is not a birthright, it is earned, as of right ow, neither you or I can make tht determinations since, well, we don't know the name. All we know is the OP states she is an actor, since she is an actor, she makes a living from her name. Since she makes a living from her name, it can easily be said that is her TM. that is the progression, she would have to prove it. Additionally, she does not have to sell merchandise with her name to have a TM, her product is herself. That is how actors are viewed (pardon the pun).
Again, I would like to point out 2 things, 1- I never said said has a TM, I said it could be ruled because I don't know, then again, no one else does either 2- bad faith is written all over this, it may not be proven, but it is definately there...
The reference to merchandice was related to establishing a registration in bad faith claim against the registrant, not to establish a TM by the actress by the same name.
Again, a full name does not receive an automatic TM. In fact, the requirements of the USPTO state that a name such as "Joe Doe" is not deemed trademaketable, whereas "Joe Doe Widgets" is. The difference being, the services or products offered under that name.
Therefore, unless the domain is a moniker, such as Sting.com, Madonna.com etc. it's not automatically a TM - especially if there are other people on the planet by the same name - famous or not...
Again, I am agreeing with you. But now you are talking about registered marks, TMs do not have to be registered to be protected. Celebs have common law TM which has consistantly been recognized as such. The two examples given are a bit different as opposed to a celebs first and last name. All you need to do is read celeb decisions and you will see thier names are considered TMs (and court decisions have also support this). Bruce Springsteen is his TM, it was ruled as such, yet the fansite owner won because it was a true fansite. But it was established that his name is a TM...
Look at nissan.com.
I don't think legally they can do anything to take the domain away from you.
Furthermore you can put a note on the site that this site is not an intellectual property of jessica rose.
Why do people think it's registered in bad faith.
If jessica roes'es father wanted it so bad, he could of registered it himself.
Plus, celebreties, are pretty much public entities as per say to some extent.
It's common to have a fan site say for 'whitney houston' or 'jennifer anniston'.
Tha'ts what celebrities are, known figures...
The Nissan case is not similar to this at all... and your advice is just bad. I wish people here wouldn't post advice on things they obviously don't know about...
It might look bad to you, but then why do we have the open domain registrations?.
Any domain unregistered is open to be registered by anybody in the .com tld.
I don't think it's illegal to sell the domain or run a site on it as long as it's not doing illegal stuff.
Heck he could even run a forum on the site and act as an intermediary where people can post whatever they want.
You go to forums and see alot of stuff posted, but they are the sole opinions of the poster.
All I'm saying, IMO, as long as the site runs legally, and yes, it is possible to register GeorgeBush .com or whatIthinkofBush.com or any other person's name and run a site. As long as it runs legally.
The father has rights & you have rights as well. That is the beauty of the free enterprise and it is one of the main reasons that the United States is the #1 country in the world.
Everything has due process. Some might think ooooo it's wrong, doesn't sound right, sounds low, etc, etc.
Law goes by (Is it illegal?, Have any laws been violated?) U know what I'm saying.
And it's just not that easy to just snatch a domain from an owner just like that.
I mean, somebody which monitors a niche, watches it constantly and acts appropriately is not bad.
Look at the stock market. You have analysts etc, etc.
Anyways I never sold a single domain in my life, but I just started buying some for my own use and guess what.
It takes hours, days, weeks, trying to find word combinations, checking them and seeing if there available. And this is in my own niche.
After like a year, I kinda hit it big, with some good names. If I were to sell those, don't you think I would want a compensation for the time invested in research?..
No trademark then no right to take any domain from your hands..
Be careful many people try to scare domain name owners to get free or for a very low fee popular domains...
You may want to research a little more.. or at least read this thread better. Too many problems with this one for me to go into, I am not in the mood. But you should learn more aobut this subject...
Sadly, many celebs could only get where they are today by lying, cheating and stealing their way to the top. Simply put, this means they're used to saying anything it takes in order for them to get what they want.
A few years back, some celebs noticed that legit product manufacturers who were TM holders were finding frequent success with taking away lots of dot coms previously owned by others. And so suddenly these celebs started saying "I'm a TM too! I'm a TM too!".
And if tomorrow, WIPO & friends declared that all Martians are likewise entitled to take whatever dot coms previously owned by others they might want, suddenly those same celebs would similarly start yelling "I'm a Martian too! I'm a Martian too!".
But you know what? They're neither. They're just celebs, period...
What are you smoking to say this????? complte rubbish. No, cybersquatters were using their names in bad faith and making money from their hardwork. Their name is their TM, ruled over and over and over.. and you know, they don't even need to lie about that. I will assume this is residue from that stuff you are smoking...
First of all... if it was your name you registered and then this other person came along with the same name you might have a case but the fact that it isn't your very own name you don't have a leg to stand on.
It's the same in any business. If a business uses their own name like "Mary Jane's site: someone else cannot come along and take that away from you because your name is a registered entity. That's where the "not a leg to stand on" comes in.
If you are planning to make it a fansite then you should have the nameplusfansite.com as your site name but to just use her name is definitely against the law...
Not an accurate statement statement. A TM celeb name used in good faith are protected. Numerous decisions have been won by fansites...
( IMHO I'm a Newbie, but I'm a bit surprised at the absolute conviction of those who seemingly have been around for a long time and claim that this issue is black and white....what is clear, is that it is far from a black and white issue, and that is why these issues still end up in court when the original owner refuses to give up the name to the complainant. ).
# Whereas the general trend in the disputes over celebrities' domain names under the UDRP supports the complainants the situation is still far from clear.
# First of all, the Final Report of Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (September 2001) did not extend protection to personal names as such..
# It just restated the same principle that only the individuals who have trademark or service mark rights in their names may rely on the UDRP as a means of redress.
" Persons who have gained eminence and respect, but who have not profited from their reputation in commerce, may not avail themselves of the UDRP to protect their personal names against parasitic registrations.
It by no means affords comprehensive protection to personal names... The names of political figures, religious leaders, scientists and historical persons may never have been used in commerce and, thus, are unlikely to have trademarks associated with them.".
# Therefore the standard of proof remains unaltered. One has to demonstrate trademark rights in the first place. It may be a bit problematic in the case of so-called "business popularity" as we have seen in Ted Turner. It is also obvious that not every celebrity may rely on the UDRP. For instance, for prominent politicians national law may provide adequate remedies.
# Second, famous individuals who use nicknames (or groups) which have a certain meaning or are in common usage in any language are risking to lose a UDRP dispute since these names or trademarks are not particularly distinctive and this places additional burden on the complainants to provide evidence that their names have acquired secondary meaning.
# Third, the UDRP has proven to be effective against manifest cases of cybersquatting just like the situation when the registrant owns hundreds of celebrities' domain names and uses them for advertising revenue or redirecting to the web sites, which are not, related to actual activities of the famous persons whose domain names he has registered. However the situation appears to be more complicated when the respondent puts forward some more original submissions (like the one in Bruce Springsteen).
# Last but not least, it is important to keep in mind that "the location of the parties can be significant for determining whether the complainant has trademark rights" (WIPO Final Report, the Second Process, par. 184). Rule 15 (a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy provides that the Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of "any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable". Therefore the outcome of a particular case largely depends on the place of residence of the parties. The panels readily found trademark rights in unregistered names of celebrities in cases where the parties (and the panelists themselves) were from common law countries: Julia Roberts, Jeanette Winterson, Dan Marino, etc. If the parties are from countries, which grant protection only to registered marks the results may be less predictable...
Good post... but I wish people would stop bringing this back from the dead...
I completely agree, in general, this is not a black and white issue, my point of view would depend on the situation on a case by case basis. The "black and white" may come from details that come out in a thread that would show good/bad faith that would help or hurt thier situation.
But the bottom line is that fansites used in good faith should be protected, fansites used in bad faith should not be protected. If there is bad faith, the domain owner usually loses. If someone registers a TMed domain and uses it in bad faith, I will call them a cybersquatter. I do that for shock value in hopes the person takes a step back and takes the opportunity to learn the business because they don't want to be called one...
Nothing wrong with otherwise resurrecting a somewhat old thread as long as.
The new post brings something relevant to it. I've seen two-year old threads.
Brought back to life for whatever reason...
True. The new post was well written and it was relevant... I'm just worried about all the posts to come. The ideas and opinions in this thread have been done to death and the op doesn't believe he is squatting no matter what anyone tells him. Not to mention the fact that he's not even posted on his own thread since July 1st!.
Oh God, please don't get Jesse on another rant here or this thing could go on forever!!!!!!..
But we all know the real intent, don't we?..