In two UDRP decisions that are expected to be published later today, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) denied Congressman’s Ron Paul, bid to obtain the domain names RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org
The Congressman filed two UDRP’s one for both of the domain name RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org against Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / JNR Corp and another UDRP on just the domain name RonPaul.org against DN Capital Inc., Martha Roberts.
It will be very interesting to read the decision which may include a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding as the Congressman’s claim was based on a common law trademark right rather than a registered trademark.
The two cases are D2013-0278 and D2013-0371 and were both filed in February of this year.
Had he been a Liberal or A Democrat certainly he would have won.
Correct Brian. Didn’t Hillary win hers? This seems like a politically motivated, spiteful decision.
He should use the Federal courts as the arbitration is not binding.
First off, you guys have a really selective memory:
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1256123.htm
The domain names at issue are , and
[…]
the Panelist concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
———
Politicians and religious figures typically do not win domain name disputes. Complaints premised on a personal name, with the exception of media celebrities in film or music are, in general, losers.
The outcome would be the same in federal court, e.g. Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309.
John
I don’t know if its selective memory
why should Brad Pitt have more protection than John Berryhill or one of less than 600 people on earth that are congressman
Yes I I’m stunned by the similarity in looks to you and Brad
Like twins
Ok John – fair enough.
But because Hillary Clinton was only a wife of the politician – she was able to gain control of HillaryClinton.com in 2005 – wasn’t she in the senate in NY at that time ?
B-
Any as we sit today the front runner for the Pres in 2016
Tread lightly
would hate to have to bail you out especially how things are rolling now
I was a huge Ron Paul supporter, and i was floored when he tried to strong arm these domains away from the guys who bought them primarily to keep them out of enemy hands.
His staff was on record as saying they did not want to purchase them , so they were bought in the open market by fans running it as a fan site.
This decision was correct.
@BrianWick, @John Duncan – Hillary Clinton demonstrated trademark rights when she filed and won her UDRP:
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/414641.htm
Apparently Ron Paul didn’t, at least in this dispute:
http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/paul-rdnh.pdf
“Complainant has had substantial amounts of unsolicited media coverage relating to his political campaigns, speeches, articles, and television appearances, and, indeed, some of that coverage has come from Respondent’s website. However, no evidence was furnished with the Complaint indicating that the name was used in these broadcasts or articles, or in any advertising, in a trade or service mark sense.
…
Likewise, Complainant has not shown that his books’ success has accrued to his reputation and name as a commercial, rather than political, source. Because
Complainant’s name has not demonstrated accrued trademark rights, the Policy does not support transfer of the Domain Name.”
(However tempting it probably is to bring politics into this specific discussion, especially because it involves an ex-congressman, it’s not likely to help it at all. Besides, there are other online places – like maybe RonPaul.com itself – where you can have a go if you feel like it.)
Mr. Berryhill, Ron Paul is a best selling author and celebrated speaker and no longer a politician. Considering this would he, in your opinion, prevail in Federal court under the Cybersquatting Act or common trademark law or whatever?
This panel decision downplayed the significance of the commercial activity at the site and off Ron Paul’s good name which is substantial as they’re selling cheap merchandise like T-shirts for $30.
I happen to think this is a travesty of justice and that the panel were clearly biased and politically motivated.
@BrianWick, @John Duncan – Hillary Clinton demonstrated trademark rights when she filed and won her UDRP then.
Apparently Ron Paul didn’t, at least in this dispute (from DNW until the actual decision is posted online):
“Complainant has had substantial amounts of unsolicited media coverage relating to his political campaigns, speeches, articles, and television appearances, and, indeed, some of that coverage has come from Respondent’s website. However, no evidence was furnished with the Complaint indicating that the name was used in these broadcasts or articles, or in any advertising, in a trade or service mark sense.
…
Likewise, Complainant has not shown that his books’ success has accrued to his reputation and name as a commercial, rather than political, source. Because Complainant’s name has not demonstrated accrued trademark rights, the Policy does not support transfer of the Domain Name.”
Dave that is a ridiculous decision and a travesty of justice
These liberal, out of touch lawyers at WIPO who delivered the verdict are quite simply wrong.
Ron Paul is a New York Times best selling author and celebrated public speaker and his trademark is blindingly obvious.
He should immediately sue these guys in Virginia court where Netsol is under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and see if a US judge comes to the same pathetic conclusion.
The assertion that you can’t become famous because of politics is ridiculous.
Does that mean Obama is not considered famous and worthy of trademark protection because he found his fame through politics?
I mean come on this is absurd!
These liberal, out of touch lawyers wanted to find a way to rule against Ron Paul who more than anyone has exposed their agenda to the public.
I’ll take up a few of the good comments above…
@Brian
“But because Hillary Clinton was only a wife of the politician…”
IMHO, that case was wrongly decided. But you don’t correct for a wrong decision by continuing to make wrong decisions.
Mike, the difference between Brad Pitt and Ron Paul is that Brad Pitt is a subject of interest for purely commercial reasons. Trademark law exists in tension with the First Amendment. The First Amendment says, “say what you like”. Trademark law says, “you can’t say certain things in the context of commercial speech.”
Given that the First Amendment’s core purpose is to allow, first and foremost, unfettered political speech, the tension comes to the fore in what are almost always “blended” political and commercial contexts. Often, nothing falls clearly on one side or the other of a bright line somewhere.
A good case for exploring the topic involves former California Governor Schwarzenegger. California, as may be expected, has a lot of protections around commercial rights of publicity. But Mr. Schwarzenegger’s career had something of a dual character. On the one hand, his rights in his name as a commercial brand were substantial. On the other hand, as a political figure, he was fair game for commentary.
So, what happened is that someone was selling action figures showing Mr. Schwarzenegger as “The Governator”. The court had a really tough time trying to sort out whether this activity was primarily a political comment playing off the duality of his reputation as a politician and actor, or primarily a commercial enterprise free-riding on the value of the Terminator franchise. The case is a good read, though.
The UDRP is a bad fit for a lot of “right of publicity” claims in personal names as opposed to purely trademark claims. Where the line is drawn depends, in a lot of cases, on the particular evidence and arguments in front of the panel. One way to approach whether a name acts primarily as a “mark” is in the distinction between saying:
1. “I saw a movie directed by Steven Spielberg.”
2. “I saw a Steven Spielberg movie.”
In statement 1, “Steven Spielberg” is used as a proper noun – the name of the person who directed the movie.
In statement 2, “Steven Spielberg” is used as an adjective to define a “type” of movie as a “Steven Spielberg” brand movie.
So, as noted above, Ron Paul has written a number of books. As the decision notes, the question is whether people buy those books as “Ron Paul books”, because “Ron Paul” indicates a certain type or quality of book, or whether they buy them because the books express the political views of Mr. Paul.
That’s a subtle, but important, distinction. There are people who love “Stephen King novels”, for example, or “a movie based on a Stephen King novel” where, as above, “Stephen King” is known to represent a certain genre and quality of authorship, going well beyond the fact that it is his personal name. One might even compare a book by someone else by saying, “It’s not as good as a Stephen King novel” or “It’s a lot like a Stephen King novel.”
It’s not a matter of simply saying, “oh they write books with their name on the cover, so it is a trademark for books”. It’s a question of whether that name has gained secondary meaning as a mark.
That’s where the Hillary Clinton decision, in my opinion, went wrong, and this one got it right. The UDRP decision explores the function of “Ron Paul” as a designator for books. Does it say to a person buying books, “this is a type of book – a Ron Paul book” or does it say “this book expresses the views of Ron Paul.” I don’t know what, specifically, was in front of the panelist, but that is the line of thought the panelist went through.
I know the resident “black helicopter” crew will never wrap their heads around the idea that there are people who try to make the best decisions they can on the papers in front of them, and are not constantly obsessing over a political agenda. It helps to get out and enjoy some sunshine, go for a walk or a bike ride, call an old friend, do something fun, and otherwise enjoy one’s short time on earth once in a while, instead of being in a state of perpetual outrage in front of cable television and the internet.
Mr. Berryhill, Ron Paul is a person who has established infamy in multiple fields. He is famous and his trademark is blindingly obvious. The biased, discredited panel are also grossly wrong when they assert you cannot obtain infamy through politics. Are they seriously claiming ‘Barack Obama’ is not entitled to trademark protection?
If the panel believe like “Ron Paul” ‘Barack Obama’ is not entitled to TM protection then what is the point of common law trademarks? It doesn’t make sense. These people are famous and this is established and easily verifiable.
John, there is a difference between “being a famous person” and “whether a name acts as a trademark.”
As far as what is the “point” of common law trademarks, as I mentioned above, the UDRP is a limited tool which is not a good fit for the entire category of “whether a personal name has obtained secondary meaning as a mark” questions. Most common law trademarks are not also someone’s personal name.
Osama Bin Laden was famous too. It doesn’t make it a service mark for terrorism.
And, no, “Barack Obama” is not a service mark for “being president” either.
I’m sorry you don’t catch the distinction, but I believe it is also pretty clear you are not capable of being objective about it either.
OK John –
Lets take your logic to my reality 🙂
I have kept BarbaraBush.com for years – using your logic – is she more famous as a US First Lady (which lends itself to a famousness – if any – thru politics) or non-profit / commercial entity that bears her name. Point is – if you search google deep enough there apparently is some kind of Barbara Bush Foundation.
I don’t know about some of you folks, but the above is very practical and realistic “advice” if one can call it that. While I understand that ranting against politics and (ex) politicians sometimes creates a temporary good feeling, it’s not going to change anything in the long term anyway.
Better to sometimes go out and enjoy life. We only got one life, after all.
Detailed analysis of the real issues at http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com