Individual's Names held by Others?

[warnerms]

I have noticed on SEDO and Afternic that there are a large number of Firstname/Surname
combinations for which the corresponding domain names are for sale. Assuming the registrant
of record does not have a name corresponding to the domain, is this person acting in bad-faith
in holding the names of individual's to sell for profit?

I understand the importance of name-as-brand for celebrities and their
rights in this respect, but does say "John Smith the Realtor" have rights
to request that the domain name corresponding to his name be turned over
if the registrants personal name is not the same as the domain?

Clearly there is a market being made in the sales of domain names
corresponding to the names of Individuals. What are the rights of the
respective parties, excluding celebrities?

If an Individual has previously held a domain that is the same as their name,
but fails to renew their registration, do they have any rights to recover said
domain name if the current registrant does not have the same personal name?

 

[tas38]

If they are well known by the name, then they can come after it. And yes there is a market for them, if you are a super big fan and don't want to make money off of it. Then you may be willing to pay big bucks for it, also some stars don't mind using their names for some things.

So that leaves them open to selling of them, but I stay clear of buying any star names. I could of had a big one hip hop one last week, for just a little over reg fee. But if they do take it from me, that leaves a record and from then on that would hunt me. So the just of it is, unless you know what you are doing. Stay clear of star names, or it could get you into more trouble then it's worth.

And a star don't have to renew a there name, as that means nothing at all to the panel.

 

[Dave Zan]

Nothing stops some people from believing they have some kind of cosmic right
to something held by another. The question is how to demonstrate that right
in a "fair and reasonable" manner.

That being said, usual applies. No infringed trademark rights or beach of what
agreement has been made, no enforceable claims.

 

[warnerms]

If they are well known by the name, then they can come after it. And yes there is a market for them, if you are a super big fan and don't want to make money off of it. Then you may be willing to pay big bucks for it, also some stars don't mind using their names for some things.

So that leaves them open to selling of them, but I stay clear of buying any star names. I could of had a big one hip hop one last week, for just a little over reg fee. But if they do take it from me, that leaves a record and from then on that would hunt me. So the just of it is, unless you know what you are doing. Stay clear of star names, or it could get you into more trouble then it's worth.

And a star don't have to renew a there name, as that means nothing at all to the panel.

Well known to what extent? Certainly a Realtor might be well known within a specific geographic region. We are not talking about celebrities here as we are well aware of their rights, but of individual's whos name is an important factor is conducting their business on a regional basis.
Professions that come to mind: Real Estate Agent, Insurance Agent, Independent Accountant, Attorney, ... Would any of these individuals have specific rights if the domain was their personal name but not the personal name of the actual registrant?

 

[Dave Zan]

Would any of these individuals have specific rights if the domain was their personal name but not the personal name of the actual registrant?

Outside what I posted above, no.

BTW, I meant breach, not beach.

 

[Brett Lewis]

Purely as an FYI,

The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") provides that: "Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person's consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil action by such person."

The key to this provision is the specific intent to profit by selling the domain name to a specific person whose name it is.

 

[Deleted member 70408]

Based on a couple of recent UDRP rulings, I think a current owner may be liable for a previous owners' usage of the domain name. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you buy FirstLast.com on Sedo from someone who was profiting off of that person by selling the name to you, wouldn't this suggest you could be penalized - even if you used it in good faith?

 

[warnerms]

The key to this provision is the specific intent to profit by selling the domain name to a specific person whose name it is.

So if I actually attempted to sell a domain name johnsmith.com to 100 different people all named "John Smith", would the same apply?
In this case it would seem we are not trying to sell to a specific
"John Smith", but to any and all persons named "John Smith"?

 

[dotNetKing]

I have a small collection of such names and have had no problems yet.

I have sold a percentage of these (perhaps 5) in the US$150 to US$350 range.

I consider them to be "generic" in the sense that they are domains that could appeal to a comparatively large number of people (say 50 people upwards).

As you say, they were not purchased to sell to a specific person.

I think I would steer clear of people who I knew were well known.

 

[Brett Lewis]

So if I actually attempted to sell a domain name johnsmith.com to 100 different people all named "John Smith", would the same apply?

My sense is that the law was intended for people who register the names of business figures or public figures or wealthy individuals, who otherwise lack trademark rights, with the intent to sell the domain names to those people. What a court's interpretation of the law might be is a different matter and not something that I could predict with any certainty.

 

[Mark Talbot]

Lets try a similar example and I am wondering your thoughts out here...

1 - I aquire a domain name consisting of a first and last name of nobody in particular, nobody that is famous, doesnt violate any trademarks, etc, through whatever means

2 - I hold this name name dot come for several years and just sit on it for my own reasons.

3 - some years later, someone with this name becomes a celebrity, by whatever means, sports figure, movie star, online guru, whatever made them famous.


Do I lose the right to own this name as I have maintained it long before any person with that name became trademarkable or famous?

Do I lose the right to ask a fair market value, or value at premium for the purpose for resale and profit?

Will it just be taken from me, as I demonstrate sudden "bad faith" by mere ownership or sale attempt?

Can I keep it under "first use" trademark qualification?





Do you see where I am going with this?

 

[tas38]

You can only hold a domain for 2 years with out using it, but not even looking at that here the real point to be made.

It's about if you got a right to use the domain, you must use the domain in a fair way, meaning if the person that become celebrity is well know by that name. And you don't have a fair use for the domain, then the celebrity will get the domain, and selling it to make money off it because of the celebrity name don't cut it.

But if you was using it for some thing fair, before they become a celebrity then you get to keep the name. In other wards you must have, a fair right to the name at the time they become a celebrity to keep it. If it's just sitting around in your account, then you got no real claim to it then you will lose it. You can not, make money off the celebrity name.

Of course a lot depends, on how the panel at the time sees things for their ruling on stuff, they do seem to be flexsable if nothing else. In how they rule on these things, and take other things into account as well.

 

[Dave Zan]

you must use the domain in a fair way

Define use and fair, especially if it doesn't meet what others expect.

And who says one can only use a domain name for 2 years without using it? I
have a domain name I've "used" for like 3 years without any website or email.

IIRC, one member here got UDRP'd for a domain name he's had for (I think) 6
or 7 years without putting up the website he planned to do.

 

[tas38]

Icann has you can reserve a name for 2 years, with out using it and I'm pretty sure they would go by that. Remember you don't own a name, you rent/lease the name for as long as you pay it for.

Use would be when you use it, for some use that was before the celebrity was well known. But at the same time, you can not use it to make money off of the celebrity's good name.

This would not change, even if they had the domain and dropped it. Or if your name was the same as the celebrity's, you can use it for your own site having nothing to do with them.

Now just think of it this way, you can not make any money from a well known celebrity's name. The real problem as you should see it, is that it's pretty hard to use a well known celebrity's name, with out making out because it's the celebrity's name. That is the whole reason, you want the well known celebrity's name in the first place. To make out from what the names means, because they made it have that value to being with.

 

[Mark Talbot]

So, as I understand it,..

I can buy or aquire in a bulk purchase, or by any means where I end up with, a domain name that can be part or firstlast dot com of a name of nobody or generically a bunch of nobodies that are regular joe's at best.

Unbenounced to me, a person is born, somehow becomes a child star, or a teen star, or even if long enough and adult star, and since I owned the domain name before he/she was born, or before he/she became is a star,.. and suddenly I am using the name in "bad faith" and should be giving the name to him/her/organisation, and definetly stop making money with it because I am violating their rights.

Please understand, I am just trying to understand the scope of this topic and how it applies.

*wishes I could edit*


If I were to just park my excess names, or put up sites that end up making me a little trickle income, I am hard pressed to understand how someones sudden and post-my-ownership fame and fortune makes my parts of my portfolio in "bad faith", know what I mean?

 

[tas38]

We are talking about real names here, why would anyone want to buy up names, with out putting them to a real use. Unless they felt, they could cash in on them if they become a star. There was a place that got most last names, but they was using them for a service to people.

That would be fair usage of them, if you can show you use them fairly then they can't to them.

 

[DNQuest.com]

You can only hold a domain for 2 years with out using it, but not even looking at that here the real point to be made.

Icann has you can reserve a name for 2 years, with out using it and I'm pretty sure they would go by that.

WHAT?!?!?

Is this a guess or personal opinion? How about proof to support this or a link? I am sure it would be easy to find.

 

[Deleted member 70408]

Icann has you can reserve a name for 2 years, with out using it and I'm pretty sure they would go by that.

Of all the idiotic posts you've written, this one takes the cake. Please support where you found this information, as you seem to be the only person to state it.

 

[tas38]

( Of all the idiotic posts you've written )

Well then how about you find it your self, I'm not the one trying to make money off of a stars TM name here. I read it some time back, in enoms TOS and it not as easy to find with all their fine print these days. But I read it, and seen it a few other times.

And with all the idiotic posts you've written, like you said so I'm not going to do the research for you. Believe it or not, but I read it more then once.

 

[Deleted member 70408]

( Of all the idiotic posts you've written )

Well then how about you find it your self, I'm not the one trying to make money off of a stars TM name here. I read it some time back, in enoms TOS and it not as easy to find with all their fine print these days. But I read it, and seen it a few other times.

And with all the idiotic posts you've written, like you said so I'm not going to do the research for you. Believe it or not, but I read it more then once.

My idiotic posts? Interesting. How about I find it myself? That would be difficult to do assuming it doesn't exist.

I probably went a bit over the top saying that your recent post took the cake, but reading your posts is like reading something written by the fictional character, Borat. Your grammar is usually incorrect, the tense is sometimes incorrect, and the spelling is often a mess. You tend to enter threads late, don't read everything that was previously posted, and your information is frequently incorrect. Hence the "idiotic post" comment.