VanHalen.com

[burgerman]

VanHalen.com is not owned by the band. It's a fan site. The real Van Halen site is Van-Halen.com.

Couldn't Van Halen legally acquire the name VanHalen.com? What do you think the reason is for why they haven't done so? Would it look bad (reputation wise) shutting down a fan site?

 

[tetrapak]

As your site has Adsense ads you no longer can state that it is a "fan site". Yes they could ask for the domain anytime, and most likely they would win the case. Run it as long as you can, but don't base your future on it.

 

[internext]

As a fan of Van Halen I have often wondered why they allowed this. Same with BruceSpringsteen.com (Bruce settles for the .net)

 

[dvdrip]

Because they both lost at UDRP.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1313.html
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1532.html

 

[fab]

Because they both lost at UDRP.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1313.html
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1532.html

Wow, what interesting decisions. Thanks for the links!

 

[Theo]

I liked this part:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]For all the reasons set out above, the users of the internet do not expect all sites bearing the name of celebrities or famous historical figures or politicians, to be authorised or in some way connected with the figure themselves. The internet is an instrument for purveying information, comment, and opinion on a wide range of issues and topics. It is a valuable source of information in many fields, and any attempt to curtail its use should be strongly discouraged. Users fully expect domain names incorporating the names of well known figures in any walk of life to exist independently of any connection with the figure themselves, but having been placed there by admirers or critics as the case may be.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Focus]

wow, maybe I should have kept some of those celeb names I had lol

 

[burgerman]

As your site has Adsense ads you no longer can state that it is a "fan site". Yes they could ask for the domain anytime, and most likely they would win the case. Run it as long as you can, but don't base your future on it.

I have no affilitation with the site VanHalen.com. I was just curious about it. I'm a Van Halen fan though! (David Lee Roth era, not Sammy Hagar era)

 

[Seraphim]

wow, maybe I should have kept some of those celeb names I had lol

I heard michaeljackson.com sold for a roller coaster ride and some wine. :disappointed:

 

[MainesDomains]

I would assume that this applies for band name's with other extensions? I have several .me that are along the lines of ledzeppelin.me, beatles.me, etc. So these decisions seem to indicate that I am ok to use them to build sites?

thanks,

Willie

 

[marcorandazza]

It depends. To "build sites" -- yes, you probably are okay.

However, if you just turn them into PPC sites, most UDRP panelists will find that to be bad faith.

Also, don't be lulled into a false sense of safety by a few UDRP decisions. You can find UDRP decisions that support your point of view, but there are likely just as many that cut the other way. The real danger is that the band's attorney may look at the risk of losing a UDRP and decide to just go ahead and file an ACPA claim. ACPA is easier to prove than UDRP -- and if you lose an ACPA, you can also lose $1,000 to $100,000, plus you might have to pay the band's attorney's fees. See 15 USC s 1125(d); 15 USC s 1117(d). See also 15 USC s 1129 (for personal names).

The general rule: If you are going to develop some kind of fan site on the domain, you are *probably* okay. If you are just trying to make click-through-fees due to the name of the band, you are running a risk.

 

[MainesDomains]

Thanks for your reply Marco. Fortunately, I chose only bands that I am a fan of and know enough to build a legitimate and useful ".me" social networking site around.

thanks,

Willie

Also, I wonder what the legalities of the fact that they had a sunrise period for .me domains? See FAQ. I mean if you did not get your trademarked name during that might you be sol?

thanks,

Willie

 

[marcorandazza]

Part 1: That's good. That means you probably have little to worry about.

Part 2: No, one isn't "SOL" if one doesnt take advantage of a sunrise period.