Bill Cosby wins rights to Fat Albert name in cyberspace

houston chronicle ^ | 9-12-05 | Associated Press

[varyouga]

Jeeez, Al is starting to look like Mike Mooroooon minus the hat and beard.

[varyouga]

Probably because the site was registered off-shore and there was no other way.

This has a scary NWO feel to it. After the UN saying it wants to take over the net, it's even more scary.

[Old Seadog]

HEY, HEY, HEY!

[weegee]

Except that the Arbitrators for the World Intellectual Property Organization are under the United Nations.

http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/gib.htm

"In 1974, WIPO became a specialized agency of the United Nations system of organizations, with a mandate to administer intellectual property matters recognized by the member States of the UN."


I'm skeptical of them having any say over cyberspace.

[Prime Choice]

WIPO doesn't have any say over cyberspace. They are, however, recognized internationally as a legal body governing international disputes over issues of trademark, copyright and other intellectual property.

So, with that, Mr. Cosby can compel a domain registry to relinquish control of the domain records and fork them over to Mr. Cosby's domain registry of his choosing.

[ctlpdad]

I don't see it the same way. There were people smart & fast enough to snag the domain name, often paying for it. Why does Bill Cosby have more right to the domain name than anyone else?

Same for Coke, Pepsi, Anna Kournikova any anyone else. If it's so important now, why didn't they get there first?

[Prime Choice]

The name was popularized by Cosby in 1962. It was up to the squatters to show that they were using it prior to Cosby's having made it popular. They didn't, so Cosby won. It's all very simple.

There was a similar dispute once between Don Henley of the Eagles and another Don Henley. The celebrity tried to sue the non-celebrity into forking over his domain to him. The courts correctly ruled that the non-celebrity Don Henley was born before the celebrity Don Henley and thus had full rights to the domain. Henley ended up having to eat the costs.

As for the other items you mentioned, I suggest you read up on a legal matter called trademark dilution. That will more than satisfy your question.

[Arthalion]

It's a bit more complicated than that, because the Internet is more than just the Web. There are domain names that are only used as network identifiers, others that act solely as redirects, or to catch misspellings of a primary domain. I myself own a domain name that's only used for email...it doesn't have, and never will have, a website associated with it.

With so many domains, and so many potential uses for domains, how can you reasonably expect anyone to police them?

The solution, IMO, is to make them more expensive. Back in the days when we spent $75+ a year on our domain names, squatters were RARE because only the names with the biggest payoff potential were worth squatting. Nowadays, bulk resellers can register countless domains for only a few bucks each. From a financial perspective, if you pay $3 a year for a domain and have to sit on it a decade to get the $50 you want for it, it's financially worthwhile.

So raise the prices back up. If we're worried about the nonprofits and charities, figure out a way to get them a discount in the .org namespace.

Any time you give a valuable commodity away for almost nothing, you're going to have people who hoard it and try to make a quick buck from it. If you let the market determine the appropriate price, on the other hand, abuse will decline precipitously.

[Rakkasan1]

what's a "looser" ?

[judgeandjury]

I don't see it the same way. There were people smart & fast enough to snag the domain name, often paying for it. Why does Bill Cosby have more right to the domain name than anyone else?

Same for Coke, Pepsi, Anna Kournikova any anyone else. If it's so important now, why didn't they get there first?

I believe the answer can be found in copyright and trademark laws.