Posted on 07/25/2007 8:30:15 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Woo-hoo! "The Simpsons Movie" has won its name back on the Internet.
A UN agency has ruled that ownership of the domain name thesimpsonsmovie.com must be handed to News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox, which owns the rights to the film and the popular TV series.
Twentieth Century Fox complained to the World Intellectual Property Organization over the use of the film's name in the Internet address of a site registered by Keith Malley of New York.
Fox lawyers claimed Malley was using the address to divert Internet users to a website that included sexually explicit depictions of several characters from "The Simpsons" and, later, to his "Keith and the Girl" website. He was demanding a $50,000 fee from Twentieth Century Fox for the domain name, according to the July 22 ruling of the WIPO arbitration panel.
It found that Malley "has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name" and ordered its immediate return.
In an interview, Malley said that Fox lawyers never contacted him and that he learned about the case after the deadline had passed. He said his contact information was available on his website and through his lawyer, although he hadn't updated the official registration records for the domain name, which he bought in 1999.
"I found it bullying," Malley said, adding that he would speak with his lawyer about challenging the decision. Malley could appeal by filing a lawsuit in a court.
The arbitration system, which was set up in 1999, allows those who think they have the right to a domain to gain control of it without having to fight a costly legal battle or pay large sums of money. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and Madonna are among the Hollywood stars who have previously won rulings against so-called "cybersquatters."
"The animated television series 'The Simpsons' debuted in 1989, and has become one of the longest-running network series in television history," the ruling said, noting that Friday's release of the film has generated huge public interest on the Internet.
WIPO said Malley's "aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit" Twentieth Century Fox's trademark to promote and sell his own products and merchandise.
Malley, 33, who produces an Internet radio show, said he obtained the domain name with intentions of creating a parody of "The Simpsons." He said the amount Fox offered for the domain name, $300, wouldn't cover time spent developing ideas for the site; he would not elaborate on those ideas.
That was my point exactly. There are some, even on this thread, who would welcome slavery. I truly believe most of the U.S. would not stand for it.
Unfortunately there are too many “conservative” politicians who think just like our naive friend.
That’s all he knows how to do. And here I just complimented him last night that at least he’s not a jerk most of the time like so many pro-one-worlders/NAU’ers are.
1. shoot him, and
2. not enforce it.
yep.
Is that sarcasm? Here’s some more: there’s a big world outside the gates to your trailer-park.
Agreed.
You think a UN van will show at the guy's house? LOL!
Do you understand how a treaty works?
Was this the thread where you were whining that someone insulted you without giving you the courtesy of a ping, or was it another?
tit for tat and all that.
you did the same to me earlier.
Animal Farm anyone?
See what I mean? Textbook strawman. It's as if you're arguing with the voices in your head. No, you are arguing with the voices in your head. [chuckle]
If I did the same to you, please point it out and I’ll apologize. Or shut up, your choice.
“the following answers have been given to my question regarding how one enforces a U.S. injunction against a foreign entity:
1. shoot him, and
2. not enforce it. “
This experience seems eerily similar to an incident with one of your friends. I have such a bad memory, but I do remember tying him in knots and rolling him off a different thread a while back.
So, you waste your precious time here and just mix up and change up your statements to show your intellect? Not working out too well for you. My answer, as was so bravely given to your demanding question was that it wasn’t enforceble. The question was not that of a Foriegn Entity, but rather a Foreign Entity on their own Soverign ground.
I took the time to type all of this out just as reminder to myself if I ever wonder why I just skip past your interconnecting, verbal gymnatics and outright “making stuff up” posts.
Have a great night :)
Do you have a ballpark idea what the size of our economy (let’s say, GNP) would be if we built a moat and pulled-up the drawbridges?
Are you saying I mischaracterized your answer? If so, what was it?
Did you find sarcasm in it? I see your friend has arrived. The great economist.
Pondering if saying something “isn’t enforc[e]able outside of US territory, as well it shouldn’t be” is the same as saying “not enforce it.”
“It isn’t enforcable outside of US territory, as well it shouldn’t be” is an example of sarcasm? In what language?
Hey noob, what are you good at?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.