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.
I told you that there’s a treaty involved. Heck, there’s probably a slew of treaties involved. You asked me to find them, and I asked you to pay for the research. Isn’t that how your law firm operates?
By what authority does the U.N. have subject matter jurisdiction over U.S. citizens?
By the same authority they think they can use to seize the firearms of private U.S. citizens.
;-)
By the way, have you ever heard of the term "red herring?" Just curious.
"The Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO Convention, was signed at Stockholm, Sweden, on July 14, 1967 and entered into force on April 26, 1970. As its name suggests, it established the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). WIPO Convention has 183 Contracting Parties. The United States ratified it on May 25, 1970."
From the Constitution: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ..."
You made a claim, and I asked you to back up your claim. You refused. That’s how “that” works with you.
When someone else makes a claim, you demand that they provide evidence, and then when they do, you demand it be spoon fed to you, line by line, or else, what was posted is, according to you, without merit. According to you, that’s how “that” works, as well.
Double standards. Animal Farm, anyone?
Therefore, the U.N. has no LEGAL jurisdiction or authority over ANY U.S. citizen, company, enterprise, or entity.
1. shoot him, and
2. ask about pedofiles in U.N. uniform.
The Constitution would not LEGALLY allow any U.S. citizen to fall under the control of a foreign entity.
And when the UN white vans show up at a U.S. citizen’s home and knocks on their doors because Congress “wrote a treaty” saying it’s “legal”, these liberal thinks that’s compelling evidence that U.S. citizens becomes subjects of the U.N.
Not.
Better check for a U.N. Heritage site nearby. That’s where the white vans will come from.
I wish I could print out your comment #86 and show it to the partners at your law firm. They’d be chuckling all week.
Ok, you win. I’ll answer your question—I’d shoot him. If you had a point to make, let’s hear it . . . or is this one of those pretend-conservative-sophistry-exercises?
By the way, have you ever heard of the term “red herring?” Just curious.
My point was that few informed U.S. citizens trust the UN. We have very good reason not to.
The situation you described in your question is highly unlikely to happen to anyone who is not a celebrity (except when done by people who know the victim well). I recall several famous people filing lawsuits due to exactly what you described.
What I described is a common tragedy during UN missions. A family who is displaced by a natural disaster or a conflict find themselves victimized by their protectors. Often the girls (most very young) are shunned if they fall pregnant from the attack.
Cyber-squatting is not limited to celebrities. I am not (legally) entitled to create a website named cokeisit.uk, and post pictures of that Lohan creature snorting lines.
“How do you propose enforcing your (U.S.) cease and desist order?”
It isn’t enforcable outside of US territory, as well it shouldn’t be.
“The Constitution would not LEGALLY allow any U.S. citizen to fall under the control of a foreign entity.”
Precicely why it has to be muddied, watered-down and all but deemed irrelevant for our “so-called” leaders to have their way...pretty as they do right now.
Congrats. You just shut down the U.S. economy.
May be of interest.
“Congrats. You just shut down the U.S. economy.”
You mean to tell me that so much of the US Economy balances on the outside world. Wow! How did our leaders put us in this position? Just Damn!
You know very well there is much more in my posts than what you just wrote. You are cherry picking through the information. Then you accuse others of doing precisely what you are doing.
If you want to have a civil discourse than I am more than pleased to correspond with you.
However; if you insist on behaving like an ass than I am finished with you.
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.