No room for parody and satire? He's a public figure, he can put up with it like the bushes.

We need a NUT TLD ronpaul.nut has a nice ring.

It's not parody or satire; that's the point.

They're SELLING THINGS.

For all the criticism you offer about Ron, I praise your approach to all things "balanced". It doesn't matter if you don't like him or not. What's wrong is wrong and Karl has been very diligent about submitting truth over agenda.

Well done, Karl. This is why I keep coming to your site.

Did he wait 4 years to do anything about this & only took action when they tried to sell to him? If so, won't he had a problem winning this?

Not unless his name has acquired its own meaning outside of his name.

Not damned likely.

Integrity +1

I am a Ron Paul fan and I have to believe that of all trademarks, one that is directly related to ones own person has to be absolute. I have thought about getting something on mannfm11, which was an email name the outfit that sold me my first computer made up out of the first 5 of the first 6 letters of my last name and an m at the end. It would only be worth something if I decided to take the time and do professional stuff instead of writing off the cuff. Almost no one would know me by my real name on the net.

In any case, like him or hate him, Ron Paul is probably the strongest contra establishment figure to show up on the scene in the last 50 years or more. Perot probably made a bigger impact, due to his personal finances and name recognition as a mercenary force. His message is simple. Get the government out of our lives. All other political forces rely on the government coming up with something. He has opened the eyes to enough young people that there is hope the motto of the next generation in power is "there shouldn't be a law" instead of "there should be a law". A lot of libertarian stuff is seen as unworkable, because it won't fit into the banker dominated system we have today. Even if you made the government the bank, it would still be a banker dominated system, but would merely put the money in the hands of those that can legalize their own looting.

I sent RP's organization a few bucks last week. To this day, he is the only politician I have ever donated money. As the urge of government is toward becoming more authoritative, we need the contra voice.

Lastly, I didn't comment on the RP comments on that guy that the PTSD guy flaked out and shot. That was a local event, about 50 miles away and I was listening to a radio personality who knew the guy and had done some shooting with him. RP used the wrong words to state this was nothing more than another war casualty. The first casualty of war is truth, the second liberty and the third the collateral damage. War isn't a video game and the typical American is not mentally constructed to go to war. Most of us have been damaged socially enough early in life that the additional stress of a firefight is more than a lot of soldiers can take. My late uncle said my grandfather told him at the battle of Argone Forest, the brave young men were all crying like babies in their foxholes and at sunrise there was no longer a forest around them. People who can't even slaughter their own livestock today aren't even close to ready for something like that. Seems some killers are glorified while others are villified.

Quote:

But now that Ron Paul has instead filed a complaint with WIPO, they're all screaming foul! and claiming that as a Libertarian "trademarks" cannot exist.

I am a conservative with a libertarian streak a mile long. Libertarianism does not mean you can steal from people, and intellectual property can be a person's property (either corporate personhood or real individual people) in the same way that one can own real property or other physical property. These people are not "libertarians", they are thieves (in my opinion).

Now I do think there is considerable abuse in the UDRP process, with the panels occasionally deciding in favor of mark owners on clearly generic terms (visit any domain name forum for examples). In some cases a person with the same name as a famous real person has lost their own name as a URL to the famous person.

As an example of a domain with a TM registration in a common generic term look at cat.com. Doing an advanced search at USPTO reveals that there are 37 marks that are "Live" with a Registration number and with a Mark Drawing Code of "Typed Drawing" or "Standard Character Mark" for the character string "CAT" or "CATS" (TM on string regardless of font style). Obviously Caterpillar is one of the mark owners. It is also obvious that the other mark owners would love to have "cat.com" as their site, but are not able to mount a reasonable UDRP challenge against the powerful Caterpillar lawyers for the generic term... and rightfully so.

I am not picking on CAT since I do not believe they have abused the system, but using the phrase CAT as an example of the USPTO issuing marks for generic terms (think Amazon and others). Obviously CAT and Amazon have acquired secondary meaning in a generic string. I have no problem with a Standard Character Mark issued for generic strings, unless the mark owner abuses the registration and tries to take away a domain from some "John Doe" that has previously registered the domain.

Here is the way to search USPTO, so you can quickly verify that a large number of single generic words are registered with the drawing code of Typed Drawing or Standard Character Mark. Go to tess2.uspto.gov, click on the "Free Form" search and enter:

(cat)[FM] AND ("1"[MD] OR "4"[MD]) AND `RN > "0" AND LIVE[LD]
(the back quote before RN is important)

It is also worth pointing out that USPTO is just part of the equation, and that WIPO.int recognizes mark registration in other countries, as they should.

Sometimes a large corporation uses WIPO to gain ownership of a domain name by abusing a registered mark in a character string that is truly generic and in common use in the language, acting in bad faith. This happens frequently and is referred to as reverse domain name hijacking, and WIPO does occasionaly find in favor of the defendent (Respondent) and issues a statement about the reverse hijack finding. As such it has limited use since WIPO does not issue fines or penalties in that case, but it does allow the defendent to sue for damages with some evidence from WIPO of TM abuse (reverse hijacking).

This case would be more interesting if the Respondent was named "Ron Paul", with the Complainant being the "famous" Ron Paul, and with the Respondent making a profit off of his site that in no way relates to the famous Complainant. I have seen these types of cases go both ways.

Here is a list of current WIPO decisions by year:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decis....

A fun one to look at is the case of "Nissan", owned by Uzi Nissan. This has gone on for years, and of course the car company has made numerous attempts to "acquire" the domain, and failed... so far.

Nissan Motor Co. shows 20 registered marks at USPTO (Typed Drawing/Standard Characters). One could argue that Uzi Nissan has a common law mark acquired through use of his own name in business, although the common law mark came into existence after the first use date in commerce prior to registration by Nissan Motors. (a TM comes into existence on its first use date, which is always prior to registration). Obviously Uzi Nissan has a legitimate interest in using his own name.

What makes the Nissan case especially interesting is that Nissan.com appears to have been registered on May 4, 1994, which is long after Nissan motors started using the name "Nissan" in commerce in 1959. So in this case the Respondent began using Nissan.com in commerce after Nissan motors mark came into existence.

http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-116....

From the above:

Quote:

The defendant argues that Mr. Nissan has been using his surname in connection with various businesses since the 1980s. Although there is no absolute right to use one's name as a trademark, the Ninth Circuit has recognized a "judicial reluctance to enjoin use of a personal name."

Needless to say, the Nissan case is still being litigated... after all these years.

Quote:

Did he wait 4 years to do anything about this & only took action when they tried to sell to him? If so, won't he had a problem winning this?

The failure to enforce your rights is not a waiver of your rights. Time is really only an issue here if there's an applicable statute of limitations. But the timer only starts when the infringing behavior stops.

from no on, I am gonna stay away from these threads.

Quote:

Did he wait 4 years to do anything about this & only took action when they tried to sell to him? If so, won't he had a problem winning this?

Based on my experience in a trademark dispute with a very large company, I would say, "Probably not".

-Uwe-

Here is the list of all cases by year (link in last post was to decisions), followed by the link to the Ron Paul WIPO case:

All Cases (Pending, Decided, or Terminated):
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cases....

Ron Paul's Case:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/searc....

PS: I have never voted for Ron Paul. I just think it will make interesting case law. The above RP link is empty for now, but the case D2013-0278 will be updated, so check back on that link in a month or two if interested.

I agree. Implicit in the right to private property is the ownership of your person and the fruits of your labour, including your image.

Overheard this discussion last year during the Obama campaign. Many printing and embroidery shops were churning out Obama TShirts, caps and bumper stickers without any money making it back to the Democrat Party or the campaign. The reaction was "So what. They're supporting our candidate and his ideas why give them a bad time and make them mad? How would you sue anyway since there's no trademark on his name."

OK, in that light who would RP sue? And to what end? He's a politician, all he has to sell is his ideas. Politicians are selling ideas, ideas are worthless, it's the implementation that's valuable. He wants to tell us how to run our lives and then wants protection? Because he wants power over our lives his name is not his property unless he thinks himself a king or a sovereign. Sorry, he's just another vote scrounger.

Beyonce and the NFL are different story, they make their living selling records and merchandise and advertising slots and events. I can take or leave them without repurcussion. If these commercial enterprises want to protect their images and intellectual creations I'm OK with that.

If RP wants to go after the money, let him. He'll make his most organized and motivated followers so mad nobody will vote for him or his son. Now we know what he's about.

There's an irony here. Ron Paul has spent his life arguing against global government. Now he's going to a birthplace of global government to get what he wants? Is he nuts? That'll get his son a lot of votes. Not.

Notice he's not going to US courts for redress, he has no standing there.

You truly are dazed and confused.
Firstly Ron Paul is no longer a politician; he has retired. Secondly, throughout his career his position was that of limiting government control over people.
The individuals who registered those domain names are simply cyber squatters.

You use a name of a Led Zeppelin song as your screen name. Try registering that as a domain and the running a website that sells Dazed And Confused merchandise, including the image of Robert Plant or Jimmy Page and see how long you are allowed to operate.

Grunwald -> You truly are The name comes from a book now out of copyright and I haven't done anything with that either.

My post did distinguish between a politician and a commercial enterprise. And I did point out the irony of him now advocating unlimited government power in retirement.

Besides it's dazed n CORNfused, not the LZ song. And just for your information, song and book titles cannot be copyrighted. As opposed to font names, which are copyrightable, but not the fonts themselves. Go figure.

Quote:

OK, in that light who would RP sue?

He's not exactly suing. He's looking to kick out some cybersquatters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatt....

-Uwe-

Speaking of Led Zeppelin copyrights, have you ever heard of Turlough O'Carolan?

Turlough was a blind intinerant Irish harpist who lived in the mid 1600s and wrote pieces for the people he met in exchange for food and lodging. When I first heard the song O'Carolan's Dream I immediately thought of "Stairway to Heaven." Maybe others wouldn't. It turns out there are fakebooks for Turlough's songs. Regardless, T O'C's songs are out of copyright.

Suing for money, suing for confiscation, you tell me the diff.

Actually the owners of the website could give the website to a real life Ron Paul and tell the other Paul to stuff it. Ron Paul can then fight another Ron Paul for his name.

I don't think this is an easy case by any means, for either side. On the one hand, first amendment rights come into play in US jurisdiction, but this is international IP law decided through a WIPO panel, so the US Constitution does not apply. Furthermore, a trade or service mark argument by the Complainant would require a "product or service" that is identified with the string of characters "Ron Paul".

Here is an example of a successful trademark registration at USPTO for a personal name by Sarah Palin:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=851702....

Notice that the TM has been issued as a Standard Character Mark for "Sarah Palin", and that the famous Sarah Palin does not appear to own the domain sarahpalin.com, which returns a blank website. She filed for the mark after leaving politics, complicating arguments of first and prior use in commerce... which may explain the "blank page" still belonging to somebody else.

In an earlier post I quoted from the Ninth Circuit Court which applies to this case. Regardless of views on the matter, It is all going to boil down to either a one person or three person WIPO panel deciding the fate of this domain.

IMHO, I would guess that taking the case to WIPO is more likely to yield a positive outcome for the Complainant than taking it through US courts, and if I had to bet... I would bet on WIPO not transferring the domain. But then again, WIPO panels are like placing your bet on "red" in Vegas.

Oh I disagree.

The real ****-up in this case is the attempt to get $250,000 from Ron Paul. There is a well-defined set of rules on what constitutes "bad faith", and this falls squarely on that side of the line.

Oh I agree that there is bad faith operating here. The products used to establish his mark are his books, written by him, and other products/services established in common law.

This is why it is an interesting case, given the common law nature of the mark, and of course his fame. That is why I say it really is like betting on "red" when it comes to WIPO. My gut feel though is that it will be declined, but then I have guessed wrong with WIPO before.

It is also interesting that the Respondent has not gone the "blank page route", but appears to be standing their ground. Frequently these changes in page content after a suit is filed is used against the Respondent as knowledge of guilt. This will be a fun one to watch.

In a legal sense Ron Paul is 100% correct and the owners of ronpaul.com will not win.

Also I agree with the people who claim they are libertarians but understand that just because you believe in free markets doesn't mean you believe in theft and your property is your property. Ron Paul is more than a name, it is a brand, built by Ron Paul.

There is a part of the libertarian movement who are straight up anarchists, anything goes, they will be mad at this.

That being said I do find it ironic that RP is going to an organization (that he feels should not even exist) to pursue this. On top of that, why was he not going after the owners of ronpaul.com during the 2008 or 2012 election when they were doing whatever they could to promote him or solicit donations?

I used to be on on the Ron Paul bandwagon hardcore, I am no longer. After I saw his lack of initiative to win (on many fronts) in this last election I saw Ron Paul and his family for what they are, snake oil salesmen. I will never donate to another Paul.

Karlmarxghost,

I am with you on that. I think it is kind of chicken**** on the part of Paul to take the promotional benefit free of charge for years without saying anything and then when it suits him to come and claim the domain. Nobody is going to view that as points to Paul.