-35 votes

Ron Paul Calls on United Nations (Which He Doesn’t Believe In) to Confiscate RonPaul.Com?

I really need to hear Dr. Pauls side of this and soon....

Ron Paul Calls on United Nations (Which He Doesn’t Believe In) to Confiscate RonPaul.Com

In 2008, a group of Ron Paul supporters founded RonPaul.com, a Ron Paul fan-site that became one of the leading sources for information about and support for the perennial Libertarian presidential candidate. The creators of the site "put our lives on hold and invested 5 years of hard work into Ron Paul, RonPaul.com and Ron Paul 2012." His presidential campaign fell short, but the enthusiasm lived on as supporters continued to rally around this free enterprise Messiah.

Yesterday morning, Ron Paul repaid their support by filing a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, an agency of Paul's much-reviled United Nations, seeking the expropriation of both RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org from his supporters without any compensation.

The editors of RonPaul.com explained the situation,

read here:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

to the extent that you're

to the extent that you're sincerely curious I can either recommend youtube videos, articles, or books, or we can have a breif chat about it either here or in another thread?

Please share

I've been wondering lately as well, whether ideas can really be "property" to be "owned". Looking for some philosophy on this.

I happen to think Hoppe is

I happen to think Hoppe is amazing on everythign and the linked video, while long, is very insightful.

It's not just about "IP" but rather is a complete (albeit concise) speech on what exactly "rights" even are in the first place and why they exist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUL764U5-h4 (only the intro is in Portuguese, Hoppe speaks in English with a badass German accent.)

HHH is the best living philosopher, by a longshot.

EDIT: if you honestly watch it, I have a pretty cool story about it to share. :)

EDIT2: While I agree that Stephan Kinsella is known more as the resident "anti-IP expert" among the mises crowd, he and Hoppe ahve virtually identical views on this issue (as well as many other issues) and I find Hoppe just presents the entire argument for libertarian rights, and what this entails, while Kinsella JUST focuses on IP.

EDIT3: btw, wasnt me who downvoted you.

That was long

I did get through it, albeit in several chunks, while at work and not fully concentrating on the speech (after all, I'm gett paid to work ;), not watch vids).

I didn't hear anything directly on the topic of Intellectual Property, but I definitely do agree with his overall philosophy on ownership of certain things.

You are making the same error

You are making the same error of understanding what "intellectual property" actually means that almost everyone makes. Hint: It us not identical to an idea. it is much more.

Seek out a Wikipedia definition for a fuller understanding.

i diasgree with ron paul

i diasgree with ron paul here. If those guys can sell a product better than him then so be it, they win let them go. Im against trademarks and things like that so this kinda annoys me that ron would do something like this

what about fraud... if you don't believe in trademarks

can I start to make shoes and put the Nike logo on them?

would that not be misrepresentation?

as long as you tell me they

as long as you tell me they are not actually nikes then no i dont give a shit as long as you tell me so its not fraud. if i can find something that looks like nikes feels like nikes and last like nikes for a cheaper price then hell yes!!

atleast explain why your

atleast explain why your going to downvote me. It pretty simple argument here...does ron paul own any property in this matter?...no he doesnt so he doesnt have a say, unless they are damaging his property somehow which they arnt so end of storywhat they are doing is fine. I as a consumer better off with them as a website than without them.

Even the non-Ron Paul media understands!


Article now on 'The Market Ticker'
'Ron Paul Seeks To Enforce Trademarks'
by Karl Denninger

"From the amusing file comes the following:

Earlier today, Ron Paul filed an international UDRP complaint against RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org with WIPO, a global governing body that is an agency of the United Nations. The complaint calls on the agency to expropriate the two domain names from his supporters without compensation and hand them over to Ron Paul...

... Uh huh.

These folks registered this guy's name and started selling merchandise, which had exactly zero value except in conjunction with his name and fame.

Then they tried to sell him the domain and their mailing list which they compiled using his name and likeness without his consent for a whole ****load of money. $250,000, to be exact. [actually it was originally over $800,000]

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. ...

... The simple reality is that the value of their "product", such as it is, would be exactly zero were it not for Ron Paul himself. It is his visage, his record (such as it is) and his name that have acquired secondary meaning.

That is the definition of a strong trademark -- something that has acquired secondary meaning but would otherwise be nondescript.

You don't own this folks -- Ron Paul does.

And despite not being one of his fans in this regard he is exactly correct."

So that's a current look at what the market is reading this week!

Cyril's picture

Seriously, the case is pretty simple

Seriously, the case is pretty simple, for whoever is interested in doing a bet on the outcome (and has read the complaints AND the UDRP):

if (and only if) the grounds "A" and "B" of the complaint hold, then it won't be too difficult to see "C" (bad faith registration AND use) hold as well.

Where the battle will be is on ground "B", I think, that can be debatable.

Otherwise, as I see it, once "B" is clearly established (in favor on Ron Paul), then ground "A" won't be difficult to check:

A.1) has anyone from RonPaul.com formally asked the permission to use "Ron Paul" dot com, PRIOR to registration AND use?
A.2) has Ron Paul - or any representative for his name (again: if ground "B" holds) ever formally granted them the permission?

If either or both of A.1) and A.2) is "no", then it's quite clearly going to make ground "C" hold as well.

If one asked me, I'm not sure how I'd bet re: ground "B" (the name / trade mark / Ron Paul's works and how they relate to the domain name homonym).


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Sorry, I obviously mixed things up:

Sorry, I obviously mixed things up:

just swap the natures of claims in grounds "A" and "B" in what I just wrote.

The rest is unchanged.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

For the curious, here is an example

For the curious, here is an example where "Surname Cybersquatting on bad faith registration AND use" was established:


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You are obfuscating truth! Read the case... time is precious!

You continue to hawk one side of this case! It is unconscionable that some have apparently not read the whole case by now!

Or have you? And you are simply hiding the truth of Ron Paul's clearly righteous case?

The ones who are crying foul in this forum clearly signed agreements that they would not misuse another persons property rights, and, if they did so would by contract give up that use! All who have websites sign such!

They knew the rules! They broke the rules! It is obfuscation to claim a bogus 'UN argument' when they already agreed to abide by the law of internet use. It is solely by that law and the constitutional law of contract that Dr. Paul defends his property! The UN has nothing to do with this!

It would be absurd to make the claim (so far unstated but begging the question), that Ron Paul somehow does not deserve his own name and the property it represents for which he has spent his life! You all know this!

It is to Dr. Paul's great credit that he waited until they so egregiously held his property and name hostage for nearly one million dollars, before finally pursuing what is clearly and justly his right and his property! He had even offered them mid-five figures, a value far more in line with the potential justified costs incurred, but still very charitable.

It is also to his great credit that he is only asking for the return of his property, the protection of what is clearly his property, and doing so without seeking damages or further compensation!

Read the case! Learn the contract law! Learn the laws which properly protect a man's property, be it wealth, land, or his work! There is too much confusion being raised on this subject, in part due the lack of understanding for not having read the case and the law, and in part due the complaints suddenly arising from those who maybe hoped for wealth through Ron Paul's name!

What we all gave and all sacrificed in the last two campaigns for Liberty, and for the cause of Freedom spawned, no doubt in part, by Dr. Ron Paul, is not even close to being material to this issue! It is irrelevant! It is a shame to even mention such in the same context. One should care less about the amount given, leaving the subject of it's wise use for an entirely different venue and a wholly different debate.

To use such as an excuse for hawking his name and holding it's use hostage, might be due a lack of understanding, but it is unlike and unworthy of patriots who have demonstrated their far superior knowledge of justice, constitution, and the liberty so beholden to those structures!

There are some here who have given far more than just money to the cause of liberty, for even longer than Ron has been in office! Some who started our study of Austrian econ in the early 1960's. But we have seen in him not only a champion of the constitution worthy of his name, but also see in him and grant to him, our same humanity: a man worthy of all the Creator grants him, in all the forms of property wealth exists, including his name!

I call on all involved to read the case carefully, consider the contracts signed, separate out the issues, leave aside temptation to wealth or greed if it might be present, and drop all mention of giving for freedom which all did eagerly, and instead, put yourself in the shoes of the complainant for a change. Stripped of abstractions and obfuscations, of irrelevant issues and emotional distractions, we are faced with a situation which should have been handled differently, could have been handled wiser, and if all step back and remember real justice under liberty and freedom, might still be settled with grace!

Enough of contests over wealth. It is time to take back America! The loss to liberty being fueled by our own country is a far greater sword hanging over the heads of... not just Americans!

Truth and a Principle ABOVE PARTY,
and all America will come to your party!

Ron Paul 2016! Get use to it!



Even THESE retards HERE know the truth when they read it, and what you wrote is THE COLD HARD TRUTH!

I would Love to see one of them open one of their big TRAPS, to rebut you!

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

This is about $$$, nothing more.

There are a few infiltrators here motivated by the $$$ who are spinning some libertarian sounding arguments and persuading a few newbies and anarchists to support those arguments.

But let's make it clear, there are people abroad attempting to profit off Ron Paul's name. That's all this is about.

No, Dr. Paul shouldn't get the site for free. He should reimburse their non-legal expenses. And provide some NOMINAL fee for transferring the domain name. A few thousand, perhaps $10,000 MAYBE.

But $250,000? Please.

No, the owners of the site are NOT supporters, despite their protestations to the contrary. Supporters do not behave like this. Enemies do.

You're almost right. It is

You're almost right. It is about business and what the "market will bear". Frankly, with his traffic I'd put the site up for bid immediately. He could probably get $300-400K at this point with all this publicity.

I doubt the domain name is worth more now

than before this dispute started. RP has a weak case for cybersquatting but IMO a strong case on trademark rights (that's what his going for). Also, this is not about the site itself, if that was the case than MAYBE it would be worth 200k or more but this is about the domain name, there's no way it's worth more now than before this whole thing started especially if the potential buyers do a bit of research regarding RP's claim to that domain name...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

is this ron paul?

is this ron paul?


To anyone who thinks Dr. Paul

To anyone who thinks Dr. Paul is doing anything unethical, I say "oh ye of little faith". It is going to take a lot more than a few paragraphs written by somebody trying to profit off his name to make me believe it.

Someone needs to be creative at RP not confrontational!

Ronpaul.com deserves a small profit. They added value to ron paul's name the last 5 years instead of detracted from it. On the other hand 250K is a lot of money and if its from donations then ronpaul.com has to renegotiate. Other arrangements are possible! Ron Paul can pay $90K and share advertising revenue with the original ronpaul.com owners for 10 years. Ron Paul can maintain a link to the new ronpaul.com site. Someone please be creative instead of confrontational!
Ron Paul knew about ronpaul.com for a LONG time and has basically consented to its existence. The UN as a bargaining tactic.

The site owner has had it for

The site owner has had it for more than 12 years. That is a gigantic oversight on the part of the Ron Paul team. They will have a very difficult time proving they somehow "deserve" the RonPaul.com domain. Of course I'm offended by the language used in the legal document and of course his legal team is pushing to make the strongest possible case for their client Ron, but obviously this was a boneheaded move on the Paul team's part.

Here are the facts, plain as day:

Domain Name: RONPAUL.COM
Whois Server: whois.fabulous.com
Referral URL: http://www.fabulous.com
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 10-feb-2013
Creation Date: 22-nov-2000
Expiration Date: 22-nov-2020

The current site owners did

The current site owners did not have it for 12 years, they purchased it in May 2008.

The "creation date" on the WHOIS record is when the domain was originally registered. This date never changes, regardless of how many times ownership of the domain name changes.


but, they are the owners of the domain. It doesn't matter if they purchased the domain 2 weeks ago.

Ron Paul wants to use force (by way of arbitration) to take the property of the real owners of RonPaul.com.

I hope he loses.

Except the domain name is not

Except the domain name is not their property, it's Ron Paul's trademark. It'd be different if ANOTHER Ron Paul was using the domain, but clearly that's not the case. If you go to ronpaul.com you'll see Ron Paul's face and quotes being plastered over the merchandise they sell.

They are violating ICANN policy and trademark law. Plus, being completely douches for trying to sell Ron Paul the domain name for $250,000 - when it only cost them $10.

Ron Paul is in every way shape and form justified for doing this. He's both legally and morally right, it'd be difficult to argue otherwise.

if it is not theirs

Why is Ron Paul trying to force it from them?

Why didn't Ron Paul purchase the domain in 2008?

Ron Paul owns a trademark on RonPaul.com?
I don't believe you.


in whos opinion "they added value to ron pauls name?".
do you think ron paul thinks it added value to his ALLREADY PRICELESS name, which HE ALONE BUILT?

They deserve a profit?
They deserve to have the shirts SUED OFF their thieving BACKS!
and I hope and pray Im in the FRONT ROW to watch it!

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016


best part is- I NEVER mince words AND IM certain

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Short proof.

Positive advertising increases value.
Negative advertising decreases value.

Libertarian Proof - All

Libertarian Proof - All advertising is good advertising