-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:
http://gawker.com/5983066/ron-paul-calls-on-united-nations-w...




Comment viewing options

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

You have provided the perfect example

Adam Curry acquired SeanHannity.com and has successfully defended his ownership. The owners of RonPaul.com should consult with Adam Curry, who is also (interestingly enough) located in Texas.

Ron Paul should not...

compensate anyone for using his intellectual property for their own benefit. The owner is lucky, Dr. Paul isn't asking compensation in addition to both domain names. In the "libertarian principle" there is a thing called property right.

If I were to use your name as a domain name and do business with it, you have every right to sue and request your intellectual property back and then some. (Assuming you were someone famous with copy right material)

To correct you, Dr. Paul doesn't use the "big government intervention" to benefit; He is using the court system like the forefathers to claim his property back. Dr. Paul doesn't need to compete with his own intellectual property name, that's just stupid.

Also, Hannity approves the contents of the website. He and his "people" at anytime have the ability to remove, replace or redact anything that's displaced of that website.

And now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Your name is simply your

Your name is simply your name. A web site with your name? That is intellectual property, however you are not entitled to it by default.

Agreed, he is not enttiled...

but lucky for us, we still have some intellectual property laws which he will use to claim whats rightfully his.

RonPaul.com is not rightfully

RonPaul.com is not rightfully his and the domain holder is not peddling porn or something so it does not reflect badly on Ron. I view their legal claim as very weak.

I don't think that it's about having little faith

more than being misinformed or aware how IP and trademark dispute resolutions work. The current owner of ronpaul.com is trying to tarnish his name by mentioning the UN thing, he knows full well that's the only avenue right now and is trying to deceive the supporters by painting Ron Paul as a hypocrite. Why tarnish his name though? I don't know because that won't help him any bit get his 800k+: this is evidence to me that he was never a supporter to begin with but an opportunist.

"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

Ron Paul Fans or opportunists

Just a few facts:
Ron Paul's name IS trademarked.
The internet is global.
The owners of the domain registered in Australia.
When anyone purchases and registers a domain name under a .com they agree to the conditions under ICANN and URDP which provides arbitration services which is WIPO. They are international agencies. The internet is international and domain disputes are handled through international agencies whether one agrees with the fact they exist or not. It's just the way it is.
Ron Paul is requesting his domain name only, which is trademarked. He is not requesting compensation for any profits the owners made and lived off of for the past 5 years they have used his name, nor is he requesting the mailing list.

For more information look up Domain Dispute Resolution Policy.

WRONG

Sorry, JohnGalt80... Ron Paul is not trademarked. A name by itself cannot be trademarked, however, Ron Paul, Inc. could be trademarked, or Ron Paul brand t-shirts could be trademarked, or Ron Paul bumper stickers could be trademarked. Even Ron Paul brand chainsaws could be trademarked. RonPaul.com is also a trade name.

As another person put it better than I, "In order to earn trademark rights in your name (or register it as a trademark) you must be using it "in commerce" as an identifier of the source of goods and services."

Frankly, Ron's people have been very sloppy when it comes to managing these things. He still has the value of his career, the value of his books, and great name recognition. I just hope some new idiot isn't making decisions for him that long term reflect badly on his name.

No one is saying Ron Paul's actions are illegal

Yes, he is following the international laws....to do something that is wrong.

You're essentially saying that

trademarks are wrong, that's what you're saying because this is what it's about...

"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

It's not at all about

It's not at all about trademarks. Ron Paul is a person. RonPaul.com is a domain and a trade name. How long has Ron Paul been in business as RonPaul.com? Exactly.

You get...

+1 Bump, 2 if I could.

Cyril's picture

+1

"They are international agencies. The internet is international and domain disputes are handled through international agencies whether one agrees with the fact they exist or not. It's just the way it is.
Ron Paul is requesting his domain name only
"

+1

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

Isn't this more about what

Isn't this more about what his lawyers are doing?

Believe it or not, lawyers do

Believe it or not, lawyers do what you tell them to do. You still have to make the decisions.

alright guys, lets go get some cameras and go ask ron paul

because no need to argue austrian econ. theory in the context of property rights when we haven't heard from Doctor Paul.

Paul is lockean at heart, I am sure he could clear things up.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"give me control of my own permaculture and I care a lot about what makes law"

-Permaculture Republican

Amen to that

Now...who's got the camera?

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

He also pays taxes eventhough

He also pays taxes eventhough he doesnt believe in it. Ron is playing hardball.

What do you mean he's playing hardball?

Hardball against property rights? or hardball against (I don't know what)..

Love thy enemy.

What is Ron Paul claiming?

Does he want the domains? If so, why does he think he has a right to them?

Does he want them shut down? If so, what right is he claiming?

Forget the UN or arbitration, what claim is Ron Paul making?

He is claiming it is his trademark

Based partially on the fact that his name appears prominently on his published works, some of which are NYT Best-Sellers. Case law is cited to support the claim that it is indeed a trademark.

They don't say too much about the site itself, it appears they just want the domains because they are identical to the trademark.

This is the question many are asking.

I hope it turns out to be false or that he retracts the case.

You know?

Love thy enemy.

I think Manniman below makes some good points

It seems to be a trademark infringement and since this guy that owns the domain is overseas (from what I have heard) it creates a whole new dilemma beyond the dispute.

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

facebook posting under Jack Hunter's message of this topic

by Bryce Steinhoff: There's a lot of misinformation about this being spread around. Here's the deal:

The UN has no authority to strip a domain name from its owner. Ron Paul certainly knows this and that is not what any of this is about. I repeat, none of this is about the UN or their authority.

When anybody registers a domain name, they voluntarily agree to an ICANN policy called the Uniform Domain-name Dispute-resolution Policy, or UDRP. ICANN authorizes *several* entities to handle arbitration when a third party submits a claim based on the UDRP policy which the domain registrant voluntarily agreed to. In this case Ron Paul's lawyers choose WIPO, a UN agency. Certain criteria such as trademark rights and "bad faith" are outlined in the UDRP for evaluation by the arbiter, which are the things that Ron Paul's lawyers mention in their UDRP complaint.

In the case of RonPaul.com and .org, the registrants and registrars are outside the US (this is not necessarily the people who run the sites). Because of this, it is logical that Ron Paul's lawyers opted to use the UN-connected WIPO agency to do the arbitration. It is *incidentally* connected to the UN; it doesn't have anything to do with UN "authority".

You don't have to agree with Ron Paul on this as Jack pointed out, but don't cry NAP abuse when a provision of this voluntary contract is exercised. The arbitration can even be overturned by the courts if necessary, but that's unlikely.

So dumb this down for me

are you asserting that this site or domain was somehow acquired improperly? Therefore the RP camp is seeking to leverage the "World Government" to hear the case? Does that not give them un deserved credibility?

I don't know, I'm a basic guy and what it comes down to and always has with me is principles.

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

You don't "own" a domain name

Technically, nobody "owns" a domain name. You are simply paying a registrar to control it so long as your renewal fees are paid.

By registering a domain you are agreeing to abide by the registrars code of conduct, one item of which is that you are not infringing on someone else's intellectual property. A person's name falls under this category. Under the dispute policy the parties are agreeing that a 3rd party will decide whether the current "owners" have the legal standing to "own" RonPaul.com. Which they don't... and shouldn't.

The current owners would have been much better off had they made an agreement with Ron Paul back when they registered the domain.

But there seems to be presidence

For years people have registered others personal and business names uncontested.

I'm not defending the ronpaul.com guy, I'm just wading through this swamp...

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Ya but in this case. It's

Ya but in this case. It's more than commercially reasonable for Ron Paul to claim that the other party has no legal standing to hold the registration of RonPaul.com.

The RP camp will win the arbitration, they may settle on a dollar amount. But it will be a lot less than the amount the other party probably wants.

RonPaul.com has been engaged

RonPaul.com has been engaged in business for more than 12 years (I checked) using that name. They built up the value of the site. They are the proper domain holders.

That is my question as well...

How does the free market play into forcing someone to hand over their property?

Websites are property. There are many people with the name 'Ron Paul'.

I couldn't give two shits if the people who were the owners of Ronpaul.com were a part of the Santorum team. That does not give Ron Paul the right to sue anyone.

Love thy enemy.