-8 votes

I wish Ron Paul would issue a public statement regarding his beef with RonPaul.com

Such a proponent of the free market should negotiate with the owners of the domain. If the parties' differences in marginal utility are not favorable for or lead to a deal, then so be it.

In my opinion, Dr. Paul is losing future revenue and tarnishing his reputation by the actions in question. Personally, at this juncture, I do not plan to donate any money to him in the future.

I wish he would issue a statement.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

What a charade.

Twelve terms in Congress and three Presidential runs, but only NOW is RonPaul.com an issue? I don't think so...

I smell lies and deceit.

Why not RonPaul.MD ?

I think Ron Paul, M.D. should settle for RONPAUL.MD which I registered last night, and which I will transfer to him for free if he wants it. Mostly because I haven't been spending the last few years building a website and a career on it.

Brilliant. That's really a

Brilliant. That's really a great idea.

RonaldPaul.com is also available but for $500. (I don't own it. Just saw it available.)

so now that the un claim has been settled IE this


people are moving onto other things to troll about, always surprising those with very little reputation to lose just trample their own dead credibility corpses like nothing, onward to the next defamation

I refuse to judge until I have all the facts

Look at how quick all the people are throwing Ron Paul under the bus without even having all the facts. There's something deeper here than meets the eye and I refuse to believe that the Ron Paul I've known all these years has suddenly gone "mean."

Something is going on at ronpaul.com that he wants to stop. Some agreement was made at the site's inception that's not being adhered to. Something we don't have all the facts about.

I'm also sure the avenue chosen was not to deliberately hook up or "side" with the UN.

How quick people are to judge. Makes me really really sick.

Not the true, longtime

Not the true, longtime supporters. Besides Michael, for obvious reasons. Many are trolls come out of the woodwork.

Ventura 2012

Michael Nystrom's picture

I wish he would too

But as someone pointed out below, the complaint is his statement. His statement is: Hand it over. His statement is, I don't care what you did for me for 6 years - that was then, this is now. Hand it over and take a hike.

Here's the case as to why he might lose.

if someone made

if someone made bmorebrawler.com then tried to sell it to me for $250k I'd be pissed too!

Ventura 2012

He is losing

it is a shame no matter from what angle.

true, double bad

is that both sides lose in this situation when both sides could have gained.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Well, that is true.

Penny wise, pound foolish. Tried to save $250K, it is costing him millions in good will.

Ron.com is still available...


Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

Click on

Click on it.....


ban everyone who brings this

ban everyone who brings this issue up

Ventura 2012

You Need to READ the Complaint

If you read the actual complaint, Ron Paul, or Douglas Cuthbertson, the lawyer acting on his behalf, DOES make the claim that the owners of the domain have "NO RIGHT" to the domain, have NOT used it for any "bona fide goods and services", and alleges that the only reason they created the site was so they could make money by selling it back to Ron Paul. He also says the "remedy" is to "TRANSFER" the domain from them to him. He IS trying to take their domain rather than negotiate to purchase it or simply request for mediation. READ IT.

They spent more than 5 years using the site to campaign FOR Ron Paul. Was that not a "bona fide service"? This is a nice thank-you for 5 years of hard work and support. Are we sure Jesse Benton isn't still running the show?

This makes no sense. This would not be right if Barack Obama was doing it. It's not right for Ron Paul to do it.

Why couldn't this site be next?



If its a trademark infringement then they have no right to use....Duh
If the site is commercial, its trademark infringement
If its not commercial then what is its purpose, Ron Paul has retired from public service and is back in the market using his name for commercial purposes. Thus it has no purpose.
If you look closely you will see Paul's legal team attached an appraisal for 50,000 dollars and listed as cost of name transfer. Nothing about content. They turned it down and now they look like fools.

I read it

The reason this site is safe is because the owner(s) of this site has not infringed upon a trademark and competed in the market place with its rightful owner.
Nor did the owner of this site violate his domain contract by asking 880,000 dollars for the trademarked name he does NOT use.......

Did you read the complaint or the techdirts censored pieces ?

Yep and they are making money

Yep and they are making money hand over fist using Ron Paul's name and image.... Some supporters they are.... all the way to the bank...

The owner admits this in the letter.... All the lost..... Hmm maybe Ron should sue them for using his name and image for profit.... I doubt Ron will do that... He just want's his name.

When I follow the link you provide I don't see one receipt for a donation to Ron Paul 2012.... Maybe Ron knows they didn't donate a dime? Who knows...

Now if they ran not for profit.... I doubt this would be an issue..

I have to wonder if in part Ron has to deal with the UN because the owner is not US based.... I wonder just what the truth is behind the owner. I wonder what we have not heard.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Oh brother

"Making money hand over fist." Give me a break. I have some insight into how much money they're not making. How much demand is there for a Ron Paul shirt or a bumper sticker these days? Close to zilch. What is there left to "support?" The campaign is over.

If you want to read a serious treatment of the UDRP complaint, read the techdirt article

In response, Paul and his lawyers didn't just reject the request, they actually use it against them, misrepresenting the offer, the site and the entire history, in a ridiculously misleading attempt to show malicious intent on behalf of the folks who run the site -- who most people would consider some of Ron Paul's most important supporters.

The WIPO filing is really a guffaw-inducing piece of work. It doesn't just present one side of the story, it goes out of its way to imply things that are clearly untrue about those who run RonPaul.com -- suggesting that the whole effort was some sort of scam to extort money from Paul. A few quotes:

Respondents can demonstrate no legitimate purpose for registering domain names identical to Complainant's RON PAUL mark.

Other than, you know, building up a massive and widely envied internet grassroots support campaign for two high profile Presidential campaigns, as well as many of the key issues that Ron Paul (supposedly) believes in. Somehow, Paul's lawyers forget to mention that part.

There is no evidence that Respondents have used or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Apparently trying to get Ron Paul elected is not something that Ron Paul considers a "bona fide" service.

They even imply that these guys only registered the domains to try to get Ron Paul to give them money for the domains. Apparently those 4.5 years of building up a massive and vocal grassroots online community supporting Ron Paul campaigns was just a ruse or something:

Under the UDRP, bad faith can be shown where the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the trademark owner or to a competitor of that complainant, for consideration in excess of respondent's out-of-pocket costs.

I think it is sad that he took their support for six years without saying boo, and now he decides to call the cops on them.

I also talked to my lawyer about this, and as the Techdirt article implies, this is by no means a slam dunk for Ron, and he could very well lose.

This site

This site, on the other hand, has wisely transitioned its image away from RON PAUL into a grassroots site based on Prosperity, Gold, Liberty.
Obviously seeing the writing on the wall and steering their hard work out of harms way.

Ron Paul, is in fact and matter of law, a trademark. Ron Paul uses this for commercial purposes and has since the early eighties.

I would think 50,000 for his trademarked name back would be a fair offer for an organization that claims to have no commercial intent. Otherwise its trademark infringement, is it not ?

Obviously Ron Paul has no intention to run for office again.

Political trademarks and

Political trademarks and brands are not given the same protection as private trademarks and brands.

Ron Paul forfeited the domain name when he failed to register it for himself while in politics.

With enough lawyering and money he can get it back by abusing the system like everyone else does as I'm sure the current owner of ronpaul.com will be outmatched.

Fair enough

While he was a politico he did not enforce the trademark......good point.
What is the law for a Doctor who writes books ?
Better yet, a private radio and TV personality....are they afforded protection ?

So with your logic one can say - A man does not own his name but another can buy it from the UNITED NATIONS............So with your logic the United Nations had a claim against Ron Paul's name, sold it to an Australian for commercial gain and the honest Paul supporter should protect the UN.......while ignoring US trademark law.....

Good Grief !

Cherry picking

The techdirt article does a little cherry picking.
As I read the formal complaint it says the first offer was for 880,000 dollars for the domain name only, clearly a violation.
It further lays the legal groundwork for the trademark infringement. Not a slam dunk but clearly a just complaint.
Then the site and its owner are claiming they are not engaged in commercial activity.....renting, selling and advertising is commercial where I am from.
They should have taken the 50,000 dollars to cover the cost of transfer to a new name or hired a better trademark lawyer.

Here is copy from the complaint techdirt failed to mention in their biased piece.

Here, Respondents offered to sell to Complainant for $848,000. In
response to an e-mail from Complainant's representative, Chris Younce, inquiring if
Respondent would sell George R. responded,
"Yes, it's currently for sale at $848,000. This is for the domain name only and does not
include the website or other content. We could use Escrow.com or Sedo.com for an
immediate transaction." See Affidavit of Chris Younce, attached hereto as Annex 6.
Respondents later offered to sell to Complainant for $250,000 and to
provide <:RonPaul.org> as a "free gift" with the purchase of See Affidavit
of Ron Paul, attached as Annex The demanded sale price is exorbitant and must exceed
Respondent's out-of~pocket registration costs.

I tend to agree we have only

I tend to agree we have only heard from one side... The complaint is legal jumbo... You list every charge you can come up with and hope something holds up in the crooked courts!

After reading the article and complaint it looks like the owner is only telling us half the story or Ron Paul's lawyer lies.... I'm going with half the story!

If there is no money in it...

If there is no money in it... and it isn't worth a dime then why ask for $250,000.00.... Market value should be next to nothing... or is it the Ron Paul name that is worth so much?

Once again we have not heard from Ron maybe we never will.... I do know he is more than fair. I have no idea of his full dealings with the owners of the domain. I'm going to believe there is much more than the owner is letting us know about.

It should be interesting next time Alex Jones speaks with Ron.

P.S. How much have they made over the last two campaigns? I would have to say hand over fist....

Understand this

Ron Paul only wanted the name, not the content.
In the free market people take risk. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward.
In this case the bigger the reward the bigger the risk. Demanding 880,000 was a big reward. The risk is that that offer alone was a default of contract to keep domain names when a persons trademarked name is at stake. Hillary Clinton and Julia Roberts both won this same case, yet these fools rolled the dice.
Read the precedents cite4d by Ron's lawyer, we know RP.com's lawyers did not.......
Free markets and rule of law can be a bummer for the slothful and lazy.

Where is the domain owners

Where is the domain owners first letter? The one with the $880,000 asking price? Why hasn't he made it public?

He did

It was attached to his complaint......
Dumping evidence on the public while in the middle of arbitration is foolish.

Somethign Wrong With Them Making Money?

Does this site make any money because of Ron Paul? OF COURSE. It wouldn't even exist without Ron Paul. Could this site be next?

Think about it. This can only end badly for Dr. Paul. Perception is 90% of reality.

If he wins and gets the domain for free, by using a UN group to strong-arm legitimate businessmen who have used the site to *support* Ron Paul for 5+ years - he is going to lose a lot of support among liberty-minded people. He'll come off looking like a bully pushing around the "little guy". The whole liberty movement will take a big hit for this.

If he loses, he still takes a hit, and doesn't get the domains anyway.

He needs to drop this thing and work out a deal with them.