Home » Forums » Educational + Entertainment Media » Video, TV & Movies
12 votes

Fox News: Ron Paul Has No Legal Right to RonPaul.com

Submitted by DeejayG on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 18:17
in

http://youtu.be/u_J9mmMJrd0


Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:

E-mail address:  

»

Comment viewing options

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

NOW he realizes

Submitted by fishyculture on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:36.

RonPaul.com and .org are where people will go to find information on him? He could have put them to good use during the campaign, but NOW it dawns on him?
You know, I'm not a fan of the UN. If he was going to go to any international group in any way affiliated with them, how about he looks into some war crimes charges?
This i s very disappointing, I wish he would have worked with his supporters rather than pull this stunt. I think these folks are right, I think he is going to lose this. And even if he wins, I would think the people holding the site name would be entitled to fair market value, so what is he gaining but ill will?

—

Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0

Fishy Please See My Comment Below About David Gilmour

Submitted by skippy d on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:44.

Is it worth it? The same could happen with Ron Paul though it would sicken me if it did.

—

skippy

Take the case of Nissan

Submitted by John C on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:36.

Take the case of Nissan Computer vs. Nissan Motors. Nissan Computer had owned the domain since the start of the internet...back when Nissan Motors was still named Datsun. Nissan Motors later tried to wrestle away the domain by expensive litigation.

As you can see from going to Nissan.com, Mr. Nissan held his ground and 10's of thousands of dollars later in attorney fees...he still has his domain.

BUT...I'll guarantee that if he had a car website related to Nissans, Nissan Motors would be the lawful owner right now of the domain.

If RonPaul.com was previously and currently used in no relation to Dr. Paul, Dr. Paul would have no claim. That's not the case though. The site trades on Dr. Pauls popularity, likeness, etc.

Dr. Paul will easily win in court if it goes that far.

Absolutely not.

Submitted by Suave on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:54.

The fact that RP did not renew his domain is quite frankly "tough luck". The owner of the domain will and should, keep the name. This is why corporations register every possible spelling of their name, or even company slogans. What is going on with RP anyways? First the out of line comments last week about Chris Kyle (it might have been true, but you never say it about someone who most of America calls a hero), and now this? I have supported RP since since approx. 2004, but I think he is showing his age now. I will continue to support Rand, but I think RP should be a good soldier and fade away. By claiming the rights to a domain he no longer owns or wanted to own again, I think he lost thousands of supporters that ronpaul.com had collected in their mailing list.

Agree or not, the courts will

Submitted by John C on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 23:02.

Agree or not, the courts will rule with Dr. Paul.

You can't go around making $$$ selling Ron Paul T-shirts and swag without the permission of....Ron Paul.

He probably will but he

Submitted by Haysoose on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:41.

He probably will but he shouldn't. He's bullying an entrepreneur who got the jump on him. Ron Paul has known he was Ron Paul and a congressman for a long time. Hell, I'm not even a lawyer yet and I've had my domain for 2 years now. He will likely win, but I don't agree with him or like it.

Cyril's picture

Wait, btw... so that's ACTUAL news?

Submitted by Cyril on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:15.

Wait, btw... so that's ACTUAL news? "Ron Paul has no legal right to RonPaul.com"?

Where is the record of ICANN's arbitration decision on that case?

So, it's a done deal already, and Ron Paul's folks lost the case?

Just asking for the relevant pointers. I'm interested.

—

My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".

"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

I love Ron Paul, but it is my

Submitted by Haysoose on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:11.

I love Ron Paul, but it is my honest opinion that he has no right to the domain name. First come first served. I'm guessing he is not the only Ron Paul on the earth. Trying to trademark a personal name is just stupid and arrogant. If he doesn't want it then he doesn't have to pay for it. He can make his domain something else.

Dude

Submitted by R..... on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:20.

Give Ron Paul a break. He has done much for the liberty movement and probably wants to some great things using the domain in the future. If I owned the domain I'd be falling all over myself to give it to him.

—

http://www.dailypaul.com/224739/website-timeline-of-ron-paul...

I would too but that still

Submitted by Haysoose on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:21.

I would too but that still doesn't mean he has the right to it.

Yeah, I think the owners of

Submitted by TelFiRE on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:31.

Yeah, I think the owners of this domain are passing up a very good opportunity. At the end of the day, if Ron Paul has an even half-decent lawyer, he will get the domain for free. Whereas the current owners could easily have worked out a deal to hand the domain over but maintain a link to their new site, or simply maintained their existing user list (which in itself has a lot of value).

As it is, they stand to lose everything and gain nothing. Just legally speaking.

Whether or not the law should work that way is another issue, a pretty controversial one I'd imagine.

The other thing is, the connections between the U.N. and WIPO is pretty weak. This is a loaded accusation, kind of like accusing someone of supporting the entire U.S. government just because they want to see drunk drivers in jail.

WIPO is a U.N. Agency. That's

Submitted by Ron Paul Rules on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:48.

WIPO is a U.N. Agency. That's like saying the connection between the TSA or DHS and the U.S. Government is weak.

No, it's a solid fact. ICANN

Submitted by TelFiRE on Tue, 02/12/2013 - 14:03.

No, it's a solid fact. ICANN could have been established anywhere, it just happens to be loosely associated with the U.N. Your logic is like saying anyone who reports a murderer to the police is supporting the entire U.S. Government and everything it does.

If they bought the domain and

Submitted by TelFiRE on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:19.

If they bought the domain and used it as a personal site of their own unrelated "Ron Paul" that would be one thing. Instead, they are making money off Ron's name and likeness. They are using his logos and intellectual property liberally, and directly selling products with these things for profit. Moreover they are now slandering him.

What you are saying is essentially the same as saying that I can go create a website called "TheDailyPaul.com" and outright steal the Daily Paul's logo and content, put ads that directly benefit me, sell "Daily Paul" merchandise, all for profit, and that is entirely Daily Paul's fault for not purchasing every conceivable domain name in advance. The domain name itself I could -maybe- get away with, if I could actually demonstrate I had a purpose other than impersonation.

But there are perfectly reasonable laws in place to prevent people from outright stealing an identity using a domain name and making money off of it. Domains aside even, this is a clear case of trademark infringement as they are using Dr. Paul's name and likeness all over the place without consent, and in many ways that would certainly not fall under spoof/public figure laws.

Then he should sue for

Submitted by Haysoose on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:20.

Then he should sue for slander.

That is a separate issue. The

Submitted by TelFiRE on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:27.

That is a separate issue. The bottom line is, the way copyright and trademark laws work, he has a right to the domain name. If you look into domain registration law, it is actually illegal to register a trademarked domain. It is often unenforced and certainly the registrar will not prevent you from registering it. However, you may not even legally have a right to register your own name if the trademark is already held.

Whether or not you agree with the law, I work with domains all day every day and I can tell you this is a cut and dry case. Prior to this incident I hadn't looked into whether there was an exemption for personal names or not. There is not. The fact is, with law as it is, Ron Paul has rights to the domain.

People are nuts

Submitted by Bilderberger_Vo... on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:11.

The Web site is not only named RonPaul.com but it is sells stuff with Ron Paul's name on it.

If some one opened a domain named Toys R Us and then used made money of selling Toys R Us stuff, then Toys R Us would have a legitimate right to website. It is their brand, their stuff, their name that is being sold.
The Website creates nothing new, it only sells what has been marketed by Ron Paul.

If the owner of the website was named Ron Paul, or used The name Ron Paul in a way that was not 100% dependent up on the Ron Paul the Congressman there might be a legitimate right to the name.

I hope Ron Paul sues the hell out of the owners and gets all the money they made off of his trademark. Then gets an injunction against them posting anything about him
Then they will go broke, and RP can buy the website for pennies on the dollar.

Well Hell...

Submitted by Ozark Hillbilly on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 20:57.

If FOX News says so then I guess this discussion is over.

Exactly

Submitted by billybernardo on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:34.

Exactly what I thought!

?

Submitted by tistime on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 20:44.

He's been around the world and wrote some books, given some speeches? Seriously? What about running for president 3 times? Being involved in US politics since 1976? Who are you 3 people?

—

-Give me liberty.

Cyril's picture

Being involved in US politics since 1971, actually.

Submitted by Cyril on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:08.

Being involved in US politics since 1971, actually.

Especially since August 15th, 1971, as well explained here:

http://www.youtu.be/Qr7nL2xIZqI

—

My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".

"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

I stand corrected!

Submitted by tistime on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:28.

I *gladly stand corrected!

—

-Give me liberty.

Cyril's picture

'Welcome. :)

Submitted by Cyril on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:31.

'Welcome. :)

—

My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".

"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

YOU

Submitted by LibertyOrDeathNJ on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 20:42.

Have no right to take some one's name and use it as a webpage unless you got permission.

Both commentators are WRONG

Submitted by Agent Meatball on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 20:40.

It's not about whether Ron Paul should receive compensation from the people who are the current registrants of ronpaul.com. It will come down to who has the legal standing and intellectual property right to hold the domain name. The people currently holding it will not be able to prove legal standing. Ron Paul, on the other hand, will by the simple fact of his name combined with his public persona.

It's the same argument a H'wood star would have if some party were to go out and register a domain name matching the star's public name.

For those that think Ron Paul is being unfair just imagine if the current owners had a change of heart as many people can and do. And as such they decide to sell that domain name to RP's political opponents.

It's imperative that RP seek to protect his public image.

If they did something slanderous then he could sue.

Submitted by Apple on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 20:47.

I have a product and can't get all the domain suffixes, do I get to take them for free? I don't think so.

KFC

Submitted by donvino on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 20:38.

Did a similar thing to Col. Sanders as I recall. This is why I very rarely go there unless an emergency situation requires it.

Cheers,

—

donvino

What is

Submitted by silentboom on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 20:32.

a shame is that they read our sites and use this to drive a wedge. I hope it's solved quickly either way.

—

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Thiis clearly a mistake

Submitted by bnckeye27 on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 20:23.

This is clearly a mistake - Fox News has never heard of Ron Paul, just watch last year's election coverage.

Must be

Submitted by HonorGod on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 20:30.

a crack in the matrix..

I love the post

—

http://wilco287.com