The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Seriously, the case is pretty simple

(See in situ)

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 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