Comment: Web content is key

As I understand it, going from 10 year old memory, (the rules may have changed), as long as the site's content is related to the title then the ownership is legitimate. I've a vague recollection of a politician losing out in an attempt to close a website with his name that was attacking him and his record, exposing how he voted on issues, who was funding and unflattering issues in his past.
Mr politician couldn't get the domain name because the content, though unflattering was all about him. So on this principle, if RonPaul.com was a progressive, anti-life or neo-con site attacking Ron Paul and his record, that would be legitimate as long as was Ron Paul that was the focus of attack.

In the case of ronpaul.com it has been said that the original owner was an individual also named Ron Paul. Should he refused the opportunity to get the full potential value for the sale of his property? Should his customers be denied ownership of property they had paid for in good faith?

Is this a case of Ron Paul asking government to interfere with and impede the market?

If this was a blackmail style porn site, or a cyber-squatter Ron Paul would have a much stronger case. If Ron Paul wins, what legitimate right does Michael have do the ownership of this site? After all it is clearly fashioned around the name and reputation of Ron Paul!