Comment: Just keep in mind, this is

(See in situ)


Just keep in mind, this is

Just keep in mind, this is not a case where someone else named Ron Paul has the domain or where some business that has "Ron Paul" in their name but is completely unrelated to RP the politician.

If that was the case this all would be very different. In either of those cases the other Ron Paul or the business which coincidentally had "Ron Paul" in their name would both have very strong arguments for being able to keep the domain. They simply got to it first.

However, that is not the issue here. The domain name RonPaul.com is indisputably being used in direct connection to Ron Paul the world famous politician. And he owns his name/brand/likeness/trademark both offline and online.

If the registrant of RonPaul.com wanted to profit from the sale of this domain name they should have NEVER used the domain name in connection with Ron Paul the politician in any way whatsoever. There should have NEVER been a single mention of RP on that domain name (other than possibly stating at the bottom in a disclaimer that RonPaul.com is not connected to Ron Paul the politician). And to strengthen their defense in a situation like this, they should have had a son named "Ron Paul _lastname_" or be running a business similarly named (kinda like http://www.ronjonsurfshop.com/ ). The last thing they should have done is setup any type of Ron Paul politician related website on RonPaul.com and still expected to be able to sell the domain name for a lot of money directly to Ron Paul.

They should have decided back when they started using the domain name... to position for a future sale of the domain or to run it as a Ron Paul grass roots campaign related website. But not both. Doing both, running the site then trying to sell the domain name to RP is the definition of bad faith use of the domain.

...