Comment: This isn't an issue over

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: This is pretty stupid IMHO (see in situ)

This isn't an issue over

This isn't an issue over pricing some commodity. The issue is who owns Ron Paul's name/brand/likeness/trademark. That became the issue in relation to RonPaul.com because RonPaul.com was offered for sale to Ron Paul and it is a website about Ron Paul.

It would be entirely different if someone else named Ron Paul owned the domain name and Ron Paul the politician contacted them to buy it. Or if some business with 'ron paul' in the name was using it. In that case, whichever "Ron Paul" was willing to pay the most in the free market should get it.

But, the domain was attached directly to Ron Paul the famous politician based on how they used it. That can no longer be disputed. There can be no claim by the current registrant that "Ron Paul" is his dogs name, his son's name or the name of his corner deli shop. They took RonPaul.com, directly associated it to the famous Ron Paul then tried to sell it to him. That is cyber squatting, illegal and is bad faith usage of a domain registration.

...