Comment: It is not about the name but the intent of the buyer.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It really is a head-scratcher (see in situ)

It is not about the name but the intent of the buyer.

When dealing with trade mark and cyber squatting the real issue is why did the person buy the domain?

1. Why did you buy the name? Which of the 2 famous people are you promoting on the site? Did you buy the name before one or both were famous and did you buy it to profit off of the name? Did you contact either and try and sell the name?

2. The person would only have to be famous enough for you to know who they are and that motivated you to buy their name.

3. No

4. It all goes to the intent of the person who bought the name. If you own a name and are selling soap and someone with the same name becomes famous you keep the name. If someone becomes famous for making soap then you buy even a common name and start selling soap you are violating their trade mark.

The laws are about protecting individual ownership and not allowing others to profit by misleading people. Domain names are controlled by an international body and you consent to arbitration when you buy a name. If Ron Paul went after a goat herder that had ronpaul.com and was using the web page to sell goats then that would not fly. In this case, Ron Paul owned the name RonPaul.com but never used it and at one point failed to pay the yearly fee to own the name. At that point other people bought the name and and used it to profit off his name. Yes Ron Paul did wait till after he was out of office to take action, but I am sure he just did not want to taint his last time is office with all the BS this action would bring on him and the misunderstandings about his actions. He gave these people a pass till he got out of office and in return they demanded $250,000 for him to get his name back.

The truth is Ron Paul is being nice by taking it to arbitration. If he had filed a law suit in the US under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) they would be found guilty and have to pay $100,000. They clearly knew they bought someone's name and the tried to make a huge profit selling it back, in violation of US law. It is a slam dunk case because they have admitted they are demanding $250,000. I am all for the free market but I am against fraud and intentionally trying to mislead or steal from others.