Bill Clinton Loses Battle For Domain Names

Bill Clinton's attempt to prevent Web of Deception's Joseph Culligan from using his name for a series of web URLs — williamclinton.com, williamjclinton.com, and presidentbillclinton.com — was lost this week when an arbitration panel denied the former President's complaint.

On Monday, the National Arbitration Forum ruled that, although Clinton's name can be considered a common law mark under Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), Culligan didn't register the domains in "bad faith" and thus he is allowed to maintain them.

Currently, the three domains redirect visitors to the Republican National Committee's website.

"The Panelist simply cannot find bad faith in this case," the decision reads. It continues:

None of the elements of bad faith are [sic] met. The Respondent's conduct in registering, acquiring and utilizing these domain names is simply not within the UDRP definition of bad faith. The facts alleged by Complainant are simply unpersuasive. Evidence of bad faith (i) requires a showing that the names were registered or acquired for the purpose of selling or transferring the name to the mark holder; (ii) in order to prevent the mark holder from registering the domain; (iii) to disrupt a competitor's business; or (iv) to attract Internet users by confusing them. The only one of these that could possibly apply is (ii), which requires a showing of a pattern of conduct. While Respondent's conduct in registering the names of politicians does reflect a pattern, Respondent has adequately rebutted any inference of bad faith.

Culligan has also registered domains using the names of Barack Obama and John McCain.

Comments

[daninmiami2]

Lets see...... bad faith includes:

(iv) to attract Internet users by confusing them.

So sending people that are looking for information about President Bill Clinton
to a GOP Website is not confusing people ?

Who are these clowns?

Clinton will win this eventually.

[jukesgrrl]

I agree.

[ebanks84]

I don't think linking to the RNC was wrong!

[johnnynyc]

Everybody has an opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

[CrzyRussell]

They don't link to the RN. So it doesn't matter.

[ChiEg]

Sorry, commented on wrong post...

[ChiEg]

Sorry, but I just don't trust John King & his wife Dana Bash...

John thrives on holding Obama's feet to the fire, but is too petrified to ask Cheney any real little less hard-hitting questions...(his "keeping them honest" spiel starts and ends with President Obama)-

Between him & Dana, the Republicans really never have to get out bed...they've pretty much got their talking points covered each day!

Could it possibly be all those bbq's at Sedona?!

[jukesgrrl]

Whether or not you're on the right thread, you're correct. Those two are tools.

[RogerHWerner]

These board must be composed of morons. Redirecting Clinton's name to the GOP is deceptive and solely designed to confuse people. This is why Joseph Culligan registered them in the first place is this board patently stupid? Must be made up of attorneys...

[NoSandwiches]

so when my 10 year old so wanted to vote for the elephant or the donkey or the coo coo bird on cocoa-puffs.com and mispelled it and ended up on a porn site....that was in good faith?

Not at all different.

Both are falsely advertising and capitalizing on someone else's good name....

[Name Not In Use]

Say what?

[Mahavishnu]

Who are the nutty people on this board? According to them it would be OK for a domain name, like say newtgingrich.comm," to point to gayandlesbiansforchoice.com or livelifegreen.com. I assure you Newt would protest such a thing - and he would deservedly win. You have to have some control over your name. This decision is either beyond stupid or political.

[LCLA]

Where are the hacker vandals when you need them?

[JeffersonState]

How is it that Madonna was able to successfully sue for Madonna.com (not even her real name) and Clinton cannot?

[Name Not In Use]

Being Jewish, she has a stronger claim to the name Madonna.

[SurrealPumpkin]

Redirect billclinton.com to the RNC home page? If that isn't confusing and bad faith I don't know what is. What world is that arbitration board from?

[VivaZapata]

horndog.com

[Amondale]

Did you check the domain? How about BigDog.com? DevilWithABlueDressOn.com?

[PATina]

(iv) to attract Internet users by confusing them.


How can the court say that this doesn't apply? If a person is searching for a Bill Clinton site... and assumes it would be his name... and gets redirected to the RNC site.... knowing that Clinton is a Democrat... they would be confused.

[CigarGod]

Good catch.
Have a cigar!

[WilliamP]

Interesting case, but how does iv not apply? And how is there no pattern of conduct when several different versions of Clinton's name were registered?

[queotic]

I'm all for freedom of the internet, but this is ridiculous. They can't find any examples of "bad faith"? If it were redirecting to the DNC page, I would see their point, but this is going to the RNC. This is as silly as MartinLutherKing.org being owned by racists (sad, but true).

[Amondale]

When I read "bad faith" I thought it was bold of them to rule along the line of appropriate or inappropriate behavior, instead of going with that tired old route of "living person". Surprise! Not only did the board miss it but they call linking to the RNC to not be in "bad faith."

I'm now assuming that what they mean is that Culligan didn't squat on the domains. I guess Big Dog should have incorporated. It would've been a lock.

[plages]

Bill who?

[Amondale]

President William Jefferson Clinton, aka Big Dog.