Bill Clinton Loses Battle For Domain Names

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Bill Clinton Loses Battle For Domain Names stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

Huffington Post   |  Danny Shea
First Posted: 06- 3-09 03:25 PM   |   Updated: 06- 3-09 03:51 PM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Bill Clinton

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.

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 — ...
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 — ...
 
Comments
112
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
- noneIn2008 I'm a Fan of noneIn2008 27 fans permalink

People win one. The Fed will find a way to take it away.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 PM on 06/03/2009
photo

Well Bill, you can give a few more graduation speeches at $75 K a pop and buy the names. In the meantime, people will just have to get cooties when they link your name to the thugs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 06/03/2009
- Diogenes08 I'm a Fan of Diogenes08 28 fans permalink
photo

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

Does this mean that a single person decides these matters??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 PM on 06/03/2009

there is only one plausible explanation:

a vast right-wing conspiracy

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:04 PM on 06/03/2009

Clinton is being hoisted by his own petard.

The domain name regulatory system, such as it is, was designed in the mid-90's by Clinton's friend Ira Magaziner with Clinton's at least tacit approval.

Magaziner set the system up to be as free-wheeling as possible. As a consequence businesses and the public at large - and now Clinton himself - are hurt because there are practically no controls on who can register and hold a domain name. Those who acquire domain names and use them to mislead or defraud the public cannot usually be forced to give up the names. Also, squatters sit on millions of domain names, that could be meaningfully used by businesses or individuals, with no obligation to use the names and deny access, except for payment of grossly exorbitant, extortionist prices, to the names to those who could make good use of them.

The domain name registration system was misdesigned by Magaziner (and Clinton) and desperately needs to be reformed.

Perhaps now we can expect Clinton, having now experienced the errors of his ways 15 years ago, to join efforts to reform the system.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 06/03/2009
photo

"except for payment of grossly exorbitant, extortionist prices"

Well, the market is what the market is. If the domain name is valuable to the buyer, its value is determined by the buyer when the check is written.

I bought a house 12 years ago for $150K. It's now "worth" $300K. If I sell it for $275K, is the price extortionate? Not if the buyer's willing to pay it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 PM on 06/03/2009
- johnnynyc I'm a Fan of johnnynyc 34 fans permalink

So Al Gore invented the internet and Bill Clinton designed the domain naming system?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 PM on 06/03/2009
photo

It sure seems like reasons (ii) and (iii) apply to this situation. Redirecting people looking for Bill Clinton to a Republican website sure seems like competitive interference to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 PM on 06/03/2009
- DaisyDooks I'm a Fan of DaisyDooks 30 fans permalink
photo

None of those sites work. I just tried. I get "page load error" on every one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:26 PM on 06/03/2009
- TheHandyman I'm a Fan of TheHandyman 105 fans permalink
photo

Considering everything Clinton did while in office it is hard to seperate him from the Rethugs. He is the model for practically all the Demowon'ts presently in office who have morphed into the GoP while the GOP has morphed into the Klan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 PM on 06/03/2009

I can't recall for certain, but it does seem to me that the UDRP "bad faith" factors were illustratively rather than exhaustively listed. "Web of Deception" could be regarded as a red flag as well, as could the fact that this person is clearly opposed to Clinton idealogically. All of those websites are filed with the registrar in Virginia, so even if Culligan lives in Nigeria a U.S. court will have in rem jurisdiction over him. Clinton could potentially get this overturned in an actual courtroom, particularly with respect to the panel's finding that (iv) did not apply. The use of Clinton's mark is neither nominative nor fair, and it intentionally deceives users to divert traffic to the RNC. That he is seeking to preempt the former president from registering it for himself is also obvious. If this went to court, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act might yield a different outcome.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:18 PM on 06/03/2009
photo

"Clinton could potentially get this overturned in an actual courtroom ... "

But only if the jury (or the judge in a jury-less trial) agreed with him. They might not do that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 06/03/2009
photo

That's always the risk in a jury (or judge) trial.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 PM on 06/03/2009
- jerrypl I'm a Fan of jerrypl 58 fans permalink
photo

From what I just read it sure sounds like it SHOULD meet the requirements of acquiring the domain names in what is defined as Bad Faith!!

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 06/03/2009
- pakaal I'm a Fan of pakaal 33 fans permalink
photo

A website called PresidentBillClinton.comm" that redirects to the RNC is NOT considered a violation of iv (attract readers by confusing them)? Yeah, uh huh, OK, sure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:08 PM on 06/03/2009

Agreed! I really have to wonder if the UDRP Arbitration Forum isn't comprised of majority Republicans. The decision seems contrary to their own policy and rather than having merit appears political.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 06/03/2009
photo

It doesn't link to the RNC.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:45 PM on 06/04/2009
- phredralf I'm a Fan of phredralf 14 fans permalink
photo

That's so 2001.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 06/03/2009
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 06/03/2009
- DaisyDooks I'm a Fan of DaisyDooks 30 fans permalink
photo

lmao

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 06/03/2009

He could always register Lewinsky.c­um (sic)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 06/03/2009
- Rrhain I'm a Fan of Rrhain 14 fans permalink

Let me see if I understand:

A company named "Web of Deception" is not guilty of bad faith?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 PM on 06/03/2009
- DaisyDooks I'm a Fan of DaisyDooks 30 fans permalink
photo

Nuh uh. teehee

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 06/03/2009
- namblor I'm a Fan of namblor 2 fans permalink

Who types in a URL anymore? Most, if not all searches go through a search engine, then it's just click, click, click.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 PM on 06/03/2009
- rabb046 I'm a Fan of rabb046 4 fans permalink
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 PM on 06/03/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect