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

[chappie]

Domain poachers should be shot. They are pretty foul creatures but the WWW is a breeding ground and it is only going to get worse over time.

[InfinteShibumi]

Pity. It reminds me of when I was doing research and clicked onto whitehouse.com. Lo and behold it was a porn site. I can only imagine the thousands of children who did the same... Although someone else now owns it, I believe it should have been White House property, which goes by the domain whitehouse.gov.

[TotoToo]

There's only one explanation - they are all Clinton haters. It seems that competence really p*sses off Republicans.

[FZliveson]

Clinton is rolling in money. He could negotiate a settlement. But, no, he has to go to court.
There is a certain ring of unfairness to the decision by the judge. But Clinton is just getting
karmic payback for the stuff he has pulled in his reign as the main hotshot. He's still raking
in the big bucks, "debating" with Dubya in Canada! Come on.

[mamala4]

Maybe he offered to settle....­and perhaps it isn't about money...pe­rhaps he feels it is wrong that his name should be associated with the repugs.

[Justeesh]

"Karmic payback" and justice in our legal system are not related.

Basically you just said, "it's unfair, but I don't like him, so it's okay."

[FZliveson]

Justeesh: No, I said there is a certin ring of unfairness, which means that web domains are owned sometimes by blokes who really just have them to irritate people or get money for them. That has been adjudicated. That doesn't have a "fair feel" to it, On the other hand, Clinton has been such an philandering red-skirt, in my opinion, especially around the Dubai Ports Deal, that I could dive a flying you know what if he gets justice at all.
I am no judge of the law. And in Clinton's case, losing is just, regardless. Shape that as you will.

[taricaziz]

Two uncommon criminals.

[jbeach]

What did he pull during his reign?

He wasn't completely forthcoming about cheating on his wife - which is something I knew he did when I voted for him, twice.

[alewis14151]

Bush will give a speech for $150,000. For a speech in English, it's $1,500.000­.

[DaisyDooks]

Speechless­...

*Laughing so hard that not a sound comes out*

[WritusMaximus]

So Bill Clinton now finds that others own the rights to his name! Crazy, crazy world the one we live in!

[WritusMaximus]

I agree. Highly unfair ruling. Why didn't Bill ever try to register a web site under his name? What happens if he now tries to register under his name????? Can he now be sued by the "owners" of the web sites that use his name????? This ruling is terrible!!!!!!

[partyofone]

Just wondering, while they are at it, maybe someone could look at whether Bill Clinton selling of his own name to endorse shady business deals deals constitutes "bad faith."

[jbeach]

"Just wondering, while they are at it, maybe someone could look at whether any of the Bushes selling of their name to endorse shady business deals deals constitutes "bad faith."

Fixed your post for you.

[Xav7]

what?! not in "bad faith"??? a Clinton name/site that redirects to the republican party??
that is arguably the definition of "bad faith"

[taricaziz]

Mr. Clinton is a dino, the best friend the GOP ever had, Mr. William NAFTA Clinton.

[vietveter]

ABSOLUTELY TRUE

[jbeach]

Almost as good a friend to the GOP, as George W. Bush has been to the Democrats.

But actually, no one could come close to how great George W. Bush has been for the Democrats. That's the silver lining to the dark cloud, of how bad President Bush was for America.

[RevBookburn]

More actions like this can be expected. In the future, they may even pay people to go to their site, or offer contests, or release the Trump-Prejean video. They are a sinking ship of fools and obviously feel a need to deceive people into reading their false information. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[JerryTheAngel]

Anyone who would attempt to find information on President Clinton typing those domains into their address bar, in almost all cases would be doing so to find pro Clinton information. If they are directed to a GOP site, I'm sure 95 percent of them are going to close the site immediately. I don't see any advantage of redirecting these domains to this site. The numbers must be very very tiny also, of those who would even type these names into their address bar.

It's a principle thing only here. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. It's not like the GOP are going to register thousands of new voters because of people typing this domain at random , being directed to this site and thinking "wow I'll be a Republican now".

[liarsclub75]

I used to keep track of these type of rulings and I have to say that I am shocked at this one. Very unfair ruling.

[Jamchinadian]

That is such a patently deceptive ruling!!! How can they pretend that "(iv) to attract Internet users by confusing them" does not apply???!!! That is the clear disingenuous intention!

[mginla]

Seems like a ridiculous ruling - clearly whoever registered all these domain names is intending to deceive and redirect web surfers. Very strange ruling...s­eems like the judge must not have been a Bill Clinton fan.

[gallimaufry03]

Or didn't know what the internet is.

[InfinteShibumi]

Or the "internets­."

[thewestmorg]

judge is probly a bushie

[LolaB]

Since he is a former President shouldn't there be rules dictating that you can't use his likeness to market or trick people. I think redirection of any website is trickery!

[steamboat]

I think its a DIRTY TRICK that crosses that fine line......­..And I wish zealots in both major party's (past and present) would stop playing those games. And that goes vs. doing it to ALL people, not just former Presidents.

[method]

I agree. You would think because Clinton is a former President, that he would have precedence­...I guess once you're out...you'­re out. But the ruling is cold!