Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Springsteen Can't Get No Satisfaction

Posted by michael on from the justice-is-blindfolded dept.

Johnathon Walls writes "Speaking of totally arbitrary decisions by WIPO, they recently refused to award Bruce Springsteen the URL brucespringsteen.com. It is currently run by a fan site. According to the tribunal "Jeff Burgar (the current owner) had demonstrated he had some rights or legitimate interest in the Web address name" and that Springsteen "failed to show the name was registered and used in bad faith, noting Springsteen had no evidence that Burgar ever tried to sell the name"."

11 comments

  1. Random WIPO decisions by agentZ · · Score: 2

    Could the WIPO Decisions be generated by a magic 8 ball? If we get back a decision that says, "Try again later", I'm outta here.

  2. Note to self by Anoriymous+Coward · · Score: 3

    If ever sued over any of my domains make sure I have documentary evidence of refusal to sell when approached.

    I wonder if there is a business model here? For $10 I will send you a letter asking if you will sell your domain name, and I will keep the reply you send me saying "No," in case you are ever sued.

  3. Good for WIPO by autocracy · · Score: 2

    I believe that this is a good move on their part. Checking to see if domain usage fits into those categories works for me, and I find it rather appropriate...

    Now if only they could get a name better than WIPO!

    The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...

    --
    SIG: HUP
  4. Hrm by Kara+B. · · Score: 1

    It seems obvious to me that this is the wrong decision.
    BruceSpringsteen.com is clearly attempting to profit by people confusing it with an official Bruce Springsteen website.
    They are parasites attempting to make money off his name.
    I know that a lot of /. readers think domains should be handed out on a first come, first served basis, but there are some legitimate trademark concerns here.
    This is just another stupid decision by the WIPO - the only difference is that they sided with the original domain holder this time.
    --Kara

    --
    --Kara
    Before you ask, I already have a boyfriend and he's more of a man than you'll ever be.
    1. Re:Hrm by gunner800 · · Score: 2
      Half right.

      Check out the site. No banners, no popups, nothing for sale.

      No profit.


      My mom is not a Karma whore!

    2. Re:Hrm by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      As was noted, it's not a for-profit site.

      They should certainly be handed out on a first come first serve basis. Why? Well what if I own bspringsteen.com? Should I have to give that one up too? What about brycespringsteen.com? Gotta have all those typo domains. Where do you draw the line at 'legitimate trademark concerns'?

      What if someone else out there is actually named Bruce Springsteen and owns the domain? Should they be forced to give it up simply because the musician didn't bother to get it in a timely fashion? For instance, McDonalds the restaurant suing McDonald the family for trademark infringement.

      What if AMD were to come up with a cool new chip, and Intel ran to the courts and said, "Well we have been making chips for a long time now. Our claim on them supercedes AMD's. It is your duty to give us the rights to their design. If you don't, people will get confused and won't be able to buy our chips". This is really, utterly wrong, no? Yet how is it any different from someone demanding that I hand over a domain, which I have paid for with real money, simply because the WIPO thinks they have more of a right to it than me. I don't have to have a legitmate use to own a car, why a domain name?

      These domains are property in the literal sense. Unlike IP, we cannot both have it at the same time. It should be treated as such. I buy (rent, lease, whatever) it, it's mine until I say otherwise.

      --

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  5. Good decision by xTown · · Score: 2
    If my name were also Bruce Springsteen, and I had a personal web site at www.brucespringsteen.com, would "the" Bruce Springsteen be able to take it away from me?

    If brucespringsteen.com is a legit fan site (which it appears to be) and isn't making money (which it appears not to be) then "the" Bruce Springsteen shouldn't be able to do anything about it. Billy Joel notwithstanding, most musicians don't have their names trademarked.

    1. Re:Good decision by scorbett · · Score: 1
      If my name were also Bruce Springsteen, and I had a personal web site at www.brucespringsteen.com, would "the" Bruce Springsteen be able to take it away from me?

      Probably. It's not about who got there first, it's about who has the most money, and can afford the best lawyers. Just wait, soon enough Springsteen might decide to go after other "infringing" web sites like bornintheusa.com.


      --

      --
      www.scorbett.ca
    2. Re:Good decision by JCCyC · · Score: 2
      Well, there doesn't seem to be anything on bornintheusa.com, so he could argue malice, but isn't that too generic a phrase? I could think of many legitimate uses for that one:

      - Informations for Americans abroad;
      - Official govt. info;
      - Immigration information, e.g., what are your rights if you're the son of illegal Haitian imigrants born in US soil;
      - Campaigns to "buy American" etc...

  6. Hrm and the definition of .com by DMSkippy · · Score: 1
    There is something that I think alot of people are forgetting: The definition of .com: commercial

    If this site is not trying to sell anything as a legitimate business, then what is it doing owning a .COMMERCIAL domain name?

    This is the main reason that we are running out of .com names: people are taking them for non-commercial reasons. People, that's what .NET and .ORG are for!!

    --
    Incompetence is not to be tolerated. Ignorance is not to be ignored. Failure is not an option.
  7. Don Henley by halliburton · · Score: 1

    Look what Don Henley is going through.