Slashdot Mirror
JRR Tolkien: Return Of The Domain Name
Malfourmed writes "Reuters reports that the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien won a cybersquatting case against Alberta Hot Rods, a Canadian-based operator which registered jrrtolkien.com and linked it to its commercial celebrity Web site. The group - which has already lost domain name cases brought by actors Pierce Brosnan and Pamela Anderson, and author Michael Crichton - was found to have no legitimate rights, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) said in a ruling."
So if that's the case, why on earth do we have .com .org etc?
If you want truth in advertising, then the biggest, best-known company or individual using a given name should really just be given the name, right? Why even bother registering? We could just go by annual income...
Really, what difference is it in confusion between going to jrrtolkien.com and seeing ads, than it is to go to tolkien.com and see nothing, because that's what happens, when you try it. This is why we have google...
Pixie
don't mess with those geekgrrls
Sadly no longer true: AU domain policies
The registering organisation must be a company, within a *very* loose definition - for example owning a registered trade mark qualifies you. The domain name must then either be derived from your organisation name (in a couple of obvious ways) *OR*:
The rules were loosened about a year and a half ago, at about the same time as auDA took over management of the .AU domain.
Originally the requirement for org.au was that the domain not fit any of the other categories. The new (auDA) requirement is that the organisation be a charity or non-profit organisation.
There is something called The Right of Publicity. In short, it is the right for a person to keep his identity from being exploited for commercial gain without his permission. This protection can last beyond death, but varies by state.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
I remember that case, and I'm sad to see how it turned out. The court sure goatsed him. The commercial use to which he was previously putting that domain name was his small business, a computer shop, IIRC. Nothing whatsoever to do with cars, and he'd been in business for years under his name, since the days when Nissan still called itself Datsun in North America.
Poor guy. He really got shafted. Guess which Japanese auto maker will have a zero percent chance of selling me my next car?
The law recognizes certain individuals as "public figures" with a set of rights that are separate from normal individuals.
And before you go all, "that's not fair!", just remember that the differences in rights of public figures aren't *always* (although frequently they are, I will grant you) in their favor.
For instance, in most states if I photograph or videotape you I can't use your image for personal financial gain (like, say, showing you on my reality TV show) without your permission, in most cases. But in the case of public figures, such as celebrities, sports figures, politicians, I most certainly can, as long as I'm telling the truth and as long as I'm being fair. Their image is recognized as having a symbolic value to the public over and above the value it has to that individual. This is why paparazzi can do what they do.
However, because these individuals are public figures, they own a piece of property that has value to them as well: their name. You can't call something Celine Dion Ice Cream, not unless the Celine Dion whose name is most likely meant to be used as a selling point gives her permission. It doesn't matter that there's another Celine Dion out there. Unless your other Celine Dion has established that her name has equal value in advertising or commerce, well, then the famous Celine trumps her because it's the famous Celine's name that is logically being used to pump the value of the ice cream, or what have you.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
It was allowed because the global .com domain registry doesn't ensure that you hold the registered name before letting you register it, unlike other more anal schemes such as .com.au.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Cutting and pasting:
Look here for their info on what they do with cybersquatting..sig? No.