Slashdot Mirror
The Saga of Katie.com
digitalcaffeine writes "The gist of the story is that Katie Tarbox became a victim of an online sexual predator when she was 13. She wrote a book about it in 2000 and Penguin Putnam made the title of the book 'Katie.Com', which unfortunately was a domain name owned by Katie Jones since 1996. Now Tarbox's lawyer is demanding that Jones turn over the domain name.
Penguin refuses to apologize, saying that it would be a violation of their free speech to re-title the book and that Jones never trademarked katie.com, so they can do what they want with the words."
without ever googling for the domain name they used? Unbelievably clueless.
I thought trademark was a right guaranteed with or without going through the trademark process. After her first "sale" (visit from an outsider), she would have held a trademark on her site.
The Political Programmer
the fact that the sex.com ruling made web names property. I would think that with that precedent, and judges love those, that the owner of the site can not be forced to turn it over. She was there first.
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
It seems that the Katie.com people don't like the web traffic and messages from users who assume Katie.com is the abused Katie. Apparently the lawyer suggested if this was a problem for Katie.com, they could donate the domain to penguin. This is not a hijacking. And not the black-and-white victimization the write-up implies.
But Katie J is also being stupid with her whole "I can't use my domain blah blah blah" crap. How can she not mention her baby on her page because people are coming there? The whole point to the web is that it is PUBLIC and people will come and go. So people are reading, now she has to take everything down? Stupid.
LordBodak's journal.
As a UK citizen, she should just go to the police with the threatening legal letters, and raise a charge of harrassment against Penguin Publishing. Point out that Penguin Publishing published her e-mail address everywhere in order to get a lot of people to harrass her. I'm sure that there is a lot of stuff she can do under UK law to stop this illegal baiting.
... it would be nice to see a lawyer with a heart for a start ... I'm not holding my breath though.
Penguin are clearly in the wrong here. I will just choose to not buy any book published by Penguin, it is the least I can do.
I hope that a lawyer sees this and decides to help this person out
nice idea, but the government can only be sued when they choose to allow it. You would be much better off writing, say the epic novel Microsoft.com
You have too much faith in people not being idiots. People watched "Bruce Almighty" and immediately started trying to phone God when they used a legitimate telephone number on the pager rather than the traditional 555-xxxx format.
Couldn't Katie Jones sue Katie Tarbox for libeling her as a sexual assault victim?
http://www.katiet.com/
Damn Law-iots....
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
From the "unpleasant lawyer's (Parry Aftab)" website:
>>She can be reached via e-mail at
>>parry@aftab.com and for time sensitive issues
>>or for media on a deadline, at 201-463-8663
>>(her U.S. cell phone).
First off, Katie the book writer should have checked it out and secured the website before being published. /.
Second, Katie the website owner should cash in and sell ad space, I'm sure she'll be getting a lot of hits now that the story is on
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
The lawyer who is trying to take Katie.com from the rightful owner is pretty rediculous. The owner of Katie.com has even stated that the lawyer has made semi threatening phone calls to her that things will "only get worse". There happens to be a link on Katie.com to the laywer's weblog, which happens to have a link to her personal page which has contact info. Let her know what you think of the situation:
parry@aftab.com
201-463-8663 (her U.S. cell phone)
This kind of lawyer bullshit really has to stop.
FOX did that for the Simpsons too (at least for What Badgers Eat). Of course, there have been dozens of other websites references on there they haven't bothered to register.
Switching to Linux can be an adventure!
Personally I feel this is simply corporate terrorism. I hope she doesn't hand over the domain to them. It's hers and she had it for years before the book was published. Apparently they knew it was in use since they have that disclaimer in the book stating that katie.com wasn't associated with them.
What makes it all especially ironic of course is that the book itself is about the abuse of the Internet to disrupt an innocent person's life. In the situation of Katie.com, however, it is increasingly the case that the abused has become the abuser.
I think this sums it up nicely. I wish her luck in fighting this!!
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
I agree that the right thing to do would have been to make an offer on the name prior to publication.
But having read the notice on katie.com, it doesn't sound like she would've accepted (and I doubt Penguin would have offered some astronomical sum).
It gets even weirder when you factor in that the katie.com Katie actually makes her living in the chat business, meaning the association with the book is potentially harmful to her business as well.
I do hope that this generates enough of a publicity backlash that Penguin sees the light and changes the title.
It doesn't strike me as illegal per se to name a book after someone else's (owned but not trademarked) personal domain name, but it certainly is crass. To then try, after the fact, to intimidate the legitimate owner into "donating" (or selling or anything else) is just absurd.
Of course the most just of ironies would be for Penguin to change the name back to "girl.com," which is apparently what they originally wanted -- and I'm sure the owners of girl.com have a price in mind. At least at the moment that's not a porn site but rather one of those parked/pseudo-search sites.
Way to go Penguin! Dumbasses.
This Like That - fun with words!
You contribute by going to amazon.com, and any other online bookseller you can, and then blast the book by describing the facts of the situation.
I'm happy to see that there are now dozens of reviews at amazon explaining this situation. Come on you slashdotters get off your lazy butts and get the number of negative reviews up to at least a thousand.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Online clue-stick-beating protests have actually recently started about this. Among others, lots of people have gone to amazon and "modded down" her book for that reason(you can see that a lot of recent comments there are mentionning Penguin's stupidity). You can probably make a point by joining them(although it might not be what amazon.com reviews arefor, it will sure send a message anyway).
If I were Katie Jones, I'd setup Google AdWords on my front page, and perhaps a sponsored link to the katie.com book on Amazon, and use the proceeds to power a legal fund.
If the problem remains unresolved (and the domain unusable for the original purpose) maybe selling katie.com to a porn company would be a good way to get both some remuneration for the trouble and some one-upmanship at Penguin and Katie Tarbox. I'm guessing that domain might be hot property by now. Dealing with a "niche" porn company (I'll leave that to y'alls imagination) might be even more profitable, and a lot better still at raising bloodpressure at PP. CT
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It would have been more effective to link the site, as even slashdotters on a mission are too lazy to cut and paste. Nonetheless, I've done my slashdot duty and used your link. I can only hope the other million /. readers do the same.
http://parryaftab.blogspot.com/
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I'd gladly host her site for free, just for the controversy.
Because I have no doubt she'll win, and in the mean time you can't buy better ghetto publicity than a publisher of paperbacks trying to strong arm a young mother into giving up her domain name so they can give it to a victim of an online sexual predator. That's like a puppy fighting with a kitten -- two strong appeals to your sense of humanity, duking out over a friggin' email address?
Anyhow, you really want to cheese off Penguin? Don't Goatse the site Katie.com...instead, use it to post erudite and insightful critiques of the book, call into question the events inside and the validity of its conclusions. After all, they're marketing the book with YOUR website on it...might as well use your website to convince people not to buy their book. Shit, I'll volunteer for that, too...got to put this rhetoric degree to use for something besides mod 5 posts.
Incidentally, after a quick USPTO.GOV search, it appears Penguin didn't register katie.com, either. Since the owner of katie.com has prior art going back to 1996, I think she could still register her trademark...and sue the SHIT out of Penguin for misuse of her domain name. But IANAL...I'm a computer guy with a rhetoric degree and outrage that anybody could be so greedy to cash in on their own tragedy as to threaten a young mother.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Check out this link. This guy had to stop referring to an old software company he was involved with in order to not get sued. You might recognize the name of the old company.
Instead, they suggest that the domain name should be given to them as a "donation." I generally donate money to causes that are essentially "poor." I don't see any poor people on Kate T.'s side of the fence.
Did anyone here read the book? One thing that jumped out at me was the way she talked about living in a very wealthy area (New Canaan, CT). For example, her swim team didn't have to do fundraisers because they were just given the money for travel, etc. Now there's a domain name she happens to want, and she seems to expect that it should also just be given to her. It does seem like Katie T. has a strong sense of entitlement.
I emailed the author, and got this reply: I appreciate your thoughts and understand them completely. It is not posted on my web site, but this issue is between Katie Jones and Penguin Putnam. They own the name Katie.com as a published book and decided to call it that. I can do nothing in my power to change it. I would suggest if you would like your voice to be heard and a chance that something is done about it, direct your sympathy to Penguin Putnam. For the record I have never harassed Katie Jones for her site. Best, Katie Tarbox Whether that is true or not, I have no idea, but in the interest of fairness, her reply should be noted, I think. I have to admit, my (limited) knowledge of publishing seems to indicate the actual author has very little juice here.
John Kenneth Fisher
Table of malContents
I appreciate your thoughts and understand them completely. It is not posted on my web site, but this issue is between Katie Jones and Penguin Putnam. They own the name Katie.com as a published book and decided to call it that. I can do nothing in my power to change it. I would suggest if you would like your voice to be heard and a chance that something is done about it, direct your sympathy to Penguin Putnam. For the record I have never harassed Katie Jones for her site.
Best, Katie Tarbox
I sure don't envy her. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but what she doesn't say makes it sound a lot like she isn't altogether pleased with the way Penguin Putnam has been dealing with things. Actually, it sounds to me like she didn't ask for this and is tired of it.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
I recently read a story about your book and the problems it has been causing with the legal owner of Katie.com, Katie Jones.
I was appalled to read about how your lawyers, or penquin's lawyers acting on your behalf, are trying to steamroll Mrs. Jones into "donating" her property. Instead of bullying her into giving up her rightfully owned domain name, might I suggest politely offering her a nice sum in exchange? Any reasonable person would see that as being the decent thing to do.
It disgusts me that you were the victim of an online predator, and now it also disgusts me that you have become a different type of online predator.
I strongly urge you and your publishing company to either deal with Mrs. Jones in a respectable manner, or leave her alone altogether. I also urge you to put pressure on your publisher to stop this despicable behavior.
Sincerely,
(my name here)
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
That's the part I don't get. Shouldn't it be the reverse? Shouldn't Katie Jones be suing Penguin for publishing a book named after her site, without her authorization?
If Katie T. and Penguin really are this mean-spirited and greedy then I do hope that someone steps forward and helps Katie J. fund a legal challenge.
Er..... someone?? Why the hell not us.
Where's the EFF? Where's the legal defense fund to which I can donate? If my site were infringed like this I'd fight it to the nines, and ask for all the help I could get from the Slashdot crowd. People make fun of stealing Slashdot's name..... but this is precident people. I keep seeing glimmers here on Slashdot that people are waking up to the fact that the internet is part of the REAL WORLD, and that we have to play in that world... usually by their rules. Then I see people here whining about how bad this is and how we should slam the reviews on Amazon or boycott Penguin. Both are reasonable ideas.... but we need to get organized and active, and protect ourselves on their terms.
I sent an email to Katie Jones imploring her to seek the assistance of the EFF and to set up a fund for the defense of her rights. I'll happily support both with my wallet to the best I can.
Not permanently, however, it would cause penguin some problems if people rang up and complained about not being able to get to the web site, and Katie Jones wouldn't have to pay for bandwidth.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
I feel as you do - the book is hers. She is responsible. Hence I sent her the following letter:
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This raises the question, why isn't penguin linked into the story as an important link? Nothing gets the point across like a good old-fashioned slashdotting. Someone ought really to find the most graphics-heavy page on the site, and we can all reload it several times.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not just phone numbers but names and addresses. Usually media companies are careful to avoid this sort of thing, not just phone numbers but names and addresses. For instance the producers of Fight Club got permission to use the name Marla Singer from some woman named Marla Singer, to avoid getting sued. And Todd McFarlane is in a big court battle for using the name Tony Twist (a hockey player) for a character.
Next question: how do we donate to KatieJ's legal defense fund?
...
Can't let rabid left-winger legal sharks and their clients pull this kind of garbage
I have an idea. Why doesn't she write a book about her experience about corporate preditors screwing a young mother out of her domain name? I even have a good title for it.... Penguin.com
Several people have made this point... and the reply posted by Katie T. (a form reply? it was posted several times) suggests the opposite.
In either case Penguin should bear the brunt of the negative publicity, in order to set a precedent: Don't blithely hijack people's domain names just because your lawyers think you can get away with it.
Penguin is clearly in the wrong. The lawyer in question is probably also in the wrong, and Katie T. may be as well, but we haven't seen enough information to make a strong judgement there.
Start by pressuring Penguin. The rest will follow their lead (as they have so far).
This Like That - fun with words!
If people would seriously like to do this, we could set up a Paypal account. Are there a significant number of people who would want to do that?
Although I'll probably be lost in the torrent of comments on this one, I would just like to turn people's attention to a startlingly similar case; gateway.com.
For those that don't know, Alan Clegg once owned the domain "gateway.com"... since around 1994 or thereabouts. All of a sudden in 2000, Gateway 2000 decided that they liked this Internet thing after all and wanted to have the domain. So did they offer to buy said domain??? Hell no... they sued Alan for the domain. (a URL that details a bit of this is http://www.cybermad.com/culture/odd/odd.html)
Now, to this day I don't know exactly what happened to this lawsuit... I didn't keep up with it much, but of course gateway.com now goes to the large corporation.
Funnily enough, one of the really amusing (horrible) things that happened during the lawsuit was that Gateway 2000 removed the definition of "gateway" from their online dictionary, it being a piece of networking equipment which is where Alan got the name from.
If you're out there, Alan... I still wonder occasionally what happened. I even wrote an opinion piece of my own website about it... you can still search and find information about it on Google.
I feel for Katie Jones... and to be honest I hope she wins the lawsuit. Sounds to me like she's fighting the other Katie... not necessarily Penguin. I, for one however will not be buying this book under any circumstances. It would just fund the lawsuit.
I would guess that some folks here (such as myself) would help. It's a big issue being fought in a small way. I would suggest, however, that it not be a legal defense fund. Rather a legal offense fund.
If you read:n guin_ka tie_hijack/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/04/pe
they already mentioned that she would not be allowed to sell the domain name now since "it is now intricately linked with the book and media machine surrounding the other Katie".
I can tell you one thing any money I was ever going to spend on a book published by Penguin would now go to support the owner of katie.com
....except to WB and Paramount and whatever else big corporation wants to kill off their fan base for some reason.
Both companies above have waged war against their fans regarding websites.
In the case of WB, hundreds of fans had their fansites before Harry Potter was a galleon gleam in their coffers. That still didn't stop WB from sending cease and desist letters to teenie boppers the second they bought the rights for the films.
Just one more example of how corporations have more rights these days than citizens.
The book was originally to be titled "girl.com" but that turned out to be a porn site, so they changed it to "katie.com" instead
Question: If the publishers knew that katie.com was taken, why didn't they just call the book katietarbox.com or katherine.com instead? (Assuming that neither of those domains have been taken).
They could have thier own website up and running, posting whatever they wanted. Instead, they currently have the stubborn owner of katie.com with the website and mounting legal fees. Plus if they owned their own domain (like katietarbox.com), they would (possibly) be making more $$ from their domain.
oh, and for the record, I am on the side of the original owner of the katie.com domain. I just don't understand why people are so stupid sometimes.
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
My solution, if I were her? Keep using it as my personal domain (albeit with a small disclaimer pointing at the correct URL for the book somewhere on the site, blended in with the design, and NO other acknowlegment); the legal owner can do whatever they want with the site, so Putnam can shove it, and if idiots can't read the "not affiliated with" disclaimer, then they're just that: idiots) and with no e-mail address posted for people to flame to.
...
I've actually only recently had a posted address on my site (I'm using my gmail account for this purpose; my other webmail account, from Yahoo, is a pure forced-registration spam trap) and I don't read the junk that spammers are sending to webmaster@
Don't like the idiots? Ignore them. Your legal name? They have no case to take it, especially if you were there first. Remember that schoolyard advice to ignore bullies? These idiots are nothing more than bullies. Reacting to them is just going to make them try harder.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Would it be legal for Katie Jones to turn her site into a parody site? She could pretend to be the Katie from the book and "confess" that the whole story is just a hoax, or maybe place a false advertisement describing the book as a "How-To" story written by a 41-year-old man who lured a 13-year-old girl to his hotel room using an online chat site.... Given that Penguin has retained a top-rated constitutional lawyer to defend their misuse of the domain name and have millions of dollars to spend on questionable tactics to get Katie Jones to abandon the domain, I don't think there's any point in keeping the moral high ground in this case.
*********
Rob, we never tried to take katie.com, Katie Jones is doing all of this for publicity. We were always using katiesplace.org. I am also not Katie's lawyer or anyone's lawyer and Jone's knows that.
I donate 90% of my time to running a charity that protects people online. But replying only feeds Jone's hidden agenda here.
For that reason, I request that you not share this without my advance permission.
-----Original Message----- From: Rob Miles [mailto:rmiles@theskepticalreview.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:42 PM To: parry@aftab.com Subject: Katie Jones and katie.com
Please stop your campaign to force Katie Jones to give up HER domain, katie.com. Even since the book by the came out, she has dealt with unwanted and unwarranted attention. Maybe this all started as a mistake or an oversight, but to plan to release additional material under that same name (as reported by Ms. Jones on 7/30/04) is certainly mean-spirited at this point.
As of 7/27/04 your site lists a new venture with Katie Tarbox named katiesplace.org. If this means that you have in fact given up on trying to force Ms. Jones to give up her rightful domain, then I apologize for the above and offer you my deepest appreciation.
***********
For the record, I consider any email sent to me to be my own property, regardless of any request or disclaimer saying otherwise.
All joking aside, the publisher should put aside their money for legal fees in this case, and just pay the domain owner whatever she wants. Yeah, she may have turned down several "high offers," but I assure you that none of them had the deep pockets of Penguin. Give the girl a nice advance, as well as a few points of the royalties if you want this domain THAT bad.
"5 of 622 people found the following review helpful:
..." ...
..
***** (5 stars)
Katie.com by Katherine Tarbox was a great book to read. I would recommend it to ages 12 and up. I liked Katie.com because
"203 of 203 people found the following review helpful:
* (1 star)
The writer of the book and the publishers should be ashamed of themselves.
DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK, and certainly think again about buying from this publisher."
"Wow" is right. At present there is over 200 negative reviews of the book, "modded up" by at least 80-90 people each, and the few 5 star reviews have been "modded down" to nothing, giving this book a final rating of two stars.
Do y'all have any idea how many people are buying their books on Amazon these days, and how many people will see thiss? This *will* have an impact on book sales, I guarantee it. I bet Penguin will stop harassing Katie Jones and they will probably issue an official apology within a couple weeks.
My confidence in Amazon.com reader reviews has evaporated!
I clicked on the link to see what had happened with the reviews, and average * rating had gone to nearly 2 stars, with nearly 300 reviews.
This was due to the slashdot effect on amazon.
(Not that I am sure the slashdot effect is fair either)
However, as I was clicking for the next pages on reviews of this book, I noticed the number of reviews were steadily decreasing.
It went from 287 to 100+ to 87 to 85 to 80 just right now.
The average star rating is now nearly 4 stars.
Someone is removing the reviews.
Who is doing this? Amazon? the author? possibly the publisher?
Hi all,
3 .html)
I've read the article and I think I can add a couple of things that haven't been added yet.
Knowing the publishing world as I do (I've got two books out, and plenty of friends who are authors), it seems to me that what may have happened on Penguin Putnam's side was that just before publication it was discovered that the original title linked to a XXX site. Books usually have to go into production a couple of months before release, and if it was close enough to the publication date, somebody in a rush may have figured that "katie.com" was innocuous enough and may not even have been in use. In that case, it is an honest mistake. As far as intellectual property goes, there actually isn't a violation on either side - unless the book directly mirrors the website or vice versa, neither can really complain on that end.
(It's rather like naming a character "Elric" in a story. Anybody can do it, but if the character is an albino from an island named Melnibone, that's when you get sued by Michael Moorcock. To cut a long story short, you can't copyright a name.)
As far as what Ms. Tarbox's lawyer is asking, it's intimidation, plain and simple. I very much doubt that Penguin is involved, though (partly because if they really wanted the domain name, they would go after it directly - they aren't a monopoly, and they don't need to use proxies).
The reason it's intimidation being used is that there really isn't anything Ms. Tarbox's lawyer can actually do to take the domain name away from Katie Jones. In order to dispute the name, the lawyer would have to take the dispute to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and than she would have to prove that Kate Jones registered the domain in bad faith (essentially, that she specifically registered the name so that she could sell it to Penguin after the book was published). However, since the domain name was registered before the book was retitled (and years before, in fact) the case would be extremely difficult to prove.
(I'm not a lawyer, but I covered this in an article I wrote back in 2001 that is located at http://www.tophosts.com/articles/print.shtml?1000
I really do sympathize with Ms. Jones, and I hope that public opinion will effect a change that will get Ms. Tarbox's lawyer off her case. It really is sad when intimidation like this is used.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
i know, i can't believe that they would do that (i can, but it pisses me off).
It is certainly a review of the book that it was published with a title that was not owned by the author or the publisher. The author and publisher are trying to strong-arm the little guy (look at me, i wrote a book and have a lot of money, i can afford a big expensive attorney).
I surely hope that the katie.com owner sues penguin for damages, and for infringing on her copyright. I know she didn't have "katie.com" trademarked, and IANAL, but i'm not sure that she needed to. She had an established online presence with that name, and penguin (and the author) knew of that (and even researched it) but proceeded anyways... if they sides were reversed, we all know who would win.
In alt.activism.children the only person whose taste buds are dead enough
to permit him to perform oral sex on Mike Echols, alexplore, writes:
> When the conversation was with 13-year-old Katherine Tarbox of
> New Canaan, Conn., the subject was piano playing, one of young
> Katie's passions.
You know, we all heard this touching tale when Parry Aftab was flogging
the book to death. It's 100% Sex Abuse Agenda embellished tripe.
> Katie, who was staying with her mother, Andrea, and her teammates
> in the same hotel as Kufrovich, went to his room at about 9:30
> p.m. Her worried mother squeezed the details from one of Katie's
> friend, and rushed to Kufrovich's room with police - but not
> before the pedophile had a chance to kiss and fondle her.
In reality, when the police entered the room, both Katie and her network
acquaintance said "nothing had happened." The guy was allowed to leave
with no charges being filed.
Later, after being programmed to think of herself as a victim, she filed a
complaint, and decided to become a media darling, write a book, meet Parry
Aftab, and function as the poster child for Internet luring.
Hey, why turn down a lucrative career opportunity, right?
They also managed to get the FBI involved, and charge her "predator" with
a couple of those vague new "intending to" and "traveling for the purpose
of" laws. He got 18 months.
To make matters worse, Katie titled her sob story "Katie.com." Well, the
20 year old owner of www.katie.com, who lives in London, was less than
amused when she started getting millions of hits from the Child Sex
Hysterics.
And so it goes.
A better example: Nissan.com
As the website says now, it was forced to remove all commercial contents. It was owned by Uzi Nissan in relation to his local computer business since the early days of the internet.
Nissan Motors didn't get it, but the guy lost use of his domain. It's a pity that the detail of the case were removed from the site. The guy even showed a copy of a receipt fro the 70's he issued using the Nissan name to Datsun (former name of Nissan).
The katie.com case is not exactly the same. The name was chosen deliberately to refer to a domain name without assessing the damage it would do to the domain name owner (such as having to pay for dealing with the traffic and pay for the bandwidth). It's not that they happen to have the same trademark (which is allowed for different businesses). In this case the author of the book deliberately chose this title without checking about the domain name, and without considering the impact of chosing to use the existing domain name' or perhaps worse: choosing to ignore the consequences. I think in this case they should pay katie.com to compensate for the trouble.
I have looked at the previous pages you have had using http://www.archive.org.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/katie.com
From what I can see, you have never had anything on the site but things related to the book. I thus am afraid you will need to obtain an alternative trademark or loose your domain.
I am not finding any trademarks registered in the US patent office for katie.com... US do have priority, and if you quickly register a US trademark for katie.com and state in the trademark what you will use it for (it should be different from what the current copyright for katie.com is for in country x). The best would be if registered in Virginia as that's where the root server is...
The rationale is that multiple organizations may have the same trademark, (like apple - both the recording studio of the Apple Records, and Apple Computers). You would thus be virtually untouchable as long as the trademark you apply for has nothing in common with the trademark applied for by them.
Now - is that worth it? I believe it is estimated that a 5 letter .com domain is worth 10-20 thousand USD. The rest of the calculation is up to you...