Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sen. Clinton Wins Rights to HillaryClinton.com

Posted by timothy on from the also-interns-are-skanks.com dept.

SteveBlink writes "The National Arbitration Forum announced today that a ruling has been issued in favor of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding rights to the Internet domain name hillaryclinton.com. A quick search of the Yahoo! phone book reveals at least 3 other people sharing the name Hillary Clinton living Ohio, California, and Delaware, respectively. It's curious to note that Sen. Clinton's full legal name isn't "Hillary Clinton," and the website itself is a generic link farm that makes no overt reference to the senator."

47 comments

  1. knock knock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone out there?

  2. Not quite as the submitter suggests by Jhon · · Score: 5, Informative
    I've seen a lot of RTFAs in my day, but it's rare to need to suggest the submitter RTFA!
    A quick search of the Yahoo! phone book reveals at least 3 other people sharing the name Hillary Clinton living Ohio, California, and Delaware, respectively.
    What does that have to do with the price of Tea in Washington? The one who HAD and was USING the domain WAS NOT a "Hillary Clinton", it was a "Michele Dinoia" who was using it to redirect traffic to search (*cough*)SPAM(*cough) engines.

    Good riddance to a bit more sleezy domain profiteering. I don't even like Clinton, but I'm glad she won.
    1. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by Sancho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad that it's one less sleezy domain, but I don't particularly care for the precedent that a person (or probably more accurately, a celebrity) can yank a domain from someone just because they have a piece of the name. I imagine that if one of the other Hillary Clintons had tried this tactic, they would have been laughed out of court.

    2. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by Tim_F · · Score: 1

      One of the other Hillary Clintons would not have set up a link farm specifically for the purpose of making money off of the name of the ex-first lady.

      You geeks may be able to set up a prototype database for the purposes of resume tracking for your employer in no time flat and yet you completely miss out on simple facts like what I typed above.

    3. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. I don't think that Mrs. Clinton should be given ANY priority to the ownership of the domain over anyone else with that name. However, anyone with that name should be given priority over someone who doesn't have that name and is not acting in good faith with the domain.

      In other words, if another Hilary Clinton wanted the domain, they should have just as much right to it as the Senator (after all, she already has a .gov or .us domain in her state by nature of her office). But some guy using it to redirect to porn or host whatever else (unless it is specifically related to Mrs. Clinton) should should not have priority over any of the Hilary Clintons.

      I don't like her either. I'm just saying, as someone with a domain name of his own name (and I know other people want it as they've emailed me asking for it over the last decade), I feel that I have a right to it more than someone just grabbing domains - but as far as anyone else with the same name as myself - I'd consider "First come first serve" very acceptable.

    4. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by roystgnr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What does that have to do with the price of Tea in Washington?

      It means that Senator Hillary Clinton has no exclusive claim on the name hillaryclinton.

      The one who HAD and was USING the domain WAS NOT a "Hillary Clinton", it was a "Michele Dinoia" who was using it to redirect traffic to search (*cough*)SPAM(*cough) engines.

      So, is there somewhere I can download the list of Officially Approved Website Uses? Better yet, is there somewhere I can vote to have entries added to or removed from that list?

      Good riddance to a bit more sleezy domain profiteering.

      Does this logic work even if you're not rich and famous? I don't own a house, and I hear there are real estate speculators who buy and sell homes without even letting anyone live there in the meantime. There are cities named "Roy" in several states; I'll bet I can find someone profiteering in one of them.

    5. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      So, is there somewhere I can download the list of Officially Approved Website Uses?

      Right here:
      Any use of a website for non-douchebag purposes is okay.

    6. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that it's one less sleezy domain, but I don't particularly care for the precedent that a person (or probably more accurately, a celebrity) can yank a domain from someone just because they have a piece of the name.

      Are you sure? I didn't see anything pointing to the fact that any of the other 'Hillary Clintons' tried to get this domain name. I think it's a perfectly reasonable for any one of them to get their hands on it on a first come first serve basis. If it's their name, and someone is using it in order to scam people, I think it was a good ruling, it's just that the Celebrity HC went after it first.

    7. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by Sancho · · Score: 1

      But there are other rulings that don't support what you're implying. See the Mike Rowe case.

    8. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      But there are other rulings that don't support what you're implying. See the Mike Rowe case.

      Same type of thing, he was playing off of their name. I'm sure if the domain in question was mikerowe.com he would have had no problems what-so-ever.

    9. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. I was thinking of registering HillaryClinton2008.org and making it a redirect to the douchebag page of a Medical Supply Vendor.

    10. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by Sancho · · Score: 1

      But he had more cause because it was, in fact, his name. Furthermore, he was using the domain, not trying to scam (but I don't think that should be a factor--honestly, it should be first-come, first-served, and you're SOL if the domain you want is taken.)

    11. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by XO · · Score: 1

      It's a ".com".. Being "celebrity" status, she therefore would have more of a claim over it than someone else with the same name.

      If we go by the traditional rules, though, she should be required to have a .org or perhaps a .gov rather than a .com. I farking HATE when I see orgs with .coms and businesses with .orgs or .nets. Drives me NUTS. Makes me want to go Columbine.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    12. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      That's funny! Because there are people who very good money pretending like she intends to run for President in 2008!!!

    13. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You get riled rather easily, don't you, dude?

    14. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      His name was not Mike Rowe-Soft.

    15. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by Skater · · Score: 1

      Yet you post on Slashdot.org.

      :)
    16. Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests by a55mnky · · Score: 1

      Too late - Hil's peeps already have it. http://hillaryclinton2008.org/

      --
      Where oh where has my Underdog gone?
  3. Doesn't matter that it doesn't reference her by etymxris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The very act of using a popular domain to set up a link farm is cybersquatting at its finest. I've seen some bad domain handovers, but this isn't one of them.

  4. The more important question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can she score a win for CoPresident.com???

  5. easy victory, not much of a story by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    She forced a cybersquater off a page , fair enough plenty other people may also have rights to this domain , but she is the one that sought it first .
    Im sick fed up of these domain farmers , They obviously just bought up this domain in hopes of making a bit of cash off the name , which is in clearly wrong .Hell i would have suported Anyone (nearly) in a case like this, the sooner we get better regulation in to stop the domain farmers , the better our web experiance shall be.

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:easy victory, not much of a story by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Domain parking is no different that hogging up real estate or land. Concept has been around forever.

    2. Re:easy victory, not much of a story by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Real land doesn't cost 20 bucks for 2 years, real land owners pay property taxes, real land isn't unique, and if you put up a building with a sign that says "Hillary Clinton Inside", no one is going to believe you, and if they did believe you and Hillary Clinton found out about it, she'd sue you, and she'd win.

    3. Re:easy victory, not much of a story by FlameSnyper · · Score: 1

      What does this say about how gullible people are, just because it's the "InterWeb".

      www.hillaryclintoninside.com

      sponsored by Intel.

      Laugh, it's funny.

    4. Re:easy victory, not much of a story by George+Tirebuyer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Like it or not domain names are a commodity. They have value like real estate. Location, location, location. First come first served is the only way to be fair to everyone. Taking away a domain name is like imposing emminent domain on your house and then have the county sell the land to Walmart. If Walmart wants your land they should pay YOUR price and leave the government out of it.

    5. Re:easy victory, not much of a story by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      The point being , the person was a domain farmer who instead of using the domain for a good purpose was using it to extort money and quite probably install a few bits of malware or tracking cookies to any unsuspecting windows users who stumbled across it , If he had of been using it for a genuine purpose then i would of been apauled by the decision , but as it stands these bastards deserve a slap for lack of ethics and for plainly abusing the rules

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  6. Resection to politics by pb · · Score: 1, Troll

    In other news, there's a George W. Bush in Escondido, CA; it's also interesting to note that the president's full name isn't "George W. Bush", and both georgewbush.info and georgewbush.tv seem to return search engine results (which oddly don't seem to relate to the 'George W. Bush' in Escondido, CA--must be some sneaky bias in the search engine results!)

    now... did you have a point, or do you just like to ramble on about nit-picky partisan bullshit that's entirely unrelated to cybersquatting regulations?

    --
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    1. Re:Resection to politics by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      now... did you have a point, or do you just like to ramble on about nit-picky partisan bullshit that's entirely unrelated to cybersquatting regulations?

      And a quick check over at Open Secrets shows that the NAF lawyers are Republicans - makes sense as they're the guys who stand to gain from Tort Reform. No bias here.

      What is interesting is that the ruling is based on Common Law Trademark usage, which I like. Yet, during the Clinton Administration media types were chastised for using "Hillary Clinton" when they 'should' have been using "Hillary Rodham Clinton".

      If you want to inject politics here see this as yet another bit of confirmation that she's running in '08 and the campaign is winding up.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Resection to politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The 'Rodham' of course, in case she decided to ditch the bum, so her name would still be out there.

    3. Re:Resection to politics by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Maybe his point is that Dubya is soft on spammers.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  7. and anyone is suprised because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Interesting dilemna here though... What if I start a company called hillary clinton, inc. (saying theoretically my name was hillary clinton)... so based on past domain cases... can i now take it from her?

  8. She's a good negotiator by SunFan · · Score: 1


    Once she threatened to crush her opposition under the weight of her massive ego, they caved in seconds.

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    1. Re:She's a good negotiator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once, she opened a dialog to reform our failing medicare and health insurance systems.
      She caved in under the collective weight of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

    2. Re:She's a good negotiator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      Ugh, now I have an image in my mind of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich wearing sumo outfits and double-teaming unsuspecting passers-by in the Washington Mall.

    3. Re:She's a good negotiator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well at least you didn't get the image of Newt and Rush double teaming Hillary :-P

  9. Generic link farm? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This isn't such a "generic" site...it references "Hillary Rodham Clinton", "Senators", and even "Monica Lewinsky." It's intended to make money off of her popularity. (I'm not sure of the wisdom of adding the latter...it's pretty much guaranteed to anger Sen. Clinton.)

  10. Lets hear it for Linkfarms! by dextr0us · · Score: 1

    Basically, the submitter was saying that domain squatting is ok.

    Is it?

    --
    "Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
    1. Re:Lets hear it for Linkfarms! by nberardi · · Score: 1

      There is nothing saying squatting is not allowed. Even though I don't agree with it, it is not like the company that owns it is violating any legal law.

  11. It depends upon how you do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A little piece of advice for people out there who may have a domain name that makes reference to someone considered famous..

    * If you point the thing to any content that makes reference to this famous entity, and it's not parody or some other protected form of copyright referencing, you can basically forget about being able to claim you're an innocent party.

    I had a friend who had americaonline.com. He probably could have kept the domain or legitimately sold it to AOL had he not made the foolish mistake of making the domain go to AOL.COM when it was idle. Bad move. You can't claim the use of a generic or famous name if history shows that you were aware of the implications.

    That's what a cybersquatter is. You don't have to be named George Bush to claim legal ownership of the domain GEORGEBUSH.COM, but if you point it to a site selling t-shirts with pictures of the President, you're a squatter.

    Granted, GW Bush is probably a bad example, since he has several Internets to check for these kinds of things and there's no telling when or if he'll come across the "internet" that contains your incursion.

  12. This was a correct decision by cleetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IAAL. The dispute was brought to the right venue, the National Arbitration Forum (which is one of the domain name dispute fora available to alleged victims of cybersqatting--this keeps most stuff like this out of US courts and keeps taxpayer dollars from being spent on it). According to the decision, the arbitrators took statements and evidence, and, wonder of wonders, the initial registrant of HillaryClinton.com didn't even bother to respond to the complaint. In that case, all they have to go on is the statements of the complainant, which is what they used to make their findings. Finally, the arbitrators used the correct criteria to make the decision. Cut and dry and correct.

    Anyone need a lawyer?

  13. Not domain squatting by joshsnow · · Score: 1

    OK, in this case, it seems that the domain was fairly transparently squatted by a link farmer/spammer.

    What about cases where someone uses the name of a person who's political or religious stance angers them, in order to publish information which may be damaging to that person?

    The site is www.kipmckean.com isn't run by the Kip McKean who's featured on the site, but is actually a thinly veiled rebuttal of the church/alleged "cult" he used to head.

    Wonder if he'd win if he sued for ownership of the domain?

    1. Re:Not domain squatting by jenchamabers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>The site is www.kipmckean.com isn't run by the Kip McKean who's featured on the site, but is actually a thinly veiled rebuttal of the church/alleged "cult" he used to head.>>>>>

      Interesting that you would bring up an obscure religious figure such as Kip. Have you been a member current or past? Not only did he used to head this cult, he currently still leads a church and has plans to run the whole thing again.

      I was in his church/cult for 14 years and I am the owner of kipmckean.com. I thought that I had an obligation to expose and reveal Kip's recent teachings and compare these to his old dogma.

      As for your reference of my being subtle...I'll work on that. Kip refers to anything that exposes him or educates people about the ICOC as 'spiritual pornography'. My intention with the website, for as long as I have it, is to make it the SPIRITUAL PORNOGRAPHY CENTERFOLD, for all to see using Kip's own words!

      Howz that for subtle or thinly veiled?

      So while I am not making nor taking any money for running this website, I do hope to educate people to the danger of following Kip and his brand of legalistic Christianity. I followed it for far too long, much to my shame.

      Jen Chambers
      webmaster@kipmckean.com

    2. Re:Not domain squatting by joshsnow · · Score: 1

      Thanks for replying Jen. Given that you've taken the trouble to register as a /. user and reply, I take it that you've read all of this (very short) thread about Senator Clinton winning the rights to HilaryClinton.com. If you have, I hope that you appreciate the context in which I posed my question.

      If you're new to /. I should point out that it's primarily a geek news site. One of the topics which are hotly pursued around here is the on-line rights of the individual, usually versus the rights of corporations. Domain squatting and the circumstances under which domains are acquired and used frequently features.

      I am not, and never have been, affiliated with the ICC in any way. I'm not at all interested in how great/little financial reward there is in running KipMcKean.com and neither, as a bystander, do I care about your particular aims. I have no agenda.

      Simply put, I'm curious as to whether Mckean could legitimately claim and legally win the kipmckean.com domain name.

      Therefore, when a story with a similar bent appeared here on /. I posed the question.

      The site is www.kipmckean.com isn't run by the Kip McKean who's featured on the site, but is actually a thinly veiled rebuttal of the church/alleged "cult" he used to head.
      I needed to succinctly acquaint any readers with the background to my off-topic question, which is why I used this line. I wouldn't expect the ordinary /. reader to read anything into that.

      Finally, you wrote:
      Interesting that you would bring up an obscure religious figure such as Kip
      Well, the fact that you've found this discussion and that you are the only person to actually respond to my question amply demonstrates how small the web is and how even the most obscure, insignificant facts and figures are easily discoverable!

    3. Re:Not domain squatting by jenchamabers · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand your comments much better now. Thank you for clarifying.

      When I purchased the Mckean domain, I did wonder how long I might own it. I have no desires in making money from selling the domain back to McKean, nor do I wish any lawsuits. So who knows how long this will last for me.

      It is an interesting topic to keep my eye on.

  14. Plan Ahead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't she go buy Clinton2012.com for use when she loses in 2008?

  15. This should pay for the legal bills by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Post a link from /. directly to a spam site. I'm sure they appreciate the traffic.