She could have purchased the domain for $3500 from the cyber squaters. I know its still extortion, but it still much much cheaper than picking up the phone and calling the laywers.
$3500.00 is lunch money for this lady.
The cyber squater aren't much smarter. Rather than raking in the ad revenue, over the free publicity from the lawsuit (and then disappearing when the lawyers get serious), they are pointing the cyber squated site back to Ms. Griffin real site.
She may find out that she is suing some kid or teenager. Good luck on collecting Kathy!
If more people who can afford this right course of action did that there would be less cybersquatters because they'd be spending their time in jail rather than laughing on their way to the bank.
KG will probably get to tell a story in her show about this.
IF the doofus on the other end has his/her game on he/she should be praying to the .Comgods that he/she can convince KG that there might be some fun in making the lawsuit into "an entertainment".
Then again, KG just might forego working on this jointly and make it an entertainment watching her go after this guy/gal and watching him/her avoid her, squirm, etc.
I'm sure she'll figure out how to play this to her advantage. If not then truly she deserves the D list life. :p
Having just checked the records for this domain and using the waybackmachine, it would seem that it was first archived in 1999, then missed a year, then in 2001, then missed two years, then 2004-2006 seemingly up for sale and then nothing 2007-2008.
It would appear to have a new registration on 27th July 2008.
KathyGriffin.net was created on 19th October 2000.
Assuming that the .com fell out of registration period is she/her agents guilty of being extremely lacksadaisical?
I doubt they could say they knew nothing about domain name registration when they have owned the .net for 8 years and why had she/her agents not done anything about it before and especially so when it was freely available to purchase?
Skating, thin and ice come to mind here...but we are talking about the US where almost anything could, and usually does, happen!
Assuming that the .com fell out of registration period is she/her agents guilty of being extremely lacksadaisical?
Also, her name is her trademark in the entertainment industry. If my name were Kathy Griffin and I were in some completely different line of work I could also get a legal trademark for my name.
I have a legal trademark that's also held by a dozen other companies, all in non-related areas. We're all legally entitled to our respective trademarks.
Regards...jmcc
That's just not true.
If my name were Kathy Griffin and I were in some completely different line of work I could also get a legal trademark for my name.
[edited by: callivert at 4:16 am (utc) on Sep. 30, 2008]
Check out, for example, Michael Crichton's successful claim against a cybersquatter owning a dot com in his name. There are other examples. Look around the WIPO site.
A famous person - even a moderataly famous person - automatically owns their name as a trademark
I just finished going through this process and I learned a lot about trademark law by paying attention to my IP Attorney.
[edited by: GaryK at 4:24 am (utc) on Sep. 30, 2008]
The cybersquatter wasn't named Michael Crichton.
Nobody automatically owns a trademark.
It's late and I'm going to bed. It's been fun debating this with you.
how come Michael Crichton was cited as an example?
It's late and I'm going to bed. It's been fun debating this with you.
Obviously the word sting is a generic one and this had a great bearing on the case.
Whether Kathy Griffin could claim bad usage faith when she's had plenty of opportunities to actually register the domain name for a few Dollars is, IMHO, seriously flawed.
Playing Devil's Advocate again - If I were the owner of the .com I'd find a Kathy Griffin in another country and sell it to them, that would probably scupper her chances altogether.
Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil action by such person.
If Kathy's got a good lawyer and knows that, then she might be in good hands.
Might be, anyway, since a variety of facts will be considered.
David
. . making money from her name and image . .. . was contacted in July by the owners offering the site at a sale price of $3,500.
. . the site is made up of commercial content . .
The site featured the words "Kathy Griffin stand up comedian" and "My Life on the D-List."
If she has proof of all of the above then chances are good that her lawyers will inflict some pain.
Are you looking for Kathy's official website?
It's located at kathygriffin.net.
[edited by: GaryK at 1:35 am (utc) on Oct. 1, 2008]
Shall is a well-defined legal term so I'm confused by its use here. How can the code state the third party shall be liable (liable being the civil equivalent of guilty in a criminal trial) before there's a civil trial?
Oh, the complaining party has to sue and try to get a favorable decision first
before being able to enforce it. That provision gives them a cause of action to
sue.
David
The claim is not for a "patent", but for a "trademark" and in most countries you can't trademark a name without application and acceptance by the governing authority.
Just providing info, not legal advice, but strongly suggesting folks get the info/education in these matters before spouting off. I'm not happy with cybersquatters as a general rule. But by golly by gum if somebody has it...and it's legal...pay up or take the hindmost.
tangor, according to an excellent article on my lawyer's website, in the US I can claim a trademark on almost anything. All I have to do is put ™ after it. If I want to make it legally enforceable it needs to be registered which is a long and costly process that then entitles me to use the ® symbol. The owner of a registered trademark has a legal obligation to enforce his/her trademark. So if they don't contest my ™ then they risk losing the right to claim theirs as a registered trademark. That has happened to Band-Aid and other large corporations. Band-Aid is now a generic term whereas it used to be a registered trademark. But Band-Aid brand didn't do a good enough job of enforcing their legal mark and lost it.
How does this have anything to do with KathyGriffin.com?
From ChillingEffects.org: Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act FAQ [chillingeffects.org]
The next quote is from The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [74.125.45.104] website:
Consistent with the comments generated by our Federal Register notice and request for comments, the report makes no new recommendations for guidelines and procedures and counsels legislative restraint at this time. The Department of Commerce believes that there is insufficient evidence as of this date to suggest that personal name holders lack redress when their names are abusively registered as Internet domain names. This report also concludes that the current work of the World Intellectual Property Organization being undertaken to explore and make recommendations concerning the bad faith registration of personal names will offer
further clarification of these complex issues.
Lastly, the follow is extracted from the language of the ACCPA:
(d) Cyberpiracy prevention
(1)
(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person—
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that—
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18 or section 220506 of title 36.
Honestly though. I don't see how Ms. Griffin can be seen as a sympathetic character given that she seems to have had so many chances to buy the domain name. She could have a hard time successfully arguing this case. I still hope she wins if she does indeed have a legal claim to the domain name cause I dislike squatters of any kind.
and it's legal
That's the question. While it's debatable if "most countries can't trademark a
name without application and acceptance by the governing authority", US law
can govern since the complainant, the domain name and the respondent seem
to be within the same jurisdiction. (well, registrant is a question mark unless
someone here can verify or correct me on that...)
Then again, there's always the UDRP. Good luck to Kathy. :)
David
tangor, according to an excellent article on my lawyer's website, in the US I can claim a trademark on almost anything. All I have to do is put ™ after it.
Get a different lawyer. Can't do it. You need to REGISTER a TRADEMARK with the gubermint office... you can't just put a superscript tm after it and expect it to be legal. Copyright on the other hand is simply "when in final form". Meanwhile, there is a boat load of existing case law where NAMES OF PEOPLE require HOOPS and HOORAW to become a copyright, much less a TRADEMARK.
As always, it will be the results of any adjudicated court case we wish to see, regardless of how much popular (and often specious) speculation of how it might come out before that case is heard.
You need to REGISTER a TRADEMARK with the gubermint office...you can't just put a superscript tm after it and expect it to be legal.
[uspto.gov...]
Do I have to register my trademark?No, but federal registration has several advantages, including notice to the public of the registrant's claim of ownership of the mark, a legal presumption of ownership nationwide, and the exclusive right to use the mark on or in connection with the goods or services set forth in the registration.
Are there federal regulations governing the use of the designations "TM" or "SM" with trademarks?
No. Use of the symbols "TM" or "SM" (for trademark and service mark, respectively) may, however, be governed by local, state, or foreign laws and the laws of the pertinent jurisdiction must be consulted. These designations usually indicate that a party claims rights in the mark and are often used before a federal registration is issued.
David
(well, registrant is a question mark unless
someone here can verify or correct me on that...)
There is an interesting issue, if the registrant is outside of US jurisdiction suing in the US courts 'should' be pointless. UDRP would be the only way to go.
If the squatter was a professional the domain registrant is very likely to be outside of US jurisdiction, or will have the wherewithall to quickly sell the domain to a person/organisation outside of US jurisdiction.
