BREAKING NEWS: ronpaul.com Domain Name Battle update

[PatriotOne]

Hat tip to Torchbearer.

Turns out that a person by the name of Martha Roberts is the registrant on ronpaul.org domain name (who also owns ronpaul.com through another dummy corp in Panama). Email address: martha@dn-capital.com.

http://www.domainwhoisinfo.com/ronpaul.org

Who is DN Capital?

http://dn-capital.com/

DN Capital Inc. is located in Panama City in the Republic of Panama.

Established in 2005, the company specializes in domain name acquisition, management, brokerage and recovery services, website design and administration, graphic design, as well as content creation.

This information was revealed when the privacy shield was lifted due to the complaint that was filed by Ron's lawyers.

[angelatc]

Eh, I still don't care. Ron Paul abandoned his trademark intentionally to further his political career. He shouldn't be allowed to come back and claim it now.

[qh4dotcom]

There are two Panamanian phone numbers...one on the WHOIS and another one on the DN Capital site contact link.

[newbitech]

like it matters. They offered the control of the .org for free!

[PatriotOne]

So you are still standing up for cybersquatters who have been lying their asses off instead of Ron Paul?

[ronpaulfollower999]

And there we go. Wow.

[Chester Copperpot]

SO I assume the ronpaul.com people arent supporters after all?

[MelissaWV]

...
Who is DN Capital?

http://dn-capital.com/

DN Capital Inc. is located in Panama City in the Republic of Panama.

Established in 2005, the company specializes in domain name acquisition, management, brokerage and recovery services, website design and administration, graphic design, as well as content creation.

This information was revealed when the privacy shield was lifted due to the complaint that was filed by Ron's lawyers.

See what I did here?:


Established in 2005, the company specializes in domain name acquisition, management, brokerage and recovery services, website design and administration, graphic design, as well as content creation.

[torchbearer]

they also own bobbarr.com
discussed in another thread. got the links there.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404498-Some-funny-things-about-that-RonPaul-com-domain-dispute…

[Pericles]

SO I assume the ronpaul.com people arent supporters after all?

Same registrant of ronpaul.com also has bobbarr.com so they must be libertarians:)

[angelatc]

Same registrant of ronpaul.com also has bobbarr.com so they must be libertarians:)


In the cases that lost, this is what a web site looks like when they lose the domain: http://bobbarr.com/

[PatriotOne]

See what I did here?:

They ought to stick to cybersquatting. I could have done a better job designing the website. It looks pretty amateurish.

[angelatc]

So you are still standing up for cybersquatters who have been lying their asses off instead of Ron Paul?


They haven't lied about anything. I still think it's a fan running the site.

[angelatc]

They ought to stick to cybersquatting. I could have done a better job designing the website. It looks pretty amateurish.

So, which is it? They're highly skilled con men, or is it an amateur fan site that looks like it's designed by amateurs ?

[Pericles]

In the cases that lost, this is what a web site looks like when they lose the domain: http://bobbarr.com/

I invite your attention to point number ii

From the ICANN policy

b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

[newbitech]

So you are still standing up for cybersquatters who have been lying their asses off instead of Ron Paul?

out of curiosity, can you find me another case of cyber-squatting where the squatters have squatted for 5 years? What lie? And no I am standing up for the truth of the matter.

[PatriotOne]

They haven't lied about anything. I still think it's a fan running the site.

Which one? Timothy? GeorgeR? Martha Roberts? Or whoever the owner of dummy JNR Corp/Panama is?

[newbitech]

Same registrant of ronpaul.com also has bobbarr.com so they must be libertarians:)

and express free market capitalism and individual privacy. What's the real issue here folks?

[Pericles]

out of curiosity, can you find me another case of cyber-squatting where the squatters have squatted for 5 years? What lie? And no I am standing up for the truth of the matter.

www.americanairlines.com

[PatriotOne]

So, which is it? They're highly skilled con men, or is it an amateur fan site that looks like it's designed by amateurs ?

Neither. It looks like an amateur fan site run by amateur cons.

[newbitech]

They ought to stick to cybersquatting. I could have done a better job designing the website. It looks pretty amateurish.

content earns rankings, not design.

-SEO expert and google search partner.

[angelatc]

Which one? Timothy? GeorgeR? Martha Roberts? Or whoever the owner of dummy JNR Corp/Panama is?


I forgot - we don't believe in an anonymous internet any more, now that Ron Paul is involved. My bad!

Did you happen to notice that GeorgeR has an R in it, as in - maybe it stands for Roberts? As in, maybe Martha runs the office and is listed on the contact?

[newbitech]

www.americanairlines.com (http://www.americanairlines.com)
link the case. this url is not evidence of a case.

[Confederate]

like it matters. They offered the control of the .org for free!

I thought they said they'd throw in .org for free if RP paid $250,000 for .com

[torchbearer]

I forgot - we don't believe in an anonymous internet any more, now that Ron Paul is involved. My bad!

Did you happen to notice that GeorgeR has an R in it, as in - maybe it stands for Roberts? As in, maybe Martha runs the office and is listed on the contact?

When I see george I think of GHem.
I was for sure he was trolling us again.

[angelatc]

I thought they said they'd throw in .org for free if RP paid $250,000 for .com

No. They said he could have the domain .org for free. No strings attached.

[newbitech]

I thought they said they'd throw in .org for free if RP paid $250,000 for .com

here is the case

http://www.scribd.com/doc/125951143/13-02-08-RP-Complaint-Encl-Annex

I read it and will go back and read it. In the annex is the letter ronpaul.com sent to Ron Paul where they talk about the .org site and free.

From the letter to Ron Paul (its on page 54 of the document I linked)


To avoid these complications, we'd like to offer you an alternative domain name, RonPaul.org, for your new website at no cost whatsoever.

In fact, it was Ron Paul's lawyers in the complaint that have generated the misinformation that you are reiterating here.

[newbitech]

When I see george I think of GHem.
I was for sure he was trolling us again.

1776 in the email address. That number mean anything to ya?

[torchbearer]

1776 in the email address. That number mean anything to ya?

it means a lot.
but if i was spoofin someone from here- i'd be sure to put it in my dummy gmail account.
its not like you have to prove you are a supporter of liberty to make such an email.
what would that number mean to a panamanian?

[angelatc]

When I see george I think of GHem.
I was for sure he was trolling us again.

I wondered if it was GHEmm, but I can't believe he's be able to keep his own content off the site. He's too ego-centric, i think.

[PatriotOne]

out of curiosity, can you find me another case of cyber-squatting where the squatters have squatted for 5 years? What lie? And no I am standing up for the truth of the matter.

As Lew Rockwell eluded to, there was something about him being a politician that didn't afford him the same rights as a regular, say celebrity, to be able to go after the website while he was a politician.

What lie? We can start with the most basic "who they were". There had to be a complaint filed to even find out who the registrant(s) were of the websites. Even now, there's no name attached to JNR Corporation. The mysterious company in Panama that has no web presence at all.

[newbitech]

it means a lot.
but if i was spoofin someone from here- i'd be sure to put it in my dummy gmail account.
its not like you have to prove you are a supporter of liberty to make such an email.
what would that number mean to a panamanian?

expatriate? Perhaps, would that make a difference to you?

[PatriotOne]

I forgot - we don't believe in an anonymous internet any more, now that Ron Paul is involved. My bad!

Did you happen to notice that GeorgeR has an R in it, as in - maybe it stands for Roberts? As in, maybe Martha runs the office and is listed on the contact?

Hmmm. You could be right. Martha R...wife of George R, runs the cybersquatting office. ;) But who's Tim Martin then?

[torchbearer]

As Lew Rockwell eluded to, there was something about him being a politician that didn't afford him the same rights as a regular, say celebrity, to be able to go after the website while he was a politician.

What lie? We can start with the most basic "who they were". There had to be a complaint filed to even find out who the registrant(s) were of the websites. Even now, there's no name attached to JNR Corporation. The mysterious company in Panama that has no web presence at all.

their number and address changes from one report to the next. only the dummy gmail account follows.
that is how i tied them together.


the people holding on to the site will lose, even if they win.
the publicity surrounding this event amongst those who follow ron paul will reveal they tried to shake ron down for way more than that what was required to buy and keep it. they will lose sells, over time- the site will be worthless to them.
especially as the real information as to who they really are comes out.

if its some uber-rich ex-pat that was just trying to hold on to the names- i'd be surprised.
the monetary offers don't reflect that scenario.

[torchbearer]

expatriate? Perhaps, would that make a difference to you?


previous post, i had thought of it.
doesn't fit.

[newbitech]

As Lew Rockwell eluded to, there was something about him being a politician that didn't afford him the same rights as a regular, say celebrity, to be able to go after the website while he was a politician.

What lie? We can start with the most basic "who they were". There had to be a complaint filed to even find out who the registrant(s) were of the websites. Even now, there's no name attached to JNR Corporation. The mysterious company in Panama that has no web presence at all.

Lew Rockwell "eludes" to a lot of things that aren't true. And "something about him being a politician" is not only unconvincing it sounds contrived. Surely we can find out the facts of the matter?

Who they were really has no bearing, but are we not in favor of anonymity? Speaking for myself, I am. I why not remain anonymous by simply remaining silent on the issue instead of sharing the truth with the thousands of Ron Paul supporters who patronize their website?

No their didn't have to be a complaint file to find out who they were! You can email the people, as it's clear the someone did. Curious, have you tried to email them?
Being anonymous in domain registration is not sign of malicious intent. It keeps spam out! Keeps truly malicious people from harvesting legitimate business owners contact info!

Besides, ICANN has the real information that is validated with credit card. ICANN has the ability to discover who the registrar is. Was ICANN even contacted by Ron Paul's IP people prior to the complaint to find out how to handle anonymous registration properly? Doubt it.

[angelatc]

As Lew Rockwell eluded to, there was something about him being a politician that didn't afford him the same rights as a regular, say celebrity, to be able to go after the website while he was a politician.

This is bullshit. we've been through this about 20 times already. Ron didn't magically gain any rights when he retired. Note that Hillary was in Congress when she sued for her domain as evidence.

At it's worst, it means that Ron was perfectly willing to let people spread his message and sell his image as long as it meant reelection and campaign dollars.



What lie? We can start with the most basic "who they were". There had to be a complaint filed to even find out who the registrant(s) were the websites. Even now, there's no name attached to JNR Corporation. The mysterious company in Panama that has no web presence at all.

Which is, as I understand it, standard operating procedure for all domains operating behind an anonymizer. Note that even I have mine aonoymized because I found out that if you don't, the spammers will drive you buggy.

I also own an LLC that has no web presence associated with it. That means absolutely nothing. If you seriously think that every business in the world has an internet site these days, you're spending too much time on the internet.

They haven't lied about anything. Ron Paul, on the other hand, asserted that the .org was offered as part of the sale of the .com.

[newbitech]

previous post, i had thought of it.
doesn't fit.

Not sure what your previous post is. The about us page on RonPaul.com explains why they are no residing in the US. Why would that even matter in a formal complaint tho? Seems to only matter to fuel the speculation that these are "bad people". Seems very un-libertarian (which I don't claim to be a purist) but you tell me.

[torchbearer]

Not sure what your previous post is. The about us page on RonPaul.com explains why they are no residing in the US. Why would that even matter in a formal complaint tho? Seems to only matter to fuel the speculation that these are "bad people". Seems very un-libertarian (which I don't claim to be a purist) but you tell me.


I'm just putting out the info i'm finding.
I can make an about us page say anything.
If I want to expend the funds on international calls, i'd call them myself. problem is- the probably don't speak english.

[angelatc]

expatriate? Perhaps, would that make a difference to you?

I think that apparently the list of people who are approved Ron Paul supporters is getting smaller and smaller.

[newbitech]

I'm just putting out the info i'm finding.
I can make an about us page say anything.
If I want to expend the funds on international calls, i'd call them myself. problem is- the probably don't speak english.

we then, you aren't really making an argument. the complaint showed the .org registrar already, but it really wasn't important since that domain was offered for free and obviously not accepted. Why Ron Paul did not take the .org then? That baffles me. Of course you can make up all kinds of things however you want and people will believe based on whatever they want to believe. But, the last thing you said has already been proven false, so why you'd make that statement, only you can explain. At your leisure.

[itshappening]

Lew Rockwell "eludes" to a lot of things that aren't true. And "something about him being a politician" is not only unconvincing it sounds contrived. Surely we can find out the facts of the matter?

Who they were really has no bearing, but are we not in favor of anonymity? Speaking for myself, I am. I why not remain anonymous by simply remaining silent on the issue instead of sharing the truth with the thousands of Ron Paul supporters who patronize their website?

No their didn't have to be a complaint file to find out who they were! You can email the people, as it's clear the someone did. Curious, have you tried to email them?
Being anonymous in domain registration is not sign of malicious intent. It keeps spam out! Keeps truly malicious people from harvesting legitimate business owners contact info!

Besides, ICANN has the real information that is validated with credit card. ICANN has the ability to discover who the registrar is. Was ICANN even contacted by Ron Paul's IP people prior to the complaint to find out how to handle anonymous registration properly? Doubt it.

When you register a domain name you agree to terms and conditions and one of them is that your a real person or company.


I don't think this JR whatever actually exists and have you tried the phone numbers listed ?

[PatriotOne]

No their didn't have to be a complaint file to find out who they were! You can email the people, as it's clear the someone did. Curious, have you tried to email them?
Being anonymous in domain registration is not sign of malicious intent. It keeps spam out! Keeps truly malicious people from harvesting legitimate business owners contact info!


They did email them. One called themselves Timothy Martin (no address or phone number) and the other one (georgeR1776) didn't bother to give them a name or phone number. Now the registration says someone by the name of Martha Roberts owns ronpaul.org and the other website says jnr corporation owns the other. For a website that was purported to be run by a benevolent Ron Paul supporter that's alot of names to deal with.

[newbitech]

I think that apparently the list of people who are approved Ron Paul supporters is getting smaller and smaller.

Human nature gives us the feeling that we belong to something special when there are but a few who share our values. This is validated when our values are shared and then accepted and adopted by a rapidly growing number of others who weren't initially aware of our values. That feeling ebbs as our values become more widespread and the exclusivity of networks and relationships wear off. The question that is coming to my mind is, does that wearing off of that feeling lead to the wearing off of the values?

[newbitech]

When you register a domain name you agree to terms and conditions and one of them is that your a real person or company.


I don't think this JR whatever actually exists and have you tried the phone numbers listed ?

Yeah, and you think a fake person or company has a credit card? Critical thinking skills please.

[newbitech]

They did email them. One called themselves Timothy Martin (no address or phone number) and the other one (georgeR1776) didn't bother to give them a name or phone number. Now the registration says someone by the name of Martha Roberts owns ronpaul.org and the other website says jnr corporation owns the other. For a website that was purported to be run by a benevolent Ron Paul supporter that's alot of names to deal with.

So what? you go by PatriotOne in these forums. You may have a business with a registered DBA. You also have a birth certificate. What does that prove about your support for Ron Paul? Nothing.

[itshappening]

Yeah, and you think a fake person or company has a credit card? Critical thinking skills please.

Registrar handles credit card, it doesn't matter how they pay. They dont check the name of the credit card against the name of the beneficial domain name owner.

[angelatc]

Human nature gives us the feeling that we belong to something special when there are but a few who share our values. This is validated when our values are shared and then accepted and adopted by a rapidly growing number of others who weren't initially aware of our values. That feeling ebbs as our values become more widespread and the exclusivity of networks and relationships wear off. The question that is coming to my mind is, does that wearing off of that feeling lead to the wearing off of the values?

I've seen it before, but it's always a shock to see how many of us bend when our principles are tested internally.

[newbitech]

and a point of fact RE: Thread title. This isn't breaking news. We had the .org info in when ronpaul.com posted the original complaint.

[newbitech]

Registrar handles credit card, it doesn't matter how they pay. They dont check the name of the credit card against the name of the beneficial domain name owner.


In the context of this whole thing, this statement makes no sense. The beneficial domain name owner? You just said this.


When you register a domain name you agree to terms and conditions and one of them is that your a real person or company.

How could you possibly use a credit card for something while simultaneous NOT in fact be a real person or real company? Are you alleging that the person who registered ronpaul.com is not a real person or real company?

And since I have done some much research in to this matter, forgive me for asking but will you please post a link and quote the section of the registrar agreement where it says "you must be a real person or a real company?"



I don't think this JR whatever actually exists and have you tried the phone numbers listed ?

I have personally email the domain owners. they exist.

[PatriotOne]

So what? you go by PatriotOne in these forums. You may have a business with a registered DBA. You also have a birth certificate. What does that prove about your support for Ron Paul? Nothing.

I have all of the above. But you can damn well bet that had Ron Paul's reps made an inquiry of me they would have my real name, address, phone number and I'd probably even throw in my date of birth and height and weight for good measures. They wouldn't have to file a complaint to get my registration info.

But if I was not an enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter and really a cybersquatter who feared getting caught, I'd act more like them.

[PatriotOne]

Registrar handles credit card, it doesn't matter how they pay. They dont check the name of the credit card against the name of the beneficial domain name owner.

Or they don't care who pays for the website. I've certainly paid for things like airline tickets with my credit card for other people and a hundred other things. I paid for a subscription to a web radio show for my sister just the other day. I paid, her name is on the membership. Happens all the time.

[PatriotOne]

and a point of fact RE: Thread title. This isn't breaking news. We had the .org info in when ronpaul.com posted the original complaint.

No we didn't. It was hidden behind whois privacy just like the .com was. It was unshielded prob at the same time the .com one was but no one checked the .org one again until today as far as I know....at least no one posted about it that I saw.

[newbitech]

I have all of the above. But you can damn well bet that had Ron Paul's reps made an inquiry of me they would have my real name, address, phone number and I'd probably even throw in my date of birth and height and weight for good measures. They wouldn't have to file a complaint to get my registration info.

But if I was not an enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter and really a cybersquatter who feared getting caught, I'd act more like them.

No offense, but I consider that to be somewhat naive. Ron Paul's reps? And you'd know this simple cause someone with a gmail account emailed you? As torch has already pointed out, it's pretty easy to spoof information on the internet.

[PatriotOne]

No offense, but I consider that to be somewhat naive. Ron Paul's reps? And you'd know this simple cause someone with a gmail account emailed you? As torch has already pointed out, it's pretty easy to spoof information on the internet.

oh stop it.

[newbitech]

Or they don't care who pays for the website. I've certainly paid for things like airline tickets with my credit card for other people and a hundred other things. I paid for a subscription to a web radio show for my sister just the other day. I paid, her name is on the membership. Happens all the time.

As far as domain registration goes, there is only one way to prove who registered the site. In your example, you may very well have purchased an airline ticket for someone else. That person I am sure provided identification before their boarding pass was issued. So in the context of an airline ticket, it is unnecessary to use the credit card information to validate the user of that service since the user of that service will validate their identity at the time the service is rendered. In the example of the subscription for the web radio show, the identity of the user of that service is unimportant, so this example does not relate to services like domain name registration and the purchase of an airline ticket where the identity of the user of that service is important.

[MisfitToy]

I don't get all this bickering within our ranks here or why anyone thinks Ron Paul isn't following free market principles.

I read the letter of the "offer" and I came to a basic conclusion. The $250k was not to cover the domain name, it was to cover the merchandise that the owners already invested into. They very obviously state the reason they don't want to change the domain name is because of their merchandise. The real Ron Paul has no desire to pay for that merchandise, he just wants the internet traffic that's intended to be his. It's not his fault they ran a "fan site" to sell merchandise. They took a market gamble, might have broken a rule, and now it's biting them in the ass. Stop this non-sense that Ron Paul is unjustly shafting them, they made their own bed.

[newbitech]

oh stop it.

Stop what? So if some one sent you an email with the email address johnbusciglio@gmail.com claiming to be a Ron Paul representative and asking you to do something, you'd be all enthusiastic and do that thing without question cause the email said he was a Ron Paul rep? What's your email address?

[newbitech]

No we didn't. It was hidden behind whois privacy just like the .com was. It was unshielded prob at the same time the .com one was but no one checked the .org one again until today as far as I know....at least no one posted about it that I saw.

I didn't post it cause it doesn't really matter. So ok I guess it would be breaking news if you didn't think to look up the .org(who would right?) but as I said, the complaint already contained the registrar information for the .org.

[Pericles]

link the case. this url is not evidence of a case.

Been around the Internet long? This was a typical case study - here a link from 2006 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3285015/ALI-ABA-Course-of-Study-Trademarks-Copyrights-and-Unfair-Competition

Another reference - http://www.coxsmith.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/intelliun-105-5228/media.name=/SALSA%202010%20Presentation_3108749_1.pdf
(http://www.coxsmith.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/intelliun-105-5228/media.name=/SALSA%202010%20Presentation_3108749_1.pdf)

[newbitech]

I don't get all this bickering within our ranks here or why anyone thinks Ron Paul isn't following free market principles.

I read the letter of the "offer" and I came to a basic conclusion. The $250k was not to cover the domain name, it was to cover the merchandise that the owners already invested into. They very obviously state the reason they don't want to change the domain name is because of their merchandise. The real Ron Paul has no desire to pay for that merchandise, he just wants the internet traffic that's intended to be his. It's not his fault they ran a "fan site" to sell merchandise. They took a market gamble, might have broken a rule, and now it's biting them in the ass. Stop this non-sense that Ron Paul is unjustly shafting them, they made their own bed.

link to where someone said Ron Paul is unjustly shafting them, please.

[newbitech]

Been around the Internet long? This was a typical case study - here a link from 2006 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3285015/ALI-ABA-Course-of-Study-Trademarks-Copyrights-and-Unfair-Competition

No, i just got my v90 modem last month :rolleyes:

Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to check it out and dismiss it out of hand since I am an idiot and also just learned to read the other day..

[PatriotOne]

Stop what? So if some one sent you an email with the email address johnbusciglio@gmail.com claiming to be a Ron Paul representative and asking you to do something, you'd be all enthusiastic and do that thing without question cause the email said he was a Ron Paul rep? What's your email address?

Well it's been over 2 years since Ron's rep and Ron's son inquired about the website and they still didn't know their names, address and phone number. Pretty sure I could have verified who I received the email from in a short amount of time.

[MisfitToy]

link to where someone said Ron Paul is unjustly shafting them, please.

You sound a little defensive.

[newbitech]

Been around the Internet long? This was a typical case study - here a link from 2006 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3285015/ALI-ABA-Course-of-Study-Trademarks-Copyrights-and-Unfair-Competition

Another reference - http://www.coxsmith.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/intelliun-105-5228/media.name=/SALSA%202010%20Presentation_3108749_1.pdf

So your link has nothing to do with the comment I made. Thanks for nothing? :confused: And it also has nothing to do with the post I commented on, or the post that that post was commented on.

What were you trying to say with your link and comment cause its very vague especially considering the doc you linked was about US trademark as related to cyberspace rather than an ICANN arb case. Did Ron Paul file a Trademark lawsuit and I miss it?

[newbitech]

You sound a little defensive.

And you sound like you are making stuff up.

Link it, or it didn't happen.

[angelatc]

I don't get all this bickering within our ranks here or why anyone thinks Ron Paul isn't following free market principles.

I read the letter of the "offer" and I came to a basic conclusion. The $250k was not to cover the domain name, it was to cover the merchandise that the owners already invested into. They very obviously state the reason they don't want to change the domain name is because of their merchandise. .



They didn't invest in any merchandise - it's a zazzle store. As in, print on demand.

[PatriotOne]

Been around the Internet long? This was a typical case study - here a link from 2006 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3285015/ALI-ABA-Course-of-Study-Trademarks-Copyrights-and-Unfair-Competition

Another reference - http://www.coxsmith.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/intelliun-105-5228/media.name=/SALSA%202010%20Presentation_3108749_1.pdf
(http://www.coxsmith.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/intelliun-105-5228/media.name=/SALSA%202010%20Presentation_3108749_1.pdf)

That's interesting. As I read it, RP could have also elected to sue them for damages up to $100k according to that document. I was wondering about that.

The ronpaul.com owner(s) should be thrilled RP decided to go the WIPO route instead of the courts. If he had gone through the expensive court process, he probably would have asked for statutory damages also.

[MisfitToy]

Read the media and you'll see a whole lost of conspiracies about Ron Paul.

More importantly, do you agree or disagree that they're trying to cover their merchandise expenses with their offer?

[Pericles]

So your link has nothing to do with the comment I made. Thanks for nothing? :confused: And it also has nothing to do with the post I commented on, or the post that that post was commented on.

What were you trying to say with your link and comment cause its very vague especially considering the doc you linked was about US trademark as related to cyberspace rather than an ICANN arb case. Did Ron Paul file a Trademark lawsuit and I miss it?
One of the big internet jokes of the 1990s was the fact that the americanairlines.com domain was registered by an individual with a one page website at www.americanairlines.com with the following text "If you would like to purchase this domain ....."

Ah - the days of static HTML ....

[newbitech]

Read the media and you'll see a whole lost of conspiracies about Ron Paul.

More importantly, do you agree or disagree that they're trying to cover their merchandise expenses with their offer?

Do I agree that who is trying to cover what?

In general, a merchandiser would cover their expense with sales. That's the basic idea behind capitalism no?

[sailingaway]

Eh, I still don't care. Ron Paul abandoned his trademark intentionally to further his political career. He shouldn't be allowed to come back and claim it now.

I disagree that he did that.

[angelatc]

Read the media and you'll see a whole lost of conspiracies about Ron Paul.

More importantly, do you agree or disagree that they're trying to cover their merchandise expenses with their offer?

They don't have any merchandise expense. It's a Zazzle store.

[newbitech]

One of the big internet jokes of the 1990s was the fact that the americanairlines.com domain was registered by an individual with a one page website at www.americanairlines.com (http://www.americanairlines.com) with the following text "If you would like to purchase this domain ....."

Ah - the days of static HTML ....

yeah, my time on the internet hasn't really been spent on joking around or playing games. So, do you have some kind of link for this joke that would answer my original question on this particular subtopic? Honestly, if I thought is was worth my while, I am sure I would find out wtf you are talking about, but I really don't think it would shed any light on the issue. But, I am willing to learn about it and have an open mind if you wouldn't mind trying to persuade me.

[sailingaway]

like it matters. They offered the control of the .org for free!

You are kidding. The domain rules specifically prohibit certain actions and from this and other information (about back filling in info after the dates and back dating) sure makes it seem like this is one of the prohibited uses in connection with using Ron's name.

[angelatc]

I disagree that he did that.


He did nothing to protect it. He never once objected to people making their own Ron Paul themes merchandise and selling them. That's considered abandonment.

[newbitech]

I disagree that he did that.

Yeah me too. I think you actually have to have a trademark in order to abandon it. However, I will conceded that sometime between Nov. 2009 and now, Ron Paul may have earned acquired distinctiveness for the mark RON PAUL, but that burden of proof is on him and so far I haven't seen a convincing case as to WHEN that actually occurred.

[sailingaway]

In the cases that lost, this is what a web site looks like when they lose the domain: http://bobbarr.com/

You don't have 'all' the websites lost, and the many claims turned on different features.

[angelatc]

You are kidding. The domain rules specifically prohibit certain actions and from this and other information (about back filling in info after the dates and back dating) sure makes it seem like this is one of the prohibited uses in connection with using Ron's name.


Their web site clearly states they bought all these sites to keep the enemies from having them. That's why they didn't hesitate to offer him the .org for free.

[newbitech]

You are kidding. The domain rules specifically prohibit certain actions and from this and other information (about back filling in info after the dates and back dating) sure makes it seem like this is one of the prohibited uses in connection with using Ron's name.


like it matters. They offered the control of the .org for free!

is your comment denying that? I am not sure what you are trying to say about domain rules specifically prohibiting certain actions. How does that change the fact that they offered the .org for free? Back filing? What are you talking about? Back dating what?

[angelatc]

Yeah me too. I think you actually have to have a trademark in order to abandon it. However, I will conceded that sometime between Nov. 2009 and now, Ron Paul may have earned acquired distinctiveness for the mark RON PAUL, but that burden of proof is on him and so far I haven't seen a convincing case as to WHEN that actually occurred.

How do you account for the .org being vacated if he didn't abandon the trademark?

You know how I feel about that. I think it was intentionally lapsed, and now they've decided they want it after all.

[MisfitToy]

They don't have any merchandise expense. It's a Zazzle store.

Personally I think they're trying to shaft Ron Paul with the price but they have artwork for bumper stickers, t-shirts, posters, mugs, speakers, mousepads, shoes, ties, and more. Not sure how much they make on said merchandise anymore however if their domain changed to something like RonPaulfansitedotcom, they would have to re-do all that art and lose their "brand". People have said Ron Paul is stepping on their free market rights, however all he wants is the traffic that's intended to be his. Do you believe he's stepping on their market rights or is he just following through with what he can lawfully claim?

[newbitech]

How do you account for the .org being vacated if he didn't abandon the trademark?

the act of registering a domain name does not confer secondary meaning status. I will dig up case precedent if you would like. Just like being famous does not confer secondary meaning status. The proofs for secondary meaning are laid out quite eloquently. See the ruling for abercrombe and fitch for a good breakdown for the definitions for secondary meaning.

[angelatc]

You don't have 'all' the websites lost, and the many claims turned on different features.


Every claim I've made is accompanied by an example. You never do. How am I supposed to respond to all these differences if you won't tell me what they are?

[PatriotOne]

like it matters. They offered the control of the .org for free!



So would I if I was a cybersquatter and making money off of ronpaul.com selling merchandise/ads in hopes they would take the bait.

[angelatc]

Personally I think they're trying to shaft Ron Paul with the price but they have artwork for bumper stickers, t-shirts, posters, mugs, speakers, mousepads, shoes, ties, and more. Not sure how much they make on said merchandise anymore however if their domain changed to something like RonPaulfansitedotcom, they would have to re-do all that art and lose their "brand". People have said Ron Paul is stepping on their free market rights, however all he wants is the traffic that's intended to be his. Do you believe he's stepping on their market rights or is he just following through with what he can lawfully claim?

You have no idea how a Zazzle store works. They won't lose their store, or the artwork, if Paul gets the domain name.

It's not even true that all that traffic is supposed to be his.

I have made it perfectly that I think he's selling out his free market principles in order to take something he didn't previously want. I do not think he can lawfully claim this. If he wanted to lawfully claim it, he should have purchased it.

[PatriotOne]

Their web site clearly states they bought all these sites to keep the enemies from having them.

Cybersquatters aren't known for their truthfulness.

[newbitech]

So would I if I was a cybersquatter and making money off of ronpaul.com selling merchandise/ads in hopes they would take the bait.

As would a legitimate site owner and Ron Paul supporter trying to avoid what we have today and maintain his principles and dignity. The point is, what is going on in this thread is a rather weak argument for the trashing that his been going on of the ronpaul.com people, its completely irrelevant to the arbitration, and it is a blatant dismissal (or ignorance) of the good faith in negotiation that it represents regardless if the intent was malicious or otherwise.

[angelatc]

Cybersquatters aren't known for their truthfulness.

Cybersquatters aren't known for building fan sites, either. If this is a huge sham to cover their asses with ICANN, why is BobBarr so sparse? What other sites have they devoted so much time and effort to?


You have no proof that they were lying. The fact that they immediately offered him the .org indicates they were telling him the truth.

[PatriotOne]

As would a legitimate site owner and Ron Paul supporter trying to avoid what we have today and maintain his principles and dignity. The point is, what is going on in this thread is a rather weak argument for the trashing that his been going on of the ronpaul.com people, its completely irrelevant to the arbitration, and it is a blatant dismissal (or ignorance) of the good faith in negotiation that it represents regardless if the intent was malicious or otherwise.

They were cybersquatters posing as Ron Paul supporters so they could sell merchandise and ads. Now they are just trying to bilk them out of 250k before they turn the site over.

You and Angela need your eyes checked because I think your both going blind :p.

[PatriotOne]

Cybersquatters aren't known for building fan sites, either. If this is a huge sham to cover their asses with ICANN, why is BobBarr so sparse? What other sites have they devoted so much time and effort to?


You have no proof that they were lying. The fact that they immediately offered him the .org indicates they were telling him the truth.

Who the hell would buy Bob Barr merchandise or visit a Bob Barr website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Bob Barr as a draw.

[angelatc]

They were cybersquatters posing as Ron Paul supporters so they could sell merchandise and ads. Now they are just trying to bilk them out of 250k before they turn the site over.

You and Angela need your eyes checked because I think your both going blind :p.


And I think I can smell bullshit when I see it. They weren't just aggregating news - they were producing original content. I have no doubt they were Ron Paul supporters, because he is and always has been the only candidate that stood for internet freedom. If they are making a living on the internet, then of course they support Ron Paul. Who else they gonna support - the people who want to make it illegal to be anonymous on the internet?

[newbitech]

They were cybersquatters posing as Ron Paul supporters so they could sell merchandise and ads. Now they are just trying to bilk them out of 250k before they turn the site over.

You and Angela need your eyes checked because I think your both going blind :p.

cybersquatters posing as Ron Paul supporters.

Do you have any actual evidence to back this up? I don't I am the one being blinded by Ron Paul's brilliance. To use this analogy, drivers are taught when driving at night in to oncoming traffic, close one eye so that after the oncoming headlights pass, you can open that other eye and it won't have to readjust to the darkness.

This keeps you from having that bright aurora in your vision on an otherwise dark road that effectively blinds you for a moment until you eyes can readjust.

Personally I have found this useful in many other circumstances where I need to make sure my vision is not impaired. Basically I take advantage of the fact that my eyeballs actually do work independently from each other.

Take that for what it's worth. I might be blinded in one eye by the RonPaul(tm) phenomena, but my other eye sees perfectly clear.

[MisfitToy]

It's not even true that all that traffic is supposed to be his.

The website is dedicated to Ron Paul. It's intention is entirely for and about Ron Paul. You read about Ron Paul on the website. I'd say the traffic is his.


I have made it perfectly that I think he's selling out his free market principles in order to take something he didn't previously want. I do not think he can lawfully claim this. If he wanted to lawfully claim it, he should have purchased it.

Hey newbitech, I think we have a confession ;)

It seems that according to ICANN he can claim it and as far as the complaint goes, that's what the argument is for. They've listed other cases that were won to validate their claims so you can't say he doesn't have a right to it.

Zazzle won't lose their store, not what I'm saying at all, but they'll have to change their logos if they change the domain. Kind of silly to print RP.com t-shirts when your domain isn't RP.com.

[angelatc]

Who the hell would buy Bob Barr merchandise or visit a Bob Barr website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Bob Barr as a draw.


Well, so far they've been accused of buying the RP site to sell it when it became more valuable so I was assuming they did the same thing with Barr. He's been in the news lately, so it would make perfect sense for them to start "pretending" to run a fan site if that's the way they protect themselves from ICANN claims.

[newbitech]

Who the hell would buy Bob Barr merchandise or visit a Bob Barr website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Bob Barr as a draw.

beginning of human history until what 2007-2010(maybe?)

Who the hell would buy Ron Paul merchandise or visit a Ron Paul website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Ron Paul as a draw.

Sounds like someone who had been following libertarians stuff for a lot longer than myself started to see the writing on the wall. Eventually a libertarian was going to rise up.

Shows me they didn't target a person or a brand. They targeted a philosophy and decided that investing in the public personalities behind those philosophies might help to spread that philosophy and in turn position themselves to take advantage of a core tenant of that same philosophy, free market capitalism.

But, if we think that way, then we risk the possibility that the people advising Ron Paul (and perhaps Ron Paul himself) might not get what they want. I guess that is bad. Or not.

[PatriotOne]

Well, so far they've been accused of buying the RP site to sell it when it became more valuable so I was assuming they did the same thing with Barr. He's been in the news lately, so it would make perfect sense for them to start "pretending" to run a fan site if that's the way they protect themselves from ICANN claims.

Too much trouble to run a Bob Barr website if they can't make $ off of him. Let's turn this around. If they arent running a fansite for Barr, why are they holding his domain name? To protect him from the enemies? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

[newbitech]

The website is dedicated to Ron Paul. It's intention is entirely for and about Ron Paul. You read about Ron Paul on the website. I'd say the traffic is his.



Hey newbitech, I think we have a confession ;)

It seems that according to ICANN he can claim it and as far as the complaint goes, that's what the argument is for. They've listed other cases that were won to validate their claims so you can't say he doesn't have a right to it.

Zazzle won't lose their store, not what I'm saying at all, but they'll have to change their logos if they change the domain. Kind of silly to print RP.com t-shirts when your domain isn't RP.com.

why would that be silly if people buy them and you can make money off it?

[angelatc]

It seems that according to ICANN he can claim it and as far as the complaint goes, that's what the argument is for. They've listed other cases that were won to validate their claims so you can't say he doesn't have a right to it.

Zazzle won't lose their store, not what I'm saying at all, but they'll have to change their logos if they change the domain. Kind of silly to print RP.com t-shirts when your domain isn't RP.com.


Oh here we go again. ICANN hasn't ruled on the case yet. Some of are not convinced that he can indeed claim it.


Came into the conversation, mind already made up - no reason to do any homework. We've gone over those cases and discussed at length why they are different than this case, Now you're going to join the conversation without reading anything that we've already discussed, making your mind up after only reading one side of the argument.

[newbitech]

Too much trouble to run a Bob Barr website if they can't make $ off of him. Let's turn this around. If they arent running a fansite for Barr, why are they holding his domain name? To protect him from the enemies? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

better question, why doesn't Bob Barr own the domain and why isn't he filing an ICANN arb?

[sailingaway]

He did nothing to protect it. He never once objected to people making their own Ron Paul themes merchandise and selling them. That's considered abandonment.

The cases all turn on their own facts and we won't know this one until he ever goes after tshirt sales. In any event, he isn't suing to recoup profits 'in trust' from sales of his likeness on merchandise, he is going after his name.

[qh4dotcom]

Which one? Timothy? GeorgeR? Martha Roberts? Or whoever the owner of dummy JNR Corp/Panama is?

No matter which of them own it.....one of them forked over $25,000 to acquire RonPaul.com at the 2008 Ebay auction.

Ron Paul needs to compensate whoever it was for at least $25K.

[newbitech]

The cases all turn on their own facts and we won't know this one until he ever goes after tshirt sales. In any event, he isn't suing to recoup profits 'in trust' from sales of his likeness on merchandise, he is going after his name.
then why didn't he go after RonPaul.net or RonPaul.info or RonPaul.name?

[RickyJ]

SO I assume the ronpaul.com people arent supporters after all?

Can I assume you are not a supporter after all? What kind of crazy question is that?

[sailingaway]

better question, why doesn't Bob Barr own the domain and why isn't he filing an ICANN arb?

Because he has no use for it right now? Because he never tried to buy it and has no clue someone else has it?

[sailingaway]

then why didn't he go after RonPaul.net or RonPaul.info or RonPaul.name?

Because he wanted dot com, which many consider synonymous with the internet. He may not even know about the others. From my perspective he should be getting them all, and it does make me wonder about the advice he is getting.

[PatriotOne]

beginning of human history until what 2007-2010(maybe?)

Who the hell would buy Ron Paul merchandise or visit a Ron Paul website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Ron Paul as a draw.



Not even close to being true. "Ron Paul" was topping search engine searches in 2007. I know this because I was checking technorati on a daily basis back then and he was consistently between the #1, #2, and #3 top web searched item in all of internetdom.

[qh4dotcom]

:)

[angelatc]

Too much trouble to run a Bob Barr website if they can't make $ off of him. Let's turn this around. If they arent running a fansite for Barr, why are they holding his domain name? To protect him from the enemies? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.


I am going to assume you are not being intentionally obtuse and I am going to explain my point again.

If they are only running a fan site to protect themselves from domain claims, why wouldn't they build fan sites on all their domains?

[MisfitToy]

why would that be silly if people buy them and you can make money off it?

They want traffic to their site to sell merchandise but then again only a real RP fan would selflessly sell merchandise with Ron Paul's url :p

[newbitech]

Because he has no use for it right now? Because he never tried to buy it and has no clue someone else has it?

But, it's his name. Why would he have to buy it? It's his name.

[sailingaway]

No matter which of them own it.....one of them forked over $25,000 to acquire RonPaul.com at the 2008 Ebay auction.

Ron Paul needs to compensate whoever it was for at least $25K.

I'd like to see that as well, since they did not try to do any harm. Obviously it helped their plan too, to sell merchandise and get ads, but still it was a positive site. I also don't see necessarily black and white with the facts I see. They could be a domain mining site and still also have liked Ron Paul and made his site better. Or they could have done that to get more money off his popularity. But we still don't know all the facts, just one big one that seems to really come down on Ron's side.

[newbitech]

They want traffic to their site to sell merchandise but then again only a real RP fan would selflessly sell merchandise with Ron Paul's url :p

Is there such a thing as a Ron Paul themed website with nothing to sell? Link? and I didn't know Ron Paul had a url :confused: What is campaignforliberty.com?

[qh4dotcom]

Because he wanted dot com, which many consider synonymous with the internet. He may not even know about the others.

He sure knows about ronpaul2008.com...it was his first presidential campaign site...now owned by the ronpaul.com folks.

Why doesn't he go after that?

[PatriotOne]

I am going to assume you are not being intentionally obtuse and I am going to explain my point again.

If they are only running a fan site to protect themselves from domain claims, why wouldn't they build fan sites on all their domains?

I never claimed ronpaul.com was only running a fansite to protect themselves from domain claims. Obviously they were running it for profit.

[PatriotOne]

He sure knows about ronpaul2008.com...it was his first presidential campaign site...now owned by the ronpaul.com folks.

Why doesn't he go after that?

Because he doesn't own a time machine and plan on running for President in 2008 again?

[angelatc]

He sure knows about ronpaul2008.com...it was his first presidential campaign site...now owned by the ronpaul.com folks.

Why doesn't he go after that?


The lawsuit doesn't mention that the .org used to belong to Paul. I wonder if the lawyers even know that? It also doesn't mention the eBay auction that Paul declined to participate in.....

[itshappening]

They sell Ron Paul t-shirts for $30 that cost probably $5 to produce. That's a hell of a mark up.

[MisfitToy]

then why didn't he go after RonPaul.net or RonPaul.info or RonPaul.name?

For the same reason they didn't build up those sites as fan sites. Recognition and traffic.

[angelatc]

I never claimed ronpaul.com was only running a fansite to protect themselves from domain claims. Obviously they were running it for profit.

I don't think that's obvious at all.

[RickyJ]

then why didn't he go after RonPaul.net or RonPaul.info or RonPaul.name?

Probably because they are not valuable. Build them up then maybe his lawyers will go for it. I can't side with Ron Paul here. I am quite disgusted with this whole thing.

[MisfitToy]

I didn't know Ron Paul had a url :confused
Ronpaul.com if he wins it. Thought we were on the same conversation.

[Ender]

I cannot believe the idiocy going on about this subject.

People who purchase domains using other people's names are UNETHICAL; it has nothing to do with the free market, yadda, yadda.

There are people out there that buy up domain names so that when you go to purchase your own name, you will have to pay big bucks to someone who has bought it for the very reason of scalping you. This goes on all the time.

The fact that RP has not done anything until now may very well be that he did not want to take issue during the campaign or start the kind of nonsense that currently is going on with the 30+ threads about this subject.

Ron Paul has the right to his own domain name; he is more than a politician- he is a writer and a speaker, not to mention a doctor. It is obvious that these people bought the site to make some cash- but they should have asked his permission to use his name.

They did not. They are in the wrong.

Period.

End of story.

So you can all run around with your hands in the air and cry "BOO HOO"- but you are acting like ignorant children.

[newbitech]

Not even close to being true. "Ron Paul" was topping search engine searches in 2007. I know this because I was checking technorati on a daily basis back then and he was consistently between the #1, #2, and #3 top web searched item in all of internetdom.

I didn't see that evidence presented. Do you have that evidence? Anyway, like I said, until what 2007-2010(maybe?). Problem with that tho, 2007-Nov. 2009 someone else named Ron Paul actually had a primary register application that was undisputed and allowed on the registry pending notification of use. So even if it can be proven via you evidence (granting your evidence without so much as a link request :D) that RON PAUL was popular (popularity does not confer secondary meaning), he would not have been able to trademark RON PAUL, since it was already trademarked.

Anyways, My point was before all that, the same could be said about Ron Paul that was said about Bob Barr. It just doesn't really prove anything about anything.

[angelatc]

I'd like to see that as well, since they did not try to do any harm. Obviously it helped their plan too, to sell merchandise and get ads, but still it was a positive site. I also don't see necessarily black and white with the facts I see. They could be a domain mining site and still also have liked Ron Paul and made his site better.


That's an interesting point. What if they actually do make their living buying and selling domains, *AND* they're Ron Paul fans? Would the nature of their business preclude them from being able to run a fan site with different intentions than the other sites they hold and market?

The other site they're running says it's for sale. Paul's site doesn't say that. They're not very good at marketing if people don't know their product is for sale.

[RickyJ]

Eh, I still don't care. Ron Paul abandoned his trademark intentionally to further his political career. He shouldn't be allowed to come back and claim it now.

Ron has used his grassroots supporters to get the name recognition to be where he is now. That is a fact. Without his grassroots supporters people would still be saying, "Who is Ron Paul?"

I have lost tons of respect for Ron Paul here by him taking this action against his grassroots supporters.

[newbitech]

I cannot believe the idiocy going on about this subject.

People who purchase domains using other people's names are UNETHICAL; it has nothing to do with the free market, yadda, yadda.

There are people out there that buy up domain names so that when you go to purchase your own name, you will have to pay big bucks to someone who has bought it for the very reason of scalping you. This goes on all the time.

The fact that RP has not done anything until now may very well be that he did not want to take issue during the campaign or start the kind of nonsense that currently is going on with the 30+ threads about this subject.

Ron Paul has the right to his own domain name; he is more than a politician- he is a writer and a speaker, not to mention a doctor. It is obvious that these people bought the site to make some cash- but they should have asked his permission to use his name.

They did not. They are in the wrong.

Period.

End of story.

So you can all run around with your hands in the air and cry "BOO HOO"- but you are acting like ignorant children.

So ICANN is an unethical org for allowing me to buy whatever domain name is available. Point granted. But why am I unethical for buying a domain name from someone who has that name if they want to sell it to me and I want to buy it?

and as to your why he didn't fight for his name, could also be he didn't want to pay for it. But if it's true that these people are so bad, why would Ron Paul and everyone else let him get away with it for so long?

Perhaps it was because they actually helped Ron Paul's popularity spread? Perhaps Ron Paul and the grassroots and liberty movement benefited from this action?

The character of Ron Paul and his followers, supporters, and voters is to expose the truth. As a Ron Paul grassroots supporter, I have come to believe that the Ron Paul grassroots doesn't allow people to get away with being fraudulent liars. I have also come to believe that Ron Paul supporters and the Ron Paul grassroots get down to the heart of the matter, the truth.

So, not buying people were duped into believe it was a Ron Paul website. I know I am pretty tech savvy, but I am sure that has nothing to do with me recognizing after 2008 campaign, 2009 2010 and 2011 that ronpaul.com had fan site in the header.

So no, i don't by the excuse about Ron Paul not wanting a legal fight during any campaign. One of the big reasons to go to arb instead of going to court (besides money) is these disputes settle in a matter of months.

What stopped Ron Paul from filing arb in 2009? 2010? 2011?

[MisfitToy]

I have lost tons of respect for Ron Paul here by him taking this action against his grassroots supporters.

*hugs* What did he do to you?

[angelatc]

I cannot believe the idiocy going on about this subject.

People who purchase domains using other people's names are UNETHICAL; it has nothing to do with the free market, yadda, yadda.

There are people out there that buy up domain names so that when you go to purchase your own name, you will have to pay big bucks to someone who has bought it for the very reason of scalping you. This goes on all the time..


You sound like a liberal. There has to be a limit on how much people can charge for things that you want - that's what you're saying? That the government needs to make rules to make things ethical.

[Ender]

So ICANN is an unethical org for allowing me to buy whatever domain name is available. Point granted. But why am I unethical for buying a domain name from someone who has that name if they want to sell it to me and I want to buy it?

Apples and oranges.

Where did RP say he wanted to sell his name to the current holders of ronpaul.com?

[angelatc]

*hugs* What did he do to you?


He sold out his principles instead of buying someone else's property.

[qh4dotcom]

I cannot believe the idiocy going on about this subject.

People who purchase domains using other people's names are UNETHICAL; it has nothing to do with the free market, yadda, yadda.



So it was unethical for me to have purchased RonPaul.NAME?

Unethical for the owner of this forum to have registered ronpaulforums.com ?

[angelatc]

Apples and oranges.

Where did RP say he wanted to sell his name to the current holders of ronpaul.com?


The guy who sold the domain was also named Ron Paul. He was legally the trademark holder at the time, too. So technically, Ron Paul said he wanted to sell his name to them back in 2008.

[Ender]

You sound like a liberal. There has to be a limit on how much people can charge for things - that's what you're saying?

I didn't know liberals were worried about ethics, Miss Name-Caller.

Read much?

I am NOT saying there has to be a limit on how much people can charge for things; I am saying it is UNETHICAL TO BUY UP OTHER PEOPLES NAMES AND CHARGE THEM MEGA BUCKS.

Got it?

[RickyJ]

.

The fact that RP has not done anything until now may very well be that he did not want to take issue during the campaign or start the kind of nonsense that currently is going on with the 30+ threads about this subject.



No, that is not it at all. Ron Paul had the chance to buy it from the other Ron Paul in early 2008 while he was still actively seeking donations for his run for president of the USA from supporters. But he did not buy it from him. He didn't care about it when it mattered the most. There is no way he should be entitled to it now for nothing after he let it go for 5 years. No way is that right at all.

[MisfitToy]

He sold out his principles instead of buying someone else's property.

He's not touching anyone elses property. He's lawfully getting the traffic his name generates to help our cause.

[Ender]

So it was unethical for me to have purchased RonPaul.NAME?

Unethical for the owner of this forum to have registered ronpaulforums.com ?

If your intent is to rip off the owner of the name, then yes.

[Ender]

No, that is not it at all. Ron Paul had the chance to buy it from the other Ron Paul in early 2008 while he was still actively seeking donations for his run for president of the USA from supporters. But he did not buy it from him. He didn't care about it when it mattered the most. There is no way he should be entitled to it now for nothing after he let it go for 5 years. No way is that right at all.

Link?

[angelatc]

I didn't know liberals were worried about ethics, Miss Name-Caller.

Read much?

I am NOT saying there has to be a limit on how much people can charge for things; I am saying it is UNETHICAL TO BUY UP OTHER PEOPLES NAMES AND CHARGE THEM MEGA BUCKS.

Got it?


If they own something you want, why shouldn't they be allowed to charge you mega bucks? I mean, Ron Paul has written in favor of price-gouging. He didn't seem to think it was unethical.

[newbitech]

Apples and oranges.

Where did RP say he wanted to sell his name to the current holders of ronpaul.com?

facts and wishful thinking.

[squarepusher]

There exist more than 1 Ron Paul in the world. So if we are entitled to have our own name, how do they do arbitration between different Ron Pauls?

[qh4dotcom]

He's not touching anyone elses property. He's lawfully getting the traffic his name generates to help our cause.

Whatever he does with the domain name if and when he seizes it will get negative publicity and be forever associated with the controversy of acquiring it.

RonPaul.com in the hands of Ron Paul won't be helping the cause...too much controversy associated with it. Not worth it.

[RickyJ]

So it was unethical for me to have purchased RonPaul.NAME?

Unethical for the owner of this forum to have registered ronpaulforums.com ?

Ron Paul obviously does not care about domain names or he would have got them when it mattered before he started his run for president. It is a little too late to say he cares now after he benefited enormously from all the Ron Paul sites promoting him the last 6 years.

[sailingaway]

There exist more than 1 Ron Paul in the world. So if we are entitled to have our own name, how do they do arbitration between different Ron Pauls?

You look at the domain and see which one it was trading off.

[newbitech]

I didn't know liberals were worried about ethics, Miss Name-Caller.

Read much?

I am NOT saying there has to be a limit on how much people can charge for things; I am saying it is UNETHICAL TO BUY UP OTHER PEOPLES NAMES AND CHARGE THEM MEGA BUCKS.

Got it?


So his name is RonPaul.com? Or is it RonPaul? Is he the only Ron Paul, what if some other Ron Paul wanted to sell me Ron Paul? Would that be like buying Ron Paul, but not since I didn't specify the Ron Paul you are talking about? You know there is actually laws and facts and shit we could be talking about instead of emotions and guilt trips and other such manners seeded in innuendos and uncommon story telling.

[MisfitToy]

If they own something you want, why shouldn't they be allowed to charge you mega bucks? I mean, Ron Paul has written in favor of price-gouging. He didn't seem to think it was unethical.

What they own only has worth because of Ron Paul. If it was jebbush.com he wouldn't want it.

[qh4dotcom]

If they own something you want, why shouldn't they be allowed to charge you mega bucks? I mean, Ron Paul has written in favor of price-gouging. He didn't seem to think it was unethical.

Ender needs to read this
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul828.html

[Ender]

If they own something you want, why shouldn't they be allowed to charge you mega bucks? I mean, Ron Paul has written in favor of price-gouging. He didn't seem to think it was unethical.

That's bullshit.

If the article is YOURS, you can charge what you want- these people are making money off of the fact that Ron Paul exists; and they are holding his name and keeping it from him

If they were really followers they would give him the damned domain and make a deal to still advertise merchandise.

[RickyJ]

Link?

Seriously? You don't even know the facts of this matter yet you post what you post about it?

[sailingaway]

So it was unethical for me to have purchased RonPaul.NAME?

Unethical for the owner of this forum to have registered ronpaulforums.com ?

usage and intent matters. But you also said you'd give it to him if he called you personally. that is very different than this case.

The more supporter like they seem , the more I want that taken into consideration. The more mega domain scam they seem, the less I care. But I don't know all the facts, obviously.

[newbitech]

//

[Ender]

Ender needs to read this
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul828.html

RP's article on price gouging has nothing to do with stealing the merchandise first.

[angelatc]

There exist more than 1 Ron Paul in the world. So if we are entitled to have our own name, how do they do arbitration between different Ron Pauls?


And are we limited in who we can sell it to?

[sailingaway]

Ender needs to read this
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul828.html

But they only own what the domain allowed. Use in violation of the domain rules they never had.

[PatriotOne]

I didn't see that evidence presented. Do you have that evidence? Anyway, like I said, until what 2007-2010(maybe?). Problem with that tho, 2007-Nov. 2009 someone else named Ron Paul actually had a primary register application that was undisputed and allowed on the registry pending notification of use. So even if it can be proven via you evidence (granting your evidence without so much as a link request :D) that RON PAUL was popular (popularity does not confer secondary meaning), he would not have been able to trademark RON PAUL, since it was already trademarked.

Anyways, My point was before all that, the same could be said about Ron Paul that was said about Bob Barr. It just doesn't really prove anything about anything.

Who the hell would buy Ron Paul merchandise or visit a Ron Paul website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Ron Paul as a draw.

Since I was responding to that, it did matter. Ron Paul was a hot commodity...REALLY HOT. Your memory fails you. Sorry I can't prove it unless technorati has a historical top ten web search option. I use to post about it in a particular thread all the time but I can't even find a post I made yesterday using the search function here much less 6 yrs ago (if those are even available anymore).

Trust me Newbie. Have I ever lied to you :p?

[Ender]

Seriously? You don't even know the facts of this matter yet you post what you post about it?

Seriously? You can't provide a link?

[sailingaway]

Yeah, media even admitted after the 2008 election that for a cheap 'hit' they would mention Ron's name.

[angelatc]

RP's article on price gouging has nothing to do with stealing the merchandise first.


They didn't steal it.. They bought it from a man named Ron Paul, who ran a restaurant consulting firm in Oregon. Nice accusations you're throwing around, again like a liberal. Might as well go ahead and call them racists, too.

[angelatc]

Seriously? You can't provide a link?


We've been hashing this our for a week now. It's not our fault you're late and missed the first part of the conversation.

Here's a hint - you can dig through the archives on this very site.

[newbitech]

Ronpaul.com if he wins it. Thought we were on the same conversation.

nah I doubt it.

[newbitech]

Who the hell would buy Ron Paul merchandise or visit a Ron Paul website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Ron Paul as a draw.

Since I was responding to that, it did matter. Ron Paul was a hot commodity...REALLY HOT. Your memory fails you. Sorry I can't prove it unless technorati has a historical top ten web search option. I use to post about it in a particular thread all the time but I can't even find a post I made yesterday using the search function here much less 6 yrs ago (if those are even available anymore).

Trust me Newbie. Have I ever lied to you :p?

I know, see join date. Of course it helped that is message was spread by people who understand the internet, maybe, just a little.

[Pericles]

The cases all turn on their own facts and we won't know this one until he ever goes after tshirt sales. In any event, he isn't suing to recoup profits 'in trust' from sales of his likeness on merchandise, he is going after his name.

Which he could do because of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act passed in 1999, which was the club used by American Airlines to get americanairlines.com from the individual who had it for years.

[Ender]

We've been hashing this our for a week now. It's not our fault you're late and missed the first part of the conversation.

Here's a hint - you can dig through the archives on this very site.

Oh, I read it- but there is no online link to this bit of news, which makes it highly suspect.

[RickyJ]

He sold out his principles instead of buying someone else's property.

His lawyers did anyway, and what's even worse, I think he is going to lose in arbitration.

[Pericles]

You look at the domain and see which one it was trading off.

No - it is the first Ron Paul to register, and if challenged, he just has to show fair use and he keeps it.

[newbitech]

Link?

were you here then?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?109284-Whoever-Bought-ronpaul-com-off-of-Ebay

[RickyJ]

Which he could do because of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act passed in 1999, which was the club used by American Airlines to get americanairlines.com from the individual who had it for years.

How did Ron Paul vote on that?

[newbitech]

How did Ron Paul vote on that?


was a voice vote.

[angelatc]

Who the hell would buy Ron Paul merchandise or visit a Ron Paul website? They couldn't have covered the cost of the $9.99 domain name using Ron Paul as a draw.

Since I was responding to that, it did matter. Ron Paul was a hot commodity...REALLY HOT. Your memory fails you. Sorry I can't prove it unless technorati has a historical top ten web search option. I use to post about it in a particular thread all the time but I can't even find a post I made yesterday using the search function here much less 6 yrs ago (if those are even available anymore).

Trust me Newbie. Have I ever lied to you :p?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?37599-RONPAUL-COM-Yours-for-just-150-000!&p=420648&viewfull=1#post420648

"When I do Google News searches I often get quotes from another ROn Paul who is apparently a restaurant industry analyst."

From these forums, dated 11/07

[sailingaway]

How did Ron Paul vote on that?

LOL! Good question. But even if he thought the principle were ok he might have thought congress shouldn't be the one passing the law or it had a feature or many that were bad. Very few laws are all good, unfortunately.

[sailingaway]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?37599-RONPAUL-COM-Yours-for-just-150-000!&p=420648&viewfull=1#post420648

"When I do Google News searches I often get quotes from another ROn Paul who is apparently a restaurant industry analyst."

From these forums, dated 11/07

There's some bank guy too.

[newbitech]

hmmm

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-7082-help_with_the_ron_around.html


As for the Paul presidential campaign, an official said Friday it's no longer interested in the website.

would suck to have this reporter give a statement for the arb panel eh?

[angelatc]

LOL! Good question. But even if he thought the principle were ok he might have thought congress shouldn't be the one passing the law or it had a feature or many that were bad. Very few laws are all good, unfortunately.


I had a guy rear end me once. The law said I was supposed to call the police, file a report, file an insurance claim....guess what? The guy that hit me slipped me $50 and we went on our way.

I did not tell him I was being forced to involved all those other third parties. Of course, if he had only offered me $25, I might have called the cops.

[sailingaway]

'an official'? No indication Ron had any knowledge, or anyone with any particular management status. They had a shoestring effort in 2007 as I understand it.

[angelatc]

hmmm

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-7082-help_with_the_ron_around.html



would suck to have this reporter give a statement for the arb panel eh?


I wonder if the lawyers know about that?

[PatriotOne]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?37599-RONPAUL-COM-Yours-for-just-150-000!&p=420648&viewfull=1#post420648

"When I do Google News searches I often get quotes from another ROn Paul who is apparently a restaurant industry analyst."

From these forums, dated 11/07

That doesn't surprise me one bit. I use to do a chart showing how much Ron and the other candidates were being talked about in blogs vs. how much he was mentioned on the news. Ron topped the blog mentions of all candidates by far while the MSM barely whispered his name back then. Don't you remember that?

[sailingaway]

It gives no indication Ron knew at all, and it certainly never gave indication it would be fine if sites were used in violation of domain rules.

[angelatc]

'an official'? No indication Ron had any knowledge, or anyone with any particular management status. They had a shoestring effort in 2007 as I understand it.


He doesn't get it both ways. He can't hire people to run things for him, then claim he didn't know what they were doing.

[angelatc]

That doesn't surprise me one bit. I use to do a chart showing how much Ron and the other candidates were being talked about in blogs vs. how much he was mentioned on the news. Ron topped the blog mentions of all candidates by far while the MSM barely whispered his name back then. Don't you remember that?


Not really, but it detracts from Ron's claim that he was a nationally known figure at the time.

[sailingaway]

Of course he can. They weren't hired to find domains, they were hired for particular other tasks.

[newbitech]

'an official'? No indication Ron had any knowledge, or anyone with any particular management status. They had a shoestring effort in 2007 as I understand it.


yeah that's a pretty good reason to deny the other Mr. Paul of his right to sell the keys to the domain to anyone else EXCEPT another Mr Paul. Oh but wait, Ron Paul didn't do that. He's just implying that is how it should be from here on out. Gotcha, that's the consistency we've come to expect from the good Doctor! So if Ron Paul isn't behind this, who is?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I1swvrGjrE0/T5SpXKFJZHI/AAAAAAAAAQY/vNhmBM7Pj-g/s1600/mysterymachine.jpg

[sailingaway]

Not really, but it detracts from Ron's claim that he was a nationally known figure at the time.

He said he used his mark nationally. It is use as a trademark that is the issue, not being the most well known trademark ever.

[sailingaway]

yeah that's a pretty good reason to deny the other Mr. Paul of his right to sell the keys to the domain to anyone else. Oh but wait, Ron Paul didn't do that. He's just implying that is how it should be from here on out. Gotcha, that's the consistency we've come to expect from the good Doctor! So if Ron Paul isn't behind this, who is?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I1swvrGjrE0/T5SpXKFJZHI/AAAAAAAAAQY/vNhmBM7Pj-g/s1600/mysterymachine.jpg


the claim is based on violation of the domain rules by the current owner, not based on whatever use the prior owner made of it, which might have been perfectly appropriate.

[RickyJ]

hmmm

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-7082-help_with_the_ron_around.html



would suck to have this reporter give a statement for the arb panel eh?

It is obvious he had on interest in domain names at all until 2013. He wanted people to support him, he openly bragged about his Internet supporters that were helping his campaign in the media. Now after 6 years of benefiting from them he wants to take their domain names for nothing?

[newbitech]

the claim is based on violation of the domain rules by the current owner, not based on whatever use the prior owner made of it, which might have been perfectly appropriate.


well no it isn't whatever use the prior owner made of it. It's whatever use the prior owner made of it EXCEPT for selling it to someone else not named Ron Paul.

[Pericles]

hmmm

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-7082-help_with_the_ron_around.html




would suck to have this reporter give a statement for the arb panel eh?

On the date of that article (May 30, 2007), who was the registrant of ronpaul.com?

[newbitech]

It is obvious he had on interest in domain names at all until 2013. He wanted people to support him, he openly bragged about his Internet supporters that were helping his campaign in the media. Now after 6 years of benefiting from them he wants to take their domain names for nothing?

This is unmistakably obvious. In fact, I think Ron Paul is STILL uninterested in domain names LOL. Not Ron Paul doing this! We have a few clues tho!

[newbitech]

On the date of that article (May 30, 2007), who was the registrant of ronpaul.com?

No idea, my domain lookup account doesnt go back that far. I can tell you who it wasn't though.

[PatriotOne]

Not really, but it detracts from Ron's claim that he was a nationally known figure at the time.

I can't believe you forgot that. We were spitting fire all day long because the news would talk about every candidate BUT Ron Paul like he didn't even exist. Then because we put so much pressure on them they finally started mentioning him but always used terms like "fringe" "quixotic" when referring to him....so we were all still spitting fire. Awwww....memory lane. How far we have come :D.

[sailingaway]

It is obvious he had on interest in domain names at all until 2013. He wanted people to support him, he openly bragged about his Internet supporters that were helping his campaign in the media. Now after 6 years of benefiting from them he wants to take their domain names for nothing?

Except that they seem to have asked the price in 2011 and were told it was $848,000 so that is before 2013. And he never said he had wanted to take anything for nothing, he said he had had it appraised for $50,000.

Also, if you look at the beginning of this thread there seems to be indication the owner is/may be a domain churning site, but you might be able to get more from the information than I can, I'm kinda still in the dark. it is new information, though.

[angelatc]

Of course he can. They weren't hired to find domains, they were hired for particular other tasks.

If they were not hired to find domains, why were they commenting on domain buy decisions in the article?

[newbitech]

Except that they seem to have asked the price in 2011 and were told it was $848,000 so that is before 2013. And he never said he had wanted to take anything for nothing, he said he had had it appraised for $50,000.

Also, if you look at the beginning of this thread there seems to be indication the owner is/may be a domain churning site, but you might be able to get more from the information than I can, I'm kinda still in the dark. it is new information, though.

I know you are learning a lot about the guts of the internet in this issue. Here is something else to consider. Why would a so called domain churning site have a dedicated server?

[sailingaway]

If they were not hired to find domains, why were they commenting on domain buy decisions in the article?

The story as I understand it is that the other guy had something to sell. So he went to these guys who were stretched incredibly thin trying to run a campaign on a shoestring who had no domain buying plans and tons of other plans. As to comments, I AM sure Ron had people expected to comment to media. But that is what they were for. Not domains.

[sailingaway]

I know you are learning a lot about the guts of the internet in this issue. Here is something else to consider. Why would a so called domain churning site have a dedicated server?

I have no clue about it. I am free riding on the information of that sort from people who have more understanding of tech than I do. I was hoping RickyJ would look and see what he thought, though.

[CPUd]

Damn.

Someone found the .org whois info a few hours ago. I go for a walk and come back to see this thread.

Whether or not the domains are run by pros, the dispute (and its related claim) is still the same.

When you put in your contact info in a domain registration, you can put whatever you want in there. You will probably want to have a real email in there somewhere, but the rest is on the honor system. It is true that having bogus contact info in there is grounds for getting the domain took, but for that to be an issue, it would require investigation on the part of the registrar.

If these are pros, their companies and contacts will be verifiable. This is where offshore incorporation comes into play.

Some of you would do well to go take a look into how this "content creation, forum/blog marketing" market works.

A couple need to go read through the other 'big' threads before posting on this one.

And some of you need to go outside and take a walk.

[angelatc]

I can't believe you forgot that. We were spitting fire all day long because the news would talk about every candidate BUT Ron Paul like he didn't even exist. Then because we put so much pressure on them they finally started mentioning him but always used terms like "fringe" "quixotic" when referring to him....so we were all still spitting fire. Awwww....memory lane. How far we have come :D.


No, I remember that happening, I just don't remember the timeline. But I still maintain he can't prove he was a nationally known figure when there are several name recognition polls out there that indicate otherwise. This comment on the Google search just affirms that for me.

[sailingaway]

No, I remember that happening, I just don't remember the timeline. But I still maintain he can't prove he was a nationally known figure when there are several name recognition polls out there that indicate otherwise. This comment on the Google search just affirms that for me.

The requirement is not 'nationally known to EVERYONE'. It is that he use his trademark, and he did, in books that sold nationally, etc.

[Pericles]

I know you are learning a lot about the guts of the internet in this issue. Here is something else to consider. Why would a so called domain churning site have a dedicated server?

http://statsie.com/ronpaul.com

between these sites.

Site
IP
Alexa Rank
Change


ronpaul2012.net (http://statsie.com/ronpaul2012.net) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
620237
21% http://statsie.com/img/down.gif


ronpaulnews.com (http://statsie.com/ronpaulnews.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
964229
32% http://statsie.com/img/down.gif


store.ronpaul.com (http://statsie.com/store.ronpaul.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
1M+
0% -


2012.ronpaul.com (http://statsie.com/2012.ronpaul.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
1M+
0% -


ronpaul16.com (http://statsie.com/ronpaul16.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
1M+
0% -



Has a dedicated IP address for these hosts - don't know how you can make a conclusion about dedicated server.

[angelatc]

The story as I understand it is that the other guy had something to sell. So he went to these guys who were stretched incredibly thin trying to run a campaign on a shoestring who had no domain buying plans and tons of other plans. As to comments, I AM sure Ron had people expected to comment to media. But that is what they were for. Not domains.


You know, almost everybody in the whole world is busy and works on a shoestring budget. Ron Paul's organization passed on buying the name. That's documented now.

[sailingaway]

http://statsie.com/ronpaul.com

between these sites.

Site
IP
Alexa Rank
Change



ronpaul2012.net (http://statsie.com/ronpaul2012.net) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
620237
21% http://statsie.com/img/down.gif


ronpaulnews.com (http://statsie.com/ronpaulnews.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
964229
32% http://statsie.com/img/down.gif


store.ronpaul.com (http://statsie.com/store.ronpaul.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
1M+
0% -


2012.ronpaul.com (http://statsie.com/2012.ronpaul.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
1M+
0% -


ronpaul16.com (http://statsie.com/ronpaul16.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
1M+
0% -



Is the same guy ronpaulnews.com? Because I stopped following ronpaulnews on twitter because it was a pure aggrogator and not directly to the article. It was spamish, imho. And irritating. You'd click in and it would be.... nvm. I just went back on twitter and the account still seems automated but the avatar is different and it maybe a different site than the one I was thinking of.

[qh4dotcom]

Guys, don't forget about RonPaul.com's last update...tomorrow is the deadline...tomorrow this drama could be over.



WIPO, an agency of the United Nations, today rejected Ron Paul's UDRP complaint over RonPaul.com due to a formality. Ron Paul's lawyers have been given the option of refiling or amending their complaint until February 19 or to let the matter drop and resume private negotiations.

This development presents a perfect opportunity to resolve the dispute privately. The grassroots supporters in charge of RonPaul.com have always been open to private negotiations and continue to do so.

If you support a negotiated solution over ownership of RonPaul.com that would benefit the entire liberty movement please express your support on Ron Paul's Facebook page, on Twitter, and contact Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty at http://www.campaignforliberty.org/contact-us/

"The Internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the Internet remains free of government regulation." -- Ron Paul's Farewell Speech to Congress, Nov. 14, 2012

[angelatc]

The requirement is not 'nationally known to EVERYONE'. It is that he use his trademark, and he did, in books that sold nationally, etc.

Nobody is saying that he had to be nationally known to everyone. I suspect you could probably find people who have no idea who Obama is.

[RickyJ]

Except that they seem to have asked the price in 2011 and were told it was $848,000 so that is before 2013. And he never said he had wanted to take anything for nothing, he said he had had it appraised for $50,000.

Also, if you look at the beginning of this thread there seems to be indication the owner is/may be a domain churning site, but you might be able to get more from the information than I can, I'm kinda still in the dark. it is new information, though.

If that can be verified that they did ask for the price in 2011 and was told it was $848,000 then that will be one point in their favor. But, even if that is verified they still let it go when it was up for auction in 2008 while he was running for president and still accepting campaign donations. The people donating for his run for president were not donating to the Campaign for Liberty, which didn't even exist at that time, they were donating for Ron Paul to use that money to actively seek the office of the presidency. 25 grand then would have been a very good deal for that site, yet his campaign staff didn't get it. Also they let ronpaul.org expire after they already had it! If they really cared about it they never would have let it go. There are too many points against Ron Paul in this arbitration for him to even have a chance to win it. His lawyers are doing nothing more than hurting Ron Paul's reputation here.

[sailingaway]

If that can be verified that they did ask for the price in 2011 and was told it was $848,000 then that will be one point in their favor. But, even if that is verified they still let it go when it was up for auction in 2008 while he was running for president and still accepting campaign donations. The people donating for his run for president were not donating to the Campaign for Liberty, which didn't even exist at that time, they were donating for Ron Paul to use that money to actively seek the office of the presidency. 25 grand then would have been a very good deal for that site, yet his campaign staff didn't get it. Also they let ronpaul.org expire after they already had it! If they really cared about it they never would have let it go. There are too many points against Ron Paul in this arbitration for him to even have a chance to win it. His lawyers are doing nothing more than hurting Ron Paul's reputation here.
the campaign staff was running a campaign and someone brought them a side distraction they may simply not have had time to deal with. Whether Ron even knew about it is a question.

But did you look at the new information torchbearer and Patriot One put at the beginning of this thread? You might understand it better than I do.

[newbitech]

http://statsie.com/ronpaul.com

between these sites.

Site
IP
Alexa Rank
Change


ronpaul2012.net (http://statsie.com/ronpaul2012.net) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
620237
21% http://statsie.com/img/down.gif


ronpaulnews.com (http://statsie.com/ronpaulnews.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
964229
32% http://statsie.com/img/down.gif


store.ronpaul.com (http://statsie.com/store.ronpaul.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
1M+
0% -


2012.ronpaul.com (http://statsie.com/2012.ronpaul.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
1M+
0% -


ronpaul16.com (http://statsie.com/ronpaul16.com) http://statsie.com/img/external_small.png
72.9.145.39
1M+
0% -



Has a dedicated IP address for these hosts - don't know how you can make a conclusion about dedicated server.

um..ok what is the point of your post. of "these hosts" 2 of them are same root. the others are cname redirects. My point was the cost...

anyways, look, i see you have an interest in researching these matters as do I. But let's be clear. I am not doing so in order to push any side. I am doing so in the interest in truth. Right now, it just so happens that the push coming from Ron Paul's side is not grounded in truth.

That is not my fault or yours, but please know that I am pretty good about finding the truth, particularly in matters concerning 1's and 0's.

[qh4dotcom]

If that can be verified that they did ask for the price in 2011 and was told it was $848,000 then that will be one point in their favor. But, even if that is verified they still let it go when it was up for auction in 2008 while he was running for president and still accepting campaign donations. The people donating for his run for president were not donating to the Campaign for Liberty, which didn't even exist at that time, they were donating for Ron Paul to use that money to actively seek the office of the presidency. 25 grand then would have been a very good deal for that site, yet his campaign staff didn't get it. Also they let ronpaul.org expire after they already had it! If they really cared about it they never would have let it go. There are too many points against Ron Paul in this arbitration for him to even have a chance to win it. His lawyers are doing nothing more than hurting Ron Paul's reputation here.

There's no proof that whoever sent that email asking for $848,000 is the owner of RonPaul.com

and if an Obama supporter or his/her attorney wants to buy one of my domain names from me, yes it's for sale for $848,000

[angelatc]

The requirement is not 'nationally known to EVERYONE'. It is that he use his trademark, and he did, in books that sold nationally, etc.

He wasn't the only man named Ron Paul writing books though. Most of them, yes. All of them, no.

[sailingaway]

He wasn't the only man named Ron Paul writing books though. Most of them, yes. All of them, no.

None of that matters because THEY were never featured on this website.

[newbitech]

Not to sound mean, but what if the domain name was given back to the original Ron Paul (as far as the internet is concerned), and he decided to sell it for 5 million?

Would anyone in here be kicking themselves in the ass for not organizing a 100k money bomb to put up a grassroots offer for this site?

Well, here I am suggesting it.

Hell, I bet we could do a 50k money bomb and petition RP to put up the other 50k and have this over with in 24 hours....just saying.

[newbitech]

None of that matters because THEY were never featured on this website.

featured? as in a link to sell the book? I wonder how Ron Paul's books climbed the amazon rankings? Could be all those regurgitated header links on ronpaul.com had something to do with it? maybe? possibly? no? perhaps they should send Dr. Paul a bill for sending his book traffic? Would that be free market fair?

[Pericles]

um..ok what is the point of your post. of "these hosts" 2 of them are same root. the others are cname redirects. My point was the cost...

anyways, look, i see you have an interest in researching these matters as do I. But let's be clear. I am not doing so in order to push any side. I am doing so in the interest in truth. Right now, it just so happens that the push coming from Ron Paul's side is not grounded in truth.

That is not my fault or yours, but please know that I am pretty good about finding the truth, particularly in matters concerning 1's and 0's.

The current registrant is not being truthful as well.

Of the 4 arbiters, WIPO has the highest percentage of cases decided in favor of the party bringing the compliant - well over 80% - the forum for arbitration was probably shopped, as one ,ight expect from a market oriented entity seeking redress, go where the odds of success are the highest.

[newbitech]

The current registrant is not being truthful as well.

ok, I am listening, lets see the evidence.

[angelatc]

None of that matters because THEY were never featured on this website.


Nobody is disputing it's a fan site. It lends to his right to control the name at all though.

[sailingaway]

Nobody is disputing it's a fan site. It lends to his right to control the name at all though.

No it doesn't imho because only he has claim because it clearly based on his persona.

[angelatc]

No it doesn't imho because only he has claim because it clearly based on his persona.


LadyGaga.org says otherwise.

[Pericles]

ok, I am listening, lets see the evidence.

How many "fans" would drop $25K to obtain a domain name and then not pass it on to RP at $25K or less?
Not maintain an accurate whois record?
Post misleading information about the arbitration proceedings?

[Pericles]

LadyGaga.org says otherwise.

Non commercial use - or can you buy Lady Gaga stuff from that site?

[angelatc]

On the date of that article (May 30, 2007), who was the registrant of ronpaul.com?


Not sure if I understand the question, but the restaurant Ron Paul owned the domain at that time. I don't know where he hosted it though. I think I read that someone would need to pony up some cash to see that information.

[angelatc]

Non commercial use - or can you buy Lady Gaga stuff from that site?


I don't think she's selling anything, but Tupac related site was, and they also got to keep their domain. You have to prove the primary reason for the site is the monetization.

[Pericles]

Not sure if I understand the question, but the restaurant Ron Paul owned the domain at that time. I don't know where he hosted it though. I think I read that someone would need to pony up some cash to see that information.
Which means that the domain was in the hands of someone who had an absolute defense against any other legitimate claim to the domain. Thus, the only way for the campaign to acquire the domain was with the consent of the other Ron Paul.

[Pericles]

I don't think she's selling anything, but Tupac related site was, and they also got to keep their domain. You have to prove the primary reason for the site is the monetization.

You have to prove bad faith - monetization is taken as evidence of bad faith.

[PatriotOne]

Non commercial use - or can you buy Lady Gaga stuff from that site?

ladygaga.org is just a unprofitable unofficial fansite, we do not get money from it. We are not affiliated in any way with Lady Gaga herself, her record label, or her management. I am not lady gaga and I do not know her unfortunately. This is a fansite only, created by and for fans of lady gaga. All the material posted here is owned by the respective owners. We do not claim any kind of copyright on them, Thanks.

[newbitech]

The current registrant is not being truthful as well.

Of the 4 arbiters, WIPO has the highest percentage of cases decided in favor of the party bringing the compliant - well over 80% - the forum for arbitration was probably shopped, as one ,ight expect from a market oriented entity seeking redress, go where the odds of success are the highest.

Ok, could you source that % statement please? I have heard difference and have actually seen a source linked.

See, this is were I stick to truth. "The forum for arbitration was probably shopped...." I just don't see how you can speculate like this given the history of what has occurred and give what the official Ron Paul spokesperson to these forums has said.

First, a total denial that Ron Paul went to the UN. - Showed evidence to the contrary Fact, WIPO is a UN agency, charted in 1974
Second, it was the ronpaul.com guys who chose the UN - Showed neither ICANN nor the registrar stipulated in the agreement which arb was to be used, only that submission to arbitration was required. Fact, Ron Paul's guys chose the UN.
Third, well Ron Paul didn't have a choice since WIPO is the only international option - Showed that Lew Rockwell and anyone else making this claim does so without even cursory research (just search the list of decisions and see the origins of the disputing parties) - Fact ALL ICANN arbitration choices are international options
Fourth, WIPO has the best record (pending evidence) - I WILL show evidence to the contrary. Fact, the IMF has the best record in bailing out 3rd world countries.
Fifth, I am speculating will be WIPO is the cheapest option (evidence pending) - Then I will ask why he hired 3 lawyers if he was being cheap? and I will show an even cheaper option. Fact - IP disputes whether international arbitration or full jury trials are not cheap any in sense of the word if one is seriously expecting to win or defend.
Finally, what will we hear next? What evidence will we see? I will be watching and waiting for this to play out. I suspect we will never hear the answer.

I personally like, Ron Paul is a private citizen now. My your own damned business newbitech!

[angelatc]

You have to prove bad faith - monetization is taken as evidence of bad faith.


That's what I thought too, but there was/is a Tupac related fansite that sells merchandise and won their right to keep the domain. I'll see if I can find it again.

[angelatc]

Which means that the domain was in the hands of someone who had an absolute defense against any other legitimate claim to the domain. Thus, the only way for the campaign to acquire the domain was with the consent of the other Ron Paul.


Which they could have done when he auctioned it off. They chose not to.

[sailingaway]

Which they could have done when he auctioned it off. They chose not to.

'they' could have been some stray state coordinator wearing six hats who had no authorization and was too busy to deal with it, not Ron.

[newbitech]

You have to prove bad faith - monetization is taken as evidence of bad faith.

Harvard law on UDRP bad faith analysis. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/analysis.html


(i) the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of selling it to the complainant or a competitor for more than the documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the name; or
(ii) the domain was registered in order to prevent the mark owner from using it, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such registration; or
(iii) the domain was registered primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation.

I don't see monetization is taken as bad faith in there.

I see commercial gain, but that doesn't stand alone. monetizing a web implies converting traffic to a revenue source. this could be used to offset cost. I am sure as part of the defense, the ronpaul.com lawyer will show no commercial gain at all. PLUS they have 5 years worth of good faith to offset selling memorabilia that is available for many Ron Paul family of internet sites that use Ron Paul's name and likeness to attract users that eventually spend money on the site. IOW, they will be able to prove that Ron Paul has given tacit consent for them to do exactly what they are doing. And they have fansite up there too. And the products they sell don't cut into Ron Paul's non existent merch business. They aren't using trademarks in their merch etc etc..

[newbitech]

'they' could have been some stray state coordinator wearing six hats who had no authorization and was too busy to deal with it, not Ron.

Maybe some one in the grassroots should have stepped up and did it then.. oh wait, that would be wrong, no wonder it fell into the hands of these lying hateful foreigners who make money!

[angelatc]

http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0348.htm

I would suggest you read the whole thing, because again....it's different on some levels. But the monetization of the site isn't adequate grounds on its own merit.


10. The two other domain names were also registered and are being used in bad faith under the UDRP. "Tupac.com" and "Tupac.net" both point to the commercial fan site of "Tupac.com", a site dedicated almost exclusively to Tupac Shakur with numerous advertisements, downloads and even a full shop to be able to buy Tupac Shakur merchandise. This commercial use of the site is a clear and intentional showing of bad faith under Rule 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP requiring transfer of both domain names back to the rightful owner. True and Correct Copies of Various Pages of the "Tupac.com" Website are Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 9.


From the decision:


Claimant has failed to establish, the mandatory bad faith. There is no evidence of any intent by the Respondent to violate paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii). The evidence also establishes that these are free sites that do not generate a reasonable likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web sites with or by the Complainant. All of the evidence submitted establishes that Respondent has not acquired these Domain Names in bad faith. The mere refusal of a person to comply with a questionable demand does not constitute "bad faith". Otherwise, that term and the ICANN provisions would lose all meaning and significance.

[angelatc]

'they' could have been some stray state coordinator wearing six hats who had no authorization and was too busy to deal with it, not Ron.


I don't know if you missed it, but my husband called Benton and left a message.

Again, we're all busy. Most of us don't have a staff to handle our stuff. My domains never expire. Neither did my bosses. Hell, when I was 24 years old one of my first office jobs involved making sure every single one of our 2500 branch offices had valid occupancy permits, and then keeping them updated. Let me tell you - no two jurisdictions were the same. And that wasn't my only function, either. In fact, that only took a couple of hours every month. ANd that was before it was all computerized.

If this wasn't important to them then, why should they feel entitled to it now?

[sailingaway]

http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0348.htm

I would suggest you read the whole thing, because again....it's different on some levels. But the monetization of the site isn't adequate grounds on its own merit.

From the decision:


Claimant has failed to establish, the mandatory bad faith. There is no evidence of any intent by the Respondent to violate paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii). The evidence also establishes that these are free sites that do not generate a reasonable likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web sites with or by the Complainant. All of the evidence submitted establishes that Respondent has not acquired these Domain Names in bad faith. The mere refusal of a person to comply with a questionable demand does not constitute "bad faith". Otherwise, that term and the ICANN provisions would lose all meaning and significance.




and also from your link:


The Claimant does not assert or seek to prove, that the Registrant is in the business of selling domain names or that he has offered to sell these Domain Names to it or to any other person or entity for any purpose, legitimate or nefarious.




which if this registrant is in fact a domain purchase and sale site and offered to sell at overly high price, is a fact not in the other case. We also don't have that website in front of us to see how obvious it is that there is no confusion of sponsorship. Perhaps they didn't have a welcome screen like the one here, etc.

Also, I saw another case saying there is a split in whether fan sites WITH monetization are bad faith, just in themselves. So once again it will depend on how these arbitrators see the facts here.

That link doesn't seem to be a WIPO decision.

[sailingaway]

I don't know if you missed it, but my husband called Benton and left a message.

Again, we're all busy. Most of us don't have a staff to handle our stuff. My domains never expire. Neither did my bosses. Hell, when I was 24 years old one of my first office jobs involved making sure every single one of our 2500 branch offices had valid occupancy permits, and then keeping them updated. Let me tell you - no two jurisdictions were the same. And that wasn't my only function, either. In fact, that only took a couple of hours every month. ANd that was before it was all computerized.

If this wasn't important to them then, why should they feel entitled to it now?

Benton and Ron are not the same person. He was the media person then, wasn't he? And may have made his own 'clear the desk' decision. A LOT of people said they didn't get phone calls returned, even ones that actually fell within his job description. That was a different owner, in any event, not using it like this, but for their own business.

[Pericles]

http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0348.htm

I would suggest you read the whole thing, because again....it's different on some levels. But the monetization of the site isn't adequate grounds on its own merit.




From the decision:



I'd guess that the panel found it to be an obvious fan site, and there was no possibility of confusion as to being Tupac's web site, and it could be that the respondent had a lucky day - it happens.

[angelatc]

[QUOTE=angelatc;4881333]http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0348.htm

I would suggest you read the whole thing, because again....it's different on some levels. But the monetization of the site isn't adequate grounds on its own merit.



Also, I saw another case saying there is a split in whether fan sites WITH monetization are bad faith, just in themselves. So once again it will depend on how these arbitrators see the facts here.

That link doesn't seem to be a WIPO decision.


It may have been a different venue, but it was most assuredly an ICANN dispute resloution. You can Google it - the blogs that cover domain disputes covered it. That's where I found it.

I specifically said that this case was different on some levels, but the topic I was weighing in on was monetization alone as an indicator of bad faith.

As for the rest, any time you'd like to throw out a link to any of those other cases you've seen, so we can weigh in on them.... that would be great.

[Pericles]

Ok, could you source that % statement please? I

First, a total denial that Ron Paul went to the UN. - Showed evidence to the contrary Fact, WIPO is a UN agency, charted in 1974


Let's look at the "truth" pf just this one. The ICANN chose WIPO as an arbiter over 20 years after the charter by the UN. If the NAF had been chosen, it would be just as accurate to claim that Ron Paul runs to the state of Minnesota in domain dispute. Claiming that the UN is involved in the dispute is dishonest.

[sailingaway]

[QUOTE=sailingaway;4881346]


It may have been a different venue, but it was most assuredly an ICANN dispute resloution. You can Google it - the blogs that cover domain disputes covered it. That's where I found it.

I specifically said that this case was different on some levels, but the topic I was weighing in on was monetization alone as an indicator of bad faith.

As for the rest, any time you'd like to throw out a link to any of those other cases you've seen, so we can weigh in on them.... that would be great.

I think I posted it in an earlier thread. And I don't see that they showed monetization, the complaint recited it, but the opinion doesn't discuss that it actually existed in any way. They DO talk about it being a free site and not confusing as to sponsorship, in your case, that the domain owner was not in the business of buying and selling domains (unlike here) and that there was no evidence of any offer to sell, in yours the person wanted to keep it, not sell it, as this site here was said to be for sale. But the WIPO case I am thinking of, which I believe I posted early on one of the many other threads, mentioned that there were cases going both ways on fan sites.

[angelatc]

I'd guess that the panel found it to be an obvious fan site, and there was no possibility of confusion as to being Tupac's web site, and it could be that the respondent had a lucky day - it happens.

Funny how the guy who wrote the decision didn't say any of those things. He said they didn't prove bad faith according the the guidelines. It could be luck, or it could be that monetization alone isn't enough to prove bad faith.

No reason to think that nobody ever went to Tupac.com thinking it was Tupac's official site. Nope, none at all.

And where did you get the idea that there can't be any possibility of confusion? I'm pretty sure the confusion has to be intentional. They don't say they're an official anything - they clearly identify themselves as a fan site multiple times on each page.

[angelatc]

I think I posted it in an earlier thread. And I don't see that they showed monetization, the complaint recited it, but the opinion doesn't discuss that it actually existed in any way. .


Now you're really grasping at straws. [QUOTE]Website are Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 9.

[Pericles]

Funny how the guy who wrote the decision didn't say any of those things. He said they didn't prove bad faith according the the guidelines. It could be luck, or it could be that monetization alone isn't enough to prove bad faith.

No reason to think that nobody ever went to Tupac.com thinking it was Tupac's official site. Nope, none at all.

And where did you get the idea that there can't be any possibility of confusion? I'm pretty sure the confusion has to be intentional. They don't say they're an official anything - they clearly identify themselves as a fan site multiple times on each page.

OTOH, that service is no longer an ICANN UDRP arbiter. We could speculate as to why - but might not want to use their decisions as precedent.

https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers

[newbitech]

Let's look at the "truth" pf just this one. The ICANN chose WIPO as an arbiter over 20 years after the charter by the UN. If the NAF had been chosen, it would be just as accurate to claim that Ron Paul runs to the state of Minnesota in domain dispute. Claiming that the UN is involved in the dispute is dishonest.

How many times do I have to prove this wrong? How about the people who keep parroting actually show evidence.. Let's start with Pericles.

Pericles, please prove that ICANN chose WIPO over NAF. (hint, I know you can't but in the process of trying I am curios if you will move on to the next one. I'd say you are at 1.5 right here.

[sailingaway]

[QUOTE=sailingaway;4881362]


Now you're really grasping at straws. [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]


No, I'm saying the ruling may have not turned on that or greatly considered it because they never mention it. I don't think that's grasping. Regardless, elements here weren't in existence there AND apparently there are splits in decisions where fan sites are involved. That is where it may be pertinent that your case isn't from WIPO but some other dispute resolution forum.

[Pericles]

How many times do I have to prove this wrong? How about the people who keep parroting actually show evidence.. Let's start with Pericles.

Pericles, please prove that ICANN chose WIPO over NAF. (hint, I know you can't but in the process of trying I am curios if you will move on to the next one. I'd say you are at 1.5 right here.

Who said ICANN chose WIPO over NAF?

[angelatc]

OTOH, that service is no longer an ICANN UDRP arbiter. We could speculate as to why - but might not want to use their decisions as precedent.

https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers


Are you sure? This press release identifies it as a WIPO decision: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2000/10/prweb19533.htm


The World Intellectual Property Organization handed down its ruling October 23 in the case filed by the Estate of the late rapper Tupac Shakur concerning ownership of the domain names "Tupac.Com" and "Tupac.Net." The judge has ordered that the registration of the Domain Names at issue remain with current owner, R.J. Barranco.

ETA - That's wrong.

[sailingaway]

That press release is interesting but the case itself doesn't say WIPO as all the WIPO cases I've seen do. So is the decision itself marked wrong, or the press release?

[newbitech]

I think I posted it in an earlier thread. And I don't see that they showed monetization, the complaint recited it, but the opinion doesn't discuss that it actually existed in any way. They DO talk about it being a free site and not confusing as to sponsorship, in your case, that the domain owner was not in the business of buying and selling domains (unlike here) and that there was no evidence of any offer to sell, in yours the person wanted to keep it, not sell it, as this site here was said to be for sale. But the WIPO case I am thinking of, which I believe I posted early on one of the many other threads, mentioned that there were cases going both ways on fan sites.

last time I checked, giving away something for free is not what people do who are in the business of buying and selling anything... keep that in mind. We haven't see a response yet, we may never see the response. Just remember, all the evidence we are using so far in Ron Paul's claim is evidence his attorney presented. This is barely even a legit UDRP claim from what I can see at this point. So you keep making statements representing them as facts from filings when it's obvious they are not facts based on the evidence!

[newbitech]

Who said ICANN chose WIPO over NAF?

you.

[Pericles]

Are you sure? This press release identifies it as a WIPO decision: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2000/10/prweb19533.htm

There should be a case number that will clarify which of the 4 organizations took the case. I can see more with the press release that is was an agent of the estate and not the named person filing the complaint - that could matter. There us unsettled law on what rights an estate has to a deceased celebrity in terms of property.

[newbitech]

OTOH, that service is no longer an ICANN UDRP arbiter. We could speculate as to why - but might not want to use their decisions as precedent.

https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers

just so many people all over the web jumping to conclusions.

We don't need to speculate why. There's a pretty damning reason why. I'll let you stumble on that one on your own.

[Pericles]

you.

Where?

[sailingaway]

last time I checked, giving away something for free is not what people do who are in the business of buying and selling anything... keep that in mind. We haven't see a response yet, we may never see the response. Just remember, all the evidence we are using so far in Ron Paul's claim is evidence his attorney presented. This is barely even a legit UDRP claim from what I can see at this point. So you keep making statements representing them as facts from filings when it's obvious they are not facts based on the evidence!


I am mentioning the information in the first few posts of this thread, recently uncovered when the whosis privacy shield dropped, showing, apparently, that the domain registrant is a corporation set up specifically to buy and sell and reclaim domains.