The FINAL opinion on RonPaul.com?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Only fitting to have this poll after literally hundreds of thread pages worth of bickering over this subject.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Yes, I'm sympathetic towards Ron Paul. Ron Paul should have been more diligent in obtaining this domain back when it was auctioned off. Now it looks like he will have to pay quite a bit more for it. He has my sympathy...

[TheGrinch]

Only fitting to have this poll after literally hundreds of thread pages worth of bickering over this subject.

So we can have a few hundred more?

Just let them work it out amongst themselves. This is the last thing that we should be focusing on.

[kcchiefs6465]

There is already a poll on this. Not to mention that 'FINAL polls' were funny for the first few times I saw them but after the last 50 or so I'd say they are getting borderline annoying.

[SilenceDewgooder]

The final opinion on the "Final Opinion" is that opinion is never final.

[TheTexan]

The final opinion on the "Final Opinion" is that opinion is never final.

We should have a Final Opinion poll to answer that question

[TheTexan]

We should have a Final Opinion poll to answer that question

Excuse me, .. FINAL opinion poll

[SilenceDewgooder]

Opinions are like history; the more you learn about the subject, the more it changes.

[TheTexan]

Opinions are like history; the more you learn about the subject, the more it changes.

Well, that's like, your opinion,, man

[kcchiefs6465]

Excuse me, .. FINAL opinion poll
Lmao. Believe it or not there is one. Last I remember 'opinions are not final' is leading... or maybe it was 'kludge is a douchebag?'

[a FINAL opinion poll on FINAL opinion polls]

[qh4dotcom]

There is already a poll on this. Not to mention that 'FINAL polls' were funny for the first few times I saw them but after the last 50 or so I'd say they are getting borderline annoying.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404065-Do-you-agree-with-Ron-Paul-s-claim-against-the-owner-of-RonPaul-com

[Occam's Banana]

The final opinion on the "Final Opinion" is that opinion is never final.

We should have a Final Opinion poll to answer that question

We've already got two!

One for FINAL opinions ...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405034-The-FINAL-opinion-on-final-opinions

And another for FINAL opinion polls ...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405023-The-FINAL-opinion-on-FINAL-opinion-polls

[qh4dotcom]

Wow....many RPF members have flip-flopped

On my poll 70%+ agreed with RonPaul.com
On this poll 70%+ are agreeing with Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404065-Do-you-agree-with-Ron-Paul-s-claim-against-the-owner-of-RonPaul-com

[kcchiefs6465]

We've already got two!

One for FINAL opinions ...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405034-The-FINAL-opinion-on-final-opinions

And another for FINAL opinion polls ...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405023-The-FINAL-opinion-on-FINAL-opinion-polls
Now all we need is a FINAL opinion poll on the FINAL opinion poll.. where's the blowing his brains out smiley? lol

[kcchiefs6465]

Wow....many RPF members have flip-flopped

On my poll 70%+ agreed with RonPaul.com
On this poll 70%+ are agreeing with Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404065-Do-you-agree-with-Ron-Paul-s-claim-against-the-owner-of-RonPaul-com
Well, new information came out. (Panama, different names, etc.- not trying to rehash the discussion here as there's like 14 other threads about it) I'm not really surprised about it. As I remember though didn't your poll have a hell of a lot more votes?

[TheGrinch]

Wow....many RPF members have flip-flopped

On my poll 70%+ agreed with RonPaul.com
On this poll 70%+ are agreeing with Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404065-Do-you-agree-with-Ron-Paul-s-claim-against-the-owner-of-RonPaul-com

That will tend to happen when new facts come out, and not just a biased report from the other side that Ron is taking it to the UN... You can see how that might have skewed public opinion.

[newbitech]

That will tend to happen when new facts come out, and not just a biased report from the other side that Ron is taking it to the UN... You can see how that might have skewed public opinion.

same way the Panamanian report has skewed it? Talk about biased.

FWIW I think the best poll question would be:

Do you take polls?

Yes
No

[NoOneButPaul]

I think what Ron is doing is in bad taste and that's hard to deny.

[TheGrinch]

same way the Panamanian report has skewed it? Talk about biased.

FWIW I think the best poll question would be:

Do you take polls?

Yes
No

I'm not getting into this... my entire point was that the initial report was dishonest and likely accounted for the difference of support between then and now.

[PatriotOne]

same way the Panamanian report has skewed it? Talk about biased.



http://i48.tinypic.com/2mr77mu.gif


:D

[newbitech]

I'm not getting into this... my entire point was that the initial report was dishonest and likely accounted for the difference of support between then and now.

There is this ongoing meme among Ron Paul cliff divers. That is the "initial report" (as if there was more than one report), was dishonest. Yet, no one parroting this meme has actually brought any facts to support this meme. So it's just a meme.

On the contrary, the initial report is supported by all the evidence.

[PatriotOne]

There is this ongoing meme among Ron Paul cliff divers. That is the "initial report" (as if there was more than one report), was dishonest. Yet, no one parroting this meme has actually brought any facts to support this meme. So it's just a meme.

On the contrary, the initial report is supported by all the evidence.

1. Ronpaul.com peeps have 3 different corporations in Panama buying domain names. It was discovered one of them had 150+ domain names alone for sale at $500.00 apiece.

2. Hid their identities until a complaint was filed against them.

3. Tried to extort Ron out of 848k after using his image and name to sell ads and merchandise for thier own enrichment for 5 yrs.

Not exactly the "ron paul super supporter" most people had in mind when they first voted on the other poll.

[newbitech]

1. Ronpaul.com peeps have 3 different corporations in Panama buying domain names. It was discovered one of them had 150+ domain names alone for sale at $500.00 apiece.

2. Hid their identities until a complaint was filed against them.

3. Tried to extort Ron out of 848k after using his image and name to sell ads and merchandise for thier own enrichment for 5 yrs.

Not exactly the "ron paul super supporter" most people had in mind when they first voted on the other poll.

1.) good for them. Built up websites tend to bring a lot more than $500 bucks.

2.) So if I start complaining about the posters in this forum, you gonna demand to know their personal business?

3.) So you are claiming there was a threat of violence against Ron Paul now? You claiming that Ron Paul had something to lose in this matter for the last 5 years?


There is just as much evidence that they are Ron Paul supporters as the owners of this forum and pretty much every other major and minor Ron Paul themed site on the web. Just so happened they were the ones who took the risk on controlling the domains they control. No one else had the balls or the money to do it, and they did it better than all of em. sure, they had the advantage of being the perfect SEO hit. But they didn't let that go to waste, nor did they shame the man in doing so. Unlike everyone else who profited off his name and likeness.

[qh4dotcom]

1. Ronpaul.com peeps have 3 different corporations in Panama buying domain names. It was discovered one of them had 150+ domain names alone for sale at $500.00 apiece.

2. Hid their identities until a complaint was filed against them.

3. Tried to extort Ron out of 848k after using his image and name to sell ads and merchandise for thier own enrichment for 5 yrs.

Not exactly the "ron paul super supporter" most people had in mind when they first voted on the other poll.

Does all of that entitle Ron Paul to confiscate their property without compensation? They still paid $25,000+ to acquire the domain

[kcchiefs6465]

Does all of that entitle Ron Paul to confiscate their property without compensation? They still paid $25,000+ to acquire the domain
Simply, then quit selling Ron Paul shit. The money made off of ronpaul.com is directly attributed to Ron Paul. Their shitty setup is excused. The email addresses? The shirts? The hats? Who do you think got the demand up for that? Damn sure wasn't Tim Martin or the other names that pop up.

[newbitech]

Simply, then quit selling Ron Paul shit. The money made off of ronpaul.com is directly attributed to Ron Paul. Their shitty setup is excused. The email addresses? The shirts? The hats? Who do you think got the demand up for that? Damn sure wasn't Tim Martin or the other names that pop up.


yes quit selling liberty and freedom! Quit using Ron Paul's name and likeness to spread a message! The money made off ronpaul.com is smart money because the people spent money on Ron Paul stuff and paid it to people who have an incentive to spread the message of freedom and liberty that people associate with Ron Paul!
Their shitty setup it above the fold on google. Anyone who runs a large Ron Paul site would also excuse their shitty setup.

The demand is up because people want to be associated with Ron Paul. And since Ron Paul is not around them, then next best thing is to put his face and his name on something you want to wear. If you want to blame anyone for the shirts and the hats, blame the people who want to be around Ron Paul but can't be. Did Ron Paul provide them a shirt to sell?

If given a choice, who do you think people who rather buy a shirt from? Ron Paul or anyone else. Ron Paul would be the answer. And it would be easy for Ron Paul to trademark his name. He could simply sign it on everything he sells.

Did Ron Paul do that? No? So that demand wasn't being met then was it? So what Ron Paul is popular. But he can't meet the demand, so the market did. And you have a problem with this why>?

[Danan]

Wow....many RPF members have flip-flopped

On my poll 70%+ agreed with RonPaul.com
On this poll 70%+ are agreeing with Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404065-Do-you-agree-with-Ron-Paul-s-claim-against-the-owner-of-RonPaul-com

You asked an entirely different question. I couldn't even possibly answer yours. Ron paul hasn't decided to seize anything. He decided to file a complaint, which is something he is entitled to do and I don't see any problem with it.

I'm no expert in the domain name area, so I have no idea if his complaint will be accepted and whether the arbitrator agrees with him. I don't have an opinion on who should end up with ronpaul.com, because I don't understand the rules well enough - I'm not an experienced arbitrator.

So it could be a completely ridiculous claim, I don't know. If it is, what's the big deal? The arbitrator will throw it out, no harm done. If they agree with Ron, the current operators of ronpaul.com were obviously in the wrong and broke ICANN's rules.

[TheGrinch]

There is this ongoing meme among Ron Paul cliff divers. That is the "initial report" (as if there was more than one report), was dishonest. Yet, no one parroting this meme has actually brought any facts to support this meme. So it's just a meme.

On the contrary, the initial report is supported by all the evidence.

They claimed Ron was taking it to the UN, he wasn't. He was using the only arbitration service available which was loosely related to the UN, but I beleive they even took it down because it was clearly stretchnig the truth to try to gain public support, and it worked to some degree as the MSM picked up the "Ron Paul takes supporters to the UN over Ronpaul.com" headlines.

[newbitech]

They claimed Ron was taking it to the UN, he wasn't. He was using the only arbitration service available which was loosely related to the UN, but I beleive they even took it down because it was clearly stretchnig the truth to try to gain public support, and it worked to some degree as the MSM picked up the "Ron Paul takes supporters to the UN over Ronpaul.com" headlines.

this is the meme. completely false are the ideas that he used the only arbitration option and that WIPO is loosely related to the UN. The only truth stretching that went on in the only sourced report on the matter was found inside the claim and the subsequent disinformation rebuttals to those headlines. Ron Paul was the first to go out looking to sway public opinion in the matter when he appeared on Alex Jones talking about getting "ronpaulshomepage.com" which was quickly snapped up by squatters. Take a look at that domain, that is what squatting looks like.

The headlines came because of Ron Paul's actions and someone whom he hurt with those actions reporting those actions. I am sure the information was taken down from the site because it was completely out of scope and character for what is posted on that site, which is 99.9999% pro-ron paul. It makes no sense to say they put it up to stretch the truth and then took it down when they realized it was stretching the truth.

[kcchiefs6465]

yes quit selling liberty and freedom! Quit using Ron Paul's name and likeness to spread a message! The money made off ronpaul.com is smart money because the people spent money on Ron Paul stuff and paid it to people who have an incentive to spread the message of freedom and liberty that people associate with Ron Paul!
Their shitty setup it above the fold on google. Anyone who runs a large Ron Paul site would also excuse their shitty setup.

The demand is up because people want to be associated with Ron Paul. And since Ron Paul is not around them, then next best thing is to put his face and his name on something you want to wear. If you want to blame anyone for the shirts and the hats, blame the people who want to be around Ron Paul but can't be. Did Ron Paul provide them a shirt to sell?

If given a choice, who do you think people who rather buy a shirt from? Ron Paul or anyone else. Ron Paul would be the answer. And it would be easy for Ron Paul to trademark his name. He could simply sign it on everything he sells.

Did Ron Paul do that? No? So that demand wasn't being met then was it? So what Ron Paul is popular. But he can't meet the demand, so the market did. And you have a problem with this why>?
I believe I have mentioned this in my other 30 or so posts in the other 10 or so threads on this subject, but to answer this specific question it is their dishonesty and way they handled the situation that makes me hope Ron Paul gets the site for as cheap as possible.

[fr33]

Wow....many RPF members have flip-flopped

On my poll 70%+ agreed with RonPaul.com
On this poll 70%+ are agreeing with Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404065-Do-you-agree-with-Ron-Paul-s-claim-against-the-owner-of-RonPaul-com


The hipster trolls have cooled off and haven't checked in to vote. That's why it's changed.

[Danan]

Does all of that entitle Ron Paul to confiscate their property without compensation? They still paid $25,000+ to acquire the domain

The domain name is still not their property, in the sense that they have full control over it. It's a contractual agreement to redirect every request for the domain name "ronpaul.com" that uses ICANN's technology to the servers owned by the ronpaul.com people.

If you get a new phone number from a provider by signing an agreement, stating that you won't do certain things with it, it wouldn't be unjust to take that number away from you in case of a breach of contract. The phone number, like the domain name, is not real tangible property. You can't buy the "right" to be called under a specific number, because nobody "owns" a phone number in the first place. There is no natural deposit of numbers or domain adresses that somebody at one point claimed ownership of. It's just an agreement forcing a specific party to redirect every request for your number/domain name that comes in over their technology to redirect to your phone/server, as long as you follow the terms of contract.

You don't really buy a phone number or a domain name, you buy the right to be redirected to under specific conditions.

[newbitech]

I believe I have mentioned this in my other 30 or so posts in the other 10 or so threads on this subject, but to answer this specific question it is their dishonesty and way they handled the situation that makes me hope Ron Paul gets the site for as cheap as possible.

So to be clear, you are saying they are dishonest because.
1.) The UN report (proven to be true)
2.) anonymous domain registration (removed when the anonymous service bailed due to the arb filing)
3.) ??

and that you disliked them going public with the matter and ???

I just want to be clear, you highlighted and said you have spoken to the question of why you have a problem with this. In the context I asked that question, you have a problem with Ron Paul not being able to meet a demand for association either by presence or by having his signature on novelty items like t-shirt, coffee cups, and bumper stickers.

[kcchiefs6465]

So to be clear, you are saying they are dishonest because.
1.) The UN report (proven to be true)
2.) anonymous domain registration (removed when the anonymous service bailed due to the arb filing)
3.) ??

and that you disliked them going public with the matter and ???

I just want to be clear, you highlighted and said you have spoken to the question of why you have a problem with this. In the context I asked that question, you have a problem with Ron Paul not being able to meet a demand for association either by presence or by having his signature on novelty items like t-shirt, coffee cups, and bumper stickers.
Seemingly trying to attribute Ron Paul going to WIPO as a 'conscious' (for lack of a better word, can't think of one at the moment) decision instead of his lawyers advising him on domain laws and telling him where to go.

Trying to sell him a list of email addresses- 'including it' (as if it's some sort of favor) for the ridiculous $848,000 dollar offer, or $250,000 offer.

Not disclosing the amount of money made during high demand times, though reasonable estimates here have it at a pretty penny- upwards of $5,000 to $10,000 monthly
(Note that this is, of course, optional. But had they done this, maybe some people would still be on their side)

Not responding directly on these forums, whatsoever, though using speculation said here first as a basis of attacks against others. (the majority here know who the insiders of ronpaul.com are. They might as well state as much and explain their position)

The deletion of the complaint from the website. (lawyers told them to, got it :rolleyes:)

The other information just recently posted.. different websites, Panamanian corporations, Austrailian registrars...

Though I do believe you have directly responded to the majority of my other posts? With that, I would assume you are trying to further stir the pot. You know how I feel. I know how you feel. Unless you are ready to say/admit you are directly related to the website and have the authority to speak/are speaking for them, I really cgafl.

[ClydeCoulter]

I didn't vote. There was no "neutral" or "work it out between yourselves fairly" option.

[PatriotOne]

Does all of that entitle Ron Paul to confiscate their property without compensation? They still paid $25,000+ to acquire the domain

Yes, it does entitle Ron to take the domain without compensation. In fact, it entitles Ron, if he choose to do so, to take them to court and sue them for damages up to 100k. They are cybersquatting. If I paid 25k for a kilogram of cocaine to resell doesn't make me any less a drug dealer.

[PatriotOne]

1.) good for them. Built up websites tend to bring a lot more than $500 bucks.

2.) So if I start complaining about the posters in this forum, you gonna demand to know their personal business?

3.) So you are claiming there was a threat of violence against Ron Paul now? You claiming that Ron Paul had something to lose in this matter for the last 5 years?


There is just as much evidence that they are Ron Paul supporters as the owners of this forum and pretty much every other major and minor Ron Paul themed site on the web. Just so happened they were the ones who took the risk on controlling the domains they control. No one else had the balls or the money to do it, and they did it better than all of em. sure, they had the advantage of being the perfect SEO hit. But they didn't let that go to waste, nor did they shame the man in doing so. Unlike everyone else who profited off his name and likeness.

1. Not when it is not theirs to sell in the first place.

2. Are they trying to blackmail Ron? If so, then yes.

3. I said nothing about them threatening physical violence. They were engaging in psychological extortion when they posted their diatribe on the website. Yes. Ron did have something to lose. Merchandise sales for one example.

[newbitech]

1. Not when it is not theirs to sell in the first place.

2. Are they trying to blackmail Ron? If so, then yes.

3. I said nothing about them threatening physical violence. They were engaging in psychological extortion when they posted their diatribe on the website. Yes. Ron did have something to lose. Merchandise sales for one example.

1.) did they not legitimately purchase the right to control the domain? Are you saying that the person who originally held that control, a Mr. Ron Paul trademark owner of the mark Ron Paul did not have the right to sell his control to the highest bidder? If selling control of the domain was legitimate, then how can the person who purchased that control be illegitimate?

2.) Blackmail? I don't see any evidence to qualify what is going on here as blackmail. Did ronpaul.com make any threats? I didn't see where those threats if any were sourced back to them.

3.) You said extortion, and now blackmail. Now you are calling it psychological extortion. What exactly is that? I found some references to emotional extortion. Perhaps that is what you believe is happening? Doesn't this usually occur between people who have a close family bond or friendship? Further, I would argue that the emotional extortion is more akin to someone trying to take something or profit from something with no effort other than the appeals to the emotion. I don't see how investing $25,000 and 5 years worth of work qualifies as no effort other than appeals to emotion. Certainly the two parties have no bond to leverage. In fact, Ron Paul used the tactic you are describing by going on Alex Jones and appealing to the emotions of his fan base to put pressure on ronpaul.com.

As far as Ron Paul having something to lose, merchandise sales, I do not even see where Ron Paul has ever had a profitable merchandise business that is competing with any of the many other merchandise businesses that would cut into anyone's sales. For instance, DailyPaul uses the same outlet for their merchandise, as do many others. This has been going on for 5 years. If we are honest about what is going on, this really isn't about Ron Paul's merchandise sales being damaged. That is just a manipulation of the facts tailored in such a way as to give the appearance of meeting one of the 3 pillars in the trademark infringement case. It's an extremely weak argument if its an argument at all.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Does all of that entitle Ron Paul to confiscate their property without compensation? They still paid $25,000+ to acquire the domain

They've been "compensating" themselves off of Ron Paul's name and image for years.

[PatriotOne]

1.) did they not legitimately purchase the right to control the domain? Are you saying that the person who originally held that control, a Mr. Ron Paul trademark owner of the mark Ron Paul did not have the right to sell his control to the highest bidder? If selling control of the domain was legitimate, then how can the person who purchased that control be illegitimate?

2.) Blackmail? I don't see any evidence to qualify what is going on here as blackmail. Did ronpaul.com make any threats? I didn't see where those threats if any were sourced back to them.

3.) You said extortion, and now blackmail. Now you are calling it psychological extortion. What exactly is that? I found some references to emotional extortion. Perhaps that is what you believe is happening? Doesn't this usually occur between people who have a close family bond or friendship? Further, I would argue that the emotional extortion is more akin to someone trying to take something or profit from something with no effort other than the appeals to the emotion. I don't see how investing $25,000 and 5 years worth of work qualifies as no effort other than appeals to emotion. Certainly the two parties have no bond to leverage. In fact, Ron Paul used the tactic you are describing by going on Alex Jones and appealing to the emotions of his fan base to put pressure on ronpaul.com.

As far as Ron Paul having something to lose, merchandise sales, I do not even see where Ron Paul has ever had a profitable merchandise business that is competing with any of the many other merchandise businesses that would cut into anyone's sales. For instance, DailyPaul uses the same outlet for their merchandise, as do many others. This has been going on for 5 years. If we are honest about what is going on, this really isn't about Ron Paul's merchandise sales being damaged. That is just a manipulation of the facts tailored in such a way as to give the appearance of meeting one of the 3 pillars in the trademark infringement case. It's an extremely weak argument if its an argument at all.

1. If I purchase a kilogram of cocaine for 25k and then engage in an illegal activity by reselling it, am I entitled to be reimbursed for my original investment?

2 and 3. This is exactly what they did when they put up their Ron Paul went to the UN to take my domain name away diatribe.

Psychological

In psychological coercion, the threatened injury regards the victim’s (RP) relationships with other people (supporters). The most obvious example is blackmail, where the threat consists of the dissemination of damaging information. However, many other types are possible e.g. so-called "emotional blackmail", which typically involves threats of rejection from or disapproval by a peer-group, or creating feelings of guilt/obligation via a display of anger or hurt by someone whom the victim loves or respects.

[angelatc]

The hipster trolls have cooled off and haven't checked in to vote. That's why it's changed.

I"ve been called trolls lots of times, but never a hipster. That's new.

[SilenceDewgooder]

That will tend to happen when new facts come out, and not just a biased report from the other side that Ron is taking it to the UN... You can see how that might have skewed public opinion.


Opinions are like history; the more you learn about the subject, the more it changes.

Do I need to say anything else? What about this topic "H.R.198: Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force"?

[newbitech]

1. If I purchase a kilogram of cocaine for 25k and then engage in an illegal activity by reselling it, am I entitled to be reimbursed for my original investment?

2 and 3. This is exactly what they did when they put up their Ron Paul went to the UN to take my domain name away diatribe.

Psychological

In psychological coercion, the threatened injury regards the victim’s (RP) relationships with other people (supporters). The most obvious example is blackmail, where the threat consists of the dissemination of damaging information. However, many other types are possible e.g. so-called "emotional blackmail", which typically involves threats of rejection from or disapproval by a peer-group, or creating feelings of guilt/obligation via a display of anger or hurt by someone whom the victim loves or respects.


Ok, so to be clear, you are saying #1 that Mr. Ron Paul owner of the trademark Ron Paul and the controller of the domain name ronpaul.com engaged in illegal activity by selling his control of the domain name to the current caretakers of ronpaul.com? You are comparing control of a domain name to an illegal substance, no? So at what point did control of the domain name become illegal? Certainly you are not now claiming that Mr. Ron Paul owner of the trademark Ron Paul was illegally in control of ronpaul.com when he put it up for auction. I also do not believe you are claiming that the auction itself was illegal. I can only assume that you mean control of ronpaul.com became illegal some time AFTER Mr. Ron Paul owner of the trademark Ron Paul relinquished control. Was it in the first 3 months while ronpaul.com was redirecting all traffic to the official campaign sites? Was it the day they started putting Dr. Ron Paul content on the server? His name? His Image? Was it the day they put up their first ad? The day they put up the store? The day they made their first sale?

I just want to be clear on when you think it became illegal for the caretakers of ronpaul.com to be in control of that domain name server record. Or if you believe that Mr. Ron Paul owner of the trademark Ron Paul illegally transferred control of the domain to anyone besides Dr. Ron Paul (or maybe someone else named Ron? Or Paul? or Ron Paul) or someone who owned the trademark perhaps?

Wasn't the "Ron Paul went to the UN to take away my domain name diatribe" a factual report? Certainly it did have an impact for many emotionally invested in the RonPaul "brand". However, those are the actions Ron Paul took. Reporting on them after the fact is not psychological coercion since there is no threat of damage. Everyone would have known well before hand that those headlines had the potential to damage Ron Paul's reputation. Unfortunately, those headlines weren't made up or threats even. It actually happened and at best you can only accuse ronpaul.com of telling the truth of the matter. Sometimes the truth does hurt. Since these headlines occurred after the fact of Ron Paul actually going to the UN, it's pretty obvious to me that the threat of potential damage these headlines might generate were already considered by Ron Paul and disregarded, since he commenced with the filing anyways. So it is impossible for them to have used the threat of this headline after the fact in order to coerce Ron Paul into paying them. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? From the evidence we do have, it is plain to see that in response to Ron Paul making HIS emotional appeal to his fans via Alex Jones, the ronpaul.com people set about a private course undisclosed to the public and appealed to Ron Paul's sense of VALUE for the domain. I find nothing coercive about this, at all.

I counter your claim in that it was Ron Paul making the emotional plea. "If I can't have the domain name I want, I will have to settle for something less". "please grassroots, put pressure on the people controlling ronpaul.com to give me what I want."

That i exactly what occurred. Threats, slander, accusations, hatred and all manner of vile insults spilled forth from the "grassroots" to which Ron Paul personally appealed in a feigned attempt to psychological coerce the people who control ronpaul.com into giving up that which they had legally gained control of through the open market for domain names. Further, Ron Paul has in fact employed in his charge an array of lawyers to bring his case before a global governing body in hopes of prying away control of something that he himself does not rightfully or legally control.

Yes, ICANN rules were agreed to by the domain holder. Rules in which Ron Paul also subjected himself while he had control of ronpaul.org and other sites that he has since abandoned. These rules say that domains are distributed on a first come first serve basis, and use it or lose it.

Certainly, the result of this dispute may come down to the decision of the arbitration panel, but to regardless of the decision the idea of the ronpaul.com people trying to coerce emotionally or otherwise is at odds with the facts of what has actually occurred.

[Article V]

Wow....many RPF members have flip-flopped

On my poll 70%+ agreed with RonPaul.com
On this poll 70%+ are agreeing with Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404065-Do-you-agree-with-Ron-Paul-s-claim-against-the-owner-of-RonPaul-comI doubt many RPF members have flip-flopped. The polls are two entirely different questions. In other words, you can disagree with Dr. Paul's actions and think he's entirely wrong while also being more sympathetic toward him. I know that's how I feel.

This thread poll demands subjectivity; the other thread poll requests objectivity.

[PatriotOne]

Ok, so to be clear, you are saying #1 that Mr. Ron Paul owner of the trademark Ron Paul and the controller of the domain name ronpaul.com engaged in illegal activity by selling his control of the domain name to the current caretakers of ronpaul.com?

Not sure but I doubt the last owner had a responsibility to ensure the domain name was being used legally by the buyer.


You are comparing control of a domain name to an illegal substance, no?

Only because they are both illegal and a kilogram of cocaine costs ~25k (only because I googled it...I'm not a coke dealer :p.).


So at what point did control of the domain name become illegal?

When he started using it illegally as a cybersquatter.


Certainly you are not now claiming that Mr. Ron Paul owner of the trademark Ron Paul was illegally in control of ronpaul.com when he put it up for auction. I also do not believe you are claiming that the auction itself was illegal.

No and no.


I can only assume that you mean control of ronpaul.com became illegal some time AFTER Mr. Ron Paul owner of the trademark Ron Paul relinquished control. Was it in the first 3 months while ronpaul.com was redirecting all traffic to the official campaign sites? Was it the day they started putting Dr. Ron Paul content on the server? His name? His Image? Was it the day they put up their first ad? The day they put up the store? The day they made their first sale?

I just want to be clear on when you think it became illegal for the caretakers of ronpaul.com to be in control of that domain name server record. Or if you believe that Mr. Ron Paul owner of the trademark Ron Paul illegally transferred control of the domain to anyone besides Dr. Ron Paul (or maybe someone else named Ron? Or Paul? or Ron Paul) or someone who owned the trademark perhaps?

Wasn't the "Ron Paul went to the UN to take away my domain name diatribe" a factual report? Certainly it did have an impact for many emotionally invested in the RonPaul "brand". However, those are the actions Ron Paul took. Reporting on them after the fact is not psychological coercion since there is no threat of damage. Everyone would have known well before hand that those headlines had the potential to damage Ron Paul's reputation. Unfortunately, those headlines weren't made up or threats even. It actually happened and at best you can only accuse ronpaul.com of telling the truth of the matter. Sometimes the truth does hurt. Since these headlines occurred after the fact of Ron Paul actually going to the UN, it's pretty obvious to me that the threat of potential damage these headlines might generate were already considered by Ron Paul and disregarded, since he commenced with the filing anyways. So it is impossible for them to have used the threat of this headline after the fact in order to coerce Ron Paul into paying them. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? From the evidence we do have, it is plain to see that in response to Ron Paul making HIS emotional appeal to his fans via Alex Jones, the ronpaul.com people set about a private course undisclosed to the public and appealed to Ron Paul's sense of VALUE for the domain. I find nothing coercive about this, at all.

I counter your claim in that it was Ron Paul making the emotional plea. "If I can't have the domain name I want, I will have to settle for something less". "please grassroots, put pressure on the people controlling ronpaul.com to give me what I want."

That i exactly what occurred. Threats, slander, accusations, hatred and all manner of vile insults spilled forth from the "grassroots" to which Ron Paul personally appealed in a feigned attempt to psychological coerce the people who control ronpaul.com into giving up that which they had legally gained control of through the open market for domain names. Further, Ron Paul has in fact employed in his charge an array of lawyers to bring his case before a global governing body in hopes of prying away control of something that he himself does not rightfully or legally control.

Yes, ICANN rules were agreed to by the domain holder. Rules in which Ron Paul also subjected himself while he had control of ronpaul.org and other sites that he has since abandoned. These rules say that domains are distributed on a first come first serve basis, and use it or lose it.

Certainly, the result of this dispute may come down to the decision of the arbitration panel, but to regardless of the decision the idea of the ronpaul.com people trying to coerce emotionally or otherwise is at odds with the facts of what has actually occurred.

I've run out of time and have to prep for work. I'll try to get back to you on these later.

[newbitech]

Not sure but I doubt the last owner had a responsibility to ensure the domain name was being used legally by the buyer.



Only because they are both illegal and a kilogram of cocaine costs ~25k (only because I googled it...I'm not a coke dealer :p.).



When he started using it illegally as a cybersquatter.



No and no.



I've run out of time and have to prep for work. I'll try to get back to you on these later.

thank you for your commentary, i look forward to reading more about your thoughts in this matter.

[Athan]

Where is the "I am not involved nor do I wish to have an opinion" option?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I doubt many RPF members have flip-flopped. The polls are two entirely different questions. In other words, you can disagree with Dr. Paul's actions and think he's entirely wrong while also being more sympathetic toward him. I know that's how I feel.

This thread poll demands subjectivity; the other thread poll requests objectivity.

The other poll, started by qh4dotcom, was worded in a way that would have made Frank Luntz proud.

This poll is much more fairly-worded.

[newbitech]

The other poll, started by qh4dotcom, was worded in a way that would have made Frank Luntz proud.

This poll is much more fairly-worded.

yeah, polls (and opinions for that matter) that do not favor Ron Paul are always skewed aren't they?

[Danan]

I doubt many RPF members have flip-flopped. The polls are two entirely different questions. In other words, you can disagree with Dr. Paul's actions and think he's entirely wrong while also being more sympathetic toward him. I know that's how I feel.

This thread poll demands subjectivity; the other thread poll requests objectivity.

Not at all. The other poll requests subjectivity as well. "Do you agree with Ron Paul's decision to seize RonPaul.com from his supporters?" is just as "objective" as, "Whose side are you more sympathetic towards?"

Additional, qh4dotcom's poll doesn't even make any sense to me. He hasen't "decided" to "seize" anything. He made a complaint, stating that the ronpaul.com people are violating ICANN's rules. So what exactly is the question?

Whether Ron Paul has the legal right ot file a complaint? He obviously does.

Whether Ron Paul has the moral right to file this complaint (or whether it is "libertarian")? Absolutely, he is not using illegitimate force against the property of someone else. He is merely trying to point out a breaching of contract.

Whether Ron Paul will likely win the case? I'm not an expert. That's the arbitrators decision.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Not at all. The other poll requests subjectivity as well. "Do you agree with Ron Paul's decision to seize RonPaul.com from his supporters?" is just as "objective" as, "Whose side are you more sympathetic towards?"

In what fantasy world?

[qh4dotcom]

Simply, then quit selling Ron Paul shit. The money made off of ronpaul.com is directly attributed to Ron Paul. Their shitty setup is excused. The email addresses? The shirts? The hats? Who do you think got the demand up for that? Damn sure wasn't Tim Martin or the other names that pop up.

Would you expect ronpaulmarket.com, ronpaulswag.com, Ebay sellers, Zazzle, etc. to stop selling their Ron Paul stuff?

[fr33]

I"ve been called trolls lots of times, but never a hipster. That's new.

hah. I didn't mean everybody on that "side" of the argument. Just a certain percentage.

[PatriotOne]

From the evidence we do have, it is plain to see that in response to Ron Paul making HIS emotional appeal to his fans via Alex Jones, the ronpaul.com people set about a private course undisclosed to the public and appealed to Ron Paul's sense of VALUE for the domain. I find nothing coercive about this, at all.

I counter your claim in that it was Ron Paul making the emotional plea. "If I can't have the domain name I want, I will have to settle for something less". "please grassroots, put pressure on the people controlling ronpaul.com to give me what I want."

That i exactly what occurred. Threats, slander, accusations, hatred and all manner of vile insults spilled forth from the "grassroots" to which Ron Paul personally appealed in a feigned attempt to psychological coerce the people who control ronpaul.com into giving up that which they had legally gained control of through the open market for domain names.

Continuing my reply from earlier.....

When I read that I thought that's not the Ron Paul I know. Did he really do that? I hadn't heard that Ron Paul interview with Alex Jones myself so I went and found it and listened. You have grossly mischaracterized that interview. Did you even listen to it yourself?

In case you haven't heard the exchange it's at the very end of the interview starting around 24:50 to 25:15. Far from the psychological warfare you described being unleashed by Ron. That's ridiculous.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_jOOckizfY

[PatriotOne]

Wasn't the "Ron Paul went to the UN to take away my domain name diatribe" a factual report? Certainly it did have an impact for many emotionally invested in the RonPaul "brand". However, those are the actions Ron Paul took. Reporting on them after the fact is not psychological coercion since there is no threat of damage. Everyone would have known well before hand that those headlines had the potential to damage Ron Paul's reputation. Unfortunately, those headlines weren't made up or threats even. It actually happened and at best you can only accuse ronpaul.com of telling the truth of the matter. Sometimes the truth does hurt. Since these headlines occurred after the fact of Ron Paul actually going to the UN, it's pretty obvious to me that the threat of potential damage these headlines might generate were already considered by Ron Paul and disregarded, since he commenced with the filing anyways.

I've tried to stay away from the UN debate but.....

You guys are being so melodramatic about this. You make it sound like Ron caught a plane to Geneva and burst in on the United Nations general assembly demanding them to intervene and get his domain name back. Puhleeze!

This is probably a closer scenario.

Ron lawyer: Hey Ron. You remember that parasite who wanted 848k for the ronpaul.com domain name?

Ron: Yes.

Ron lawyer: I've been looking into this a bit. He's what they call a cybersquatter and there are laws against leeches profiting off of your name and holding the domain hostage for exorbitant amounts of $.

Ron: Oh really?

Ron lawyer: Yes. There's a simple process of filing a dispute and it will only cost a couple grand.. I can have a staffer draw up your affidavit for your review and signature.

Ron: Sounds good. I have no use for blood sucking leeches. Okay...Ron wouldn't have said that last part but maybe thought it.

I bet the first time Ron heard about ICANN being an agency of the UN is when ronpaul.com went all drama queen about it.

[newbitech]

Patriot, I just listen to the language you use to color the facts of the matter and I will be honest, it makes me want to laugh. But really your colorful language doesn't change any of the facts that have been laid out in this case.

I didn't grossly characterize anything btw. I would point out that Ron Paul has a much tighter psychological bond with the grassroots than does ronpaul.com anonymous webmasters.

So what who is more like to use the extortion tactic you described successfully? That's right, crafty ol Ron Paul. Went on the alex jones show to play dumb about getting a domain named called ronpaulshomepage.com

Anyone knows how ridiculous that sounds and it just tugs at the heart strings. Oh come on ronpaul.com people don't force poor old granpa ron to have to settle for such a stupid domain name!

On the other hand, imagine the shock a long time supporter would feel when something he's spent the better part of 5 years running is about to get snatched from him by the very man he's been running it for?

Ronpaul.com people weren't going to get a radio show with alex jones, and they certainly weren't going to get any love from you or anyone else manipulated by Ron's theatrics on alex jones.

So they told their story on the one platform it actually made sense to tell it. There website! You call this blackmail, I call it obvious.

Do you see how quickly that word got out and how it circulated thru all the sites?

That is the power of a #1 traffic website under that particular domain (domain in the sense of category not in the sense of domain name). So it showed me that what these folks have indeed done is not squat the domain or let it go to waste the last 5 years. They made is a powerful source for the outside world to connect with Ron Paul.

To bad no one appreciated that until after the people running the site were banished from the island.

[CPUd]

...
So what who is more like to use the extortion tactic you described successfully? That's right, crafty ol Ron Paul. Went on the alex jones show to play dumb about getting a domain named called ronpaulshomepage.com

Anyone knows how ridiculous that sounds and it just tugs at the heart strings. Oh come on ronpaul.com people don't force poor old granpa ron to have to settle for such a stupid domain name!

...


^^ whether intentional or not, this is what started the whole thing. And it is just as plausible that Ron went on the radio knowing full well that by saying it on the AJ show, he could get the dailypaul crowd to put pressure on ronpaul.com operators to at least make some kind of statement about it.

[Ender]

Patriot, I just listen to the language you use to color the facts of the matter and I will be honest, it makes me want to laugh. But really your colorful language doesn't change any of the facts that have been laid out in this case.

I didn't grossly characterize anything btw. I would point out that Ron Paul has a much tighter psychological bond with the grassroots than does ronpaul.com anonymous webmasters.

So what who is more like to use the extortion tactic you described successfully? That's right, crafty ol Ron Paul. Went on the alex jones show to play dumb about getting a domain named called ronpaulshomepage.com

Anyone knows how ridiculous that sounds and it just tugs at the heart strings. Oh come on ronpaul.com people don't force poor old granpa ron to have to settle for such a stupid domain name!

On the other hand, imagine the shock a long time supporter would feel when something he's spent the better part of 5 years running is about to get snatched from him by the very man he's been running it for?

Ronpaul.com people weren't going to get a radio show with alex jones, and they certainly weren't going to get any love from you or anyone else manipulated by Ron's theatrics on alex jones.

So they told their story on the one platform it actually made sense to tell it. There website! You call this blackmail, I call it obvious.

Do you see how quickly that word got out and how it circulated thru all the sites?

That is the power of a #1 traffic website under that particular domain (domain in the sense of category not in the sense of domain name). So it showed me that what these folks have indeed done is not squat the domain or let it go to waste the last 5 years. They made is a powerful source for the outside world to connect with Ron Paul.

To bad no one appreciated that until after the people running the site were banished from the island.

Ol' crafty Ron Paul, eh? That's a pretty POS statement about a man that has dedicated his life to the liberty of others.

You are doing a lot of assuming here and it seems that you actually enjoy your personal diatribe against a man who has opened more minds to the cause of freedom than than any living being in the past 100 years.

I really don't know much of the details of this incident but there is one thing I do know that's true: people usually accuse others of what they are themselves.

Pretty sickening.

[MisfitToy]

Patriot, I just listen to the language you use to color the facts of the matter and I will be honest, it makes me want to laugh. But really your colorful language doesn't change any of the facts that have been laid out in this case.

You do more coloring on this subject then a two year old with crayolas.

Examine the following new hypocrisies:


I didn't grossly characterize anything btw.

That is grossly characterizing


I would point out that Ron Paul has a much tighter psychological bond with the grassroots than does ronpaul.com anonymous webmasters.

Pure assumption.


So what who is more like to use the extortion tactic you described successfully? That's right, crafty ol Ron Paul. Went on the alex jones show to play dumb about getting a domain named called ronpaulshomepage.com

Anyone knows how ridiculous that sounds and it just tugs at the heart strings. Oh come on ronpaul.com people don't force poor old granpa ron to have to settle for such a stupid domain name!

Pure assumption and coloring of "facts". The rest of your conjecture I won't even address because it's redundant. Matter of fact this whole issue is redundant. It just astounds me how you can be so condescending while doing the same things you bash others for.

You have no facts in this at all. You have no more information then anyone else. You just choose to side with RP.com people over Ron Paul.

Others choose to side with Ron Paul probably because he has a very long history of being honest and he's doing nothing wrong here by following rules that were already in place. He's not taking away a website, he's taking the traffic his name generates by claiming rights to his name.

It's hilarious you'd call someone like me a Ron Paul cliff-jumper. I never even cared about this subject until the MSM tried to blast him. I dislike subject spinning and you sir are rather grandiose at it. Unfortunately for you, you've never presented any "facts" that changed my mind on this subject. You just colored the story your way. Sorry you can't see that but don't take it out on the rest of us who don't think much of your art work.

[newbitech]

blah blah, i wish my opinion was relevant blah blah

all i've done is give facts. You twist my response to someone else without even considering the context. No of course you didn't care about this issue until just a few weeks ago.

Ironically, neither did Ron Paul.

[PatriotOne]

[QUOTE]Patriot, I just listen to the language you use to color the facts of the matter and I will be honest, it makes me want to laugh.

That's good. I intentionally try to interject some humor in the subject so I'll take that as a compliment :).


I didn't grossly characterize anything btw. I would point out that Ron Paul has a much tighter psychological bond with the grassroots than does ronpaul.com anonymous webmasters.

So what who is more like to use the extortion tactic you described successfully? That's right, crafty ol Ron Paul. Went on the alex jones show to play dumb about getting a domain named called ronpaulshomepage.com

Anyone knows how ridiculous that sounds and it just tugs at the heart strings. Oh come on ronpaul.com people don't force poor old granpa ron to have to settle for such a stupid domain name!

On the other hand, imagine the shock a long time supporter would feel when something he's spent the better part of 5 years running is about to get snatched from him by the very man he's been running it for?

Ronpaul.com people weren't going to get a radio show with alex jones, and they certainly weren't going to get any love from you or anyone else manipulated by Ron's theatrics on alex jones.

Listened again. Still not hearing all that in the 2 second mention of ronpaul.com and if you are it's only because that's what you want to hear at this point.

As a side note....we've got at least a month until a decision is made by the arbitrators.

[mport1]

How can you side with Ron Paul here? He is trying to infringe on somebody else's property rights.

[newbitech]

[QUOTE=newbitech;4888278]

That's good. I intentionally try to interject some humor in the subject so I'll take that as a compliment :).

Listened again. Still not hearing all that in the 2 second mention of ronpaul.com and if you are it's only because that's what you want to hear at this point.

As a side note....we've got at least a month until a decision is made by the arbitrators.

it's fine, I appreciate the humorous side of this as well.

Did you not notice how he emphasized "ronpaulshomepage.com"? That stuck out to me like a sore thumb when I first heard. If you go to "ronpaulshomepage.com" it's pretty obvious that he had no plans of getting that domain name!

How many people went to "ronpaulshomepage.com" after they heard Ron Paul say that on air and then after the many reposts of this vid later on?

If you will notice, RonPaulsHomepage.com IS being squatted and has been since the day it was registered which "coincidentally" was the day the show aired on Alex Jones.

But, there was absolutely NO outcry for what is being done on RonPaulsHomepage.com. NONE. I would not be surprised at all if people have actually went to RonPaulsHomepage.com, and see the message they have up, and get extremely pissed because THIS is what Ron Paul must be fighting against!

Everyone against RonPaul.com has been busting their chops trying to find out who those folks are, but no one seems to care about the people squatting ronpaulshomepage.com, you know the site that Ron Paul said was his?

Again, listen how he emphasizes ronpaulshomepage.com He was passing this information to Alex Jones as if it were the official link to his site. What's going on there? Maybe he just misspoke about it, but I am not gonna sit here an believe that Ron Paul is clueless about how the internet works as far as domain names.

He gets credit all the time for running an internet savvy campaign. It's not because he is an idiot about the internet.

Ron Paul is an expert when it comes to rallying grassroots to his cause. He is methodical and plans his steps in advance. I cannot believe that Ron Paul didn't know before he mentioned ronpaulshomepage.com that he was going to be filing with the UN against ronpaul.com. I also cannot believe that Ron Paul didn't know that he was never going to get ronpaulshomepage.com, and I do believe he doesn't wanted, never wanted, and only mentioned it to gain sympathy for not being able to control ronpaul.com and instead had to settle for an idiot domain name.

[Danan]

How can you side with Ron Paul here? He is trying to infringe on somebody else's property rights.

No he's not.

[qh4dotcom]

How can you side with Ron Paul here? He is trying to infringe on somebody else's property rights.

Exactly.

How come the owners of ronpaulforums.com, dailypaul.com, ronpaulmarket.com, ronpaulswag.com, etc. have property rights and the owners of ronpaul.com don't?

How come the owners of ronpaul.com have property rights over their other Ron Paul domains ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc and they don't have property rights over ronpaul.com?

How come the owners of ronpaul.com were allowed to operate a website for 5 years if they didn't have property rights?

[Ender]

Exactly.

How come the owners of ronpaulforums.com, dailypaul.com, ronpaulmarket.com, ronpaulswag.com, etc. have property rights and the owners of ronpaul.com don't?

How come the owners of ronpaul.com have property rights over their other Ron Paul domains ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc and they don't have property rights over ronpaul.com?

How come the owners of ronpaul.com were allowed to operate a website for 5 years if they didn't have property rights?

Your POV on property rights is like comparing democracy with a constitutional republic.

The first is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner.

The 2nd is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner, but lamb's not on the menu.

This is not rocket science.

The ronpaul.com site insinuates that the site is the main forum for Ron Paul, the man. NONE of the other titles do- you will go to them expecting a fan or merchandise site.

When someone takes a celebrity's name, without permission, and uses it to entice people to it to find out about that celebrity, to make money, WITHOUT that person's permission, they have overstepped the boundaries into that celebrity's personal property. Ron Paul's name is his personal property; ronpaul.com is THE most obvious domain that would seem to be his site for real RP information. (And don't even go to the "what about other people names Ron Paul, because that is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with this.)

These people have a perfect profile of cybersquatters- 100's of domain names, registered outside the country, difficulty in finding the name of the CEO or person in charge.

[newbitech]

Exactly.

How come the owners of ronpaulforums.com, dailypaul.com, ronpaulmarket.com, ronpaulswag.com, etc. have property rights and the owners of ronpaul.com don't?

How come the owners of ronpaul.com have property rights over their other Ron Paul domains ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc and they don't have property rights over ronpaul.com?

How come the owners of ronpaul.com were allowed to operate a website for 5 years if they didn't have property rights?

the going theory is that ICANN owns the property (it does not), and that we all simply "lease" or "rent" the property.

The question really needs to be, what property? Here is a quick run down from the inside out.

The "owners" of the content such as ronpaul.com, ronpaulforums.com etc, what they do typically is purchase a hosting service to run a webserver, database, and programming language (php, asp, ruby, etc). That is a hosting company(think godaddy).

They could and I have done host their own webserver on any machine that will run the software from a home or office of their own. They don't because it costs 1000's to run a machine (hardware, failover, loadbalancing, etc etc). But they could.

Host companies often sell their DNS service along with the webserver hosting. They could also set up their own name service at home or more than likely use one of the many free name servers available.

Name servers communicate with the root dns run by ICANN.

ICANN commissions registrars to sell off name resolution to the DNS zone server from its root or core dns.

There isn't really any property at all in the matter of domain names. It's all services, unless you want to start talking about the programs that run these systems, or the data these systems store.

When people say Josh owns these boards, he owns the keys to the software and the keys to the data.

The same could be said about the control of the domain name resolution to the IP address that points to what we now know as RonPaul.com.

In the sense that RonPaul.com people hold the keys to the domain resolution to their IP address, the do own the domain name.

However, they are not at the top of the food chain. There is someone else with a master key.

The same could be said about josh's ownership of these forums. If he managed to violate the TOS of his host, and did not have a local backup or a remote mirror to this database and his software, his host could pull the plug and Josh would no longer own this forum.

[newbitech]

Your POV on property rights is like comparing democracy with a constitutional republic.

The first is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner.

The 2nd is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner, but lamb's not on the menu.

This is not rocket science.

The ronpaul.com site insinuates that the site is the main forum for Ron Paul, the man. NONE of the other titles do- you will go to them expecting a fan or merchandise site.

When someone takes a celebrity's name, without permission, and uses it to entice people to it to find out about that celebrity, to make money, WITHOUT that person's permission, they have overstepped the boundaries into that celebrity's personal property. Ron Paul's name is his personal property; ronpaul.com is THE most obvious domain that would seem to be his site for real RP information. (And don't even go to the "what about other people names Ron Paul, because that is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with this.)

These people have a perfect profile of cybersquatters- 100's of domain names, registered outside the country, difficulty in finding the name of the CEO or person in charge.

no it doesnt and no they dont.

[qh4dotcom]

The ronpaul.com site insinuates that the site is the main forum for Ron Paul, the man. NONE of the other titles do- you will go to them expecting a fan or merchandise site.

When someone takes a celebrity's name, without permission, and uses it to entice people to it to find out about that celebrity, to make money, WITHOUT that person's permission, they have overstepped the boundaries into that celebrity's personal property. Ron Paul's name is his personal property; ronpaul.com is THE most obvious domain that would seem to be his site for real RP information. (And don't even go to the "what about other people names Ron Paul, because that is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with this.)

These people have a perfect profile of cybersquatters- 100's of domain names, registered outside the country, difficulty in finding the name of the CEO or person in charge.

Nope...politicians' names and images are public domain...perfectly acceptable to profit from public domain...go to Ebay and do a search for Obama...you will see hundreds of Ebay sellers making money using Obama's name and without Obama's permission.

RonPaul.com has disclaimers saying it's run by grassroots supporters and not approved by Ron Paul...the image at the top says "fan site".

[Ender]

Nope...politicians' names and images are public domain...perfectly acceptable to profit from public domain...go to Ebay and do a search for Obama...you will see hundreds of Ebay sellers making money using Obama's name and without Obama's permission.

RonPaul.com has disclaimers saying it's run by grassroots supporters and not approved by Ron Paul...the image at the top says "fan site".

NOW it says "fan site". It did not just a few days ago. In fact the whole place has changed extensively since I searched it.

Wonder why?:rolleyes:

[CaptLouAlbano]

Do we know if Ron Paul refiled the UDRP paperwork or not?

[CaptLouAlbano]

NOW it says "fan site". It did not just a few days ago. In fact the whole place has changed extensively since I searched it.

Wonder why?:rolleyes:

It has had the fan site logo since Nov 2010, web archive shows this - http://web.archive.org/web/20101101191048/http://www.ronpaul.com/

It has had the disclaimer (which really is all that is required) since May of 2008 when the site was launched - http://web.archive.org/web/20080519212829/http://www.ronpaul.com/

[sailingaway]

Nope...politicians' names and images are public domain...perfectly acceptable to profit from public domain...go to Ebay and do a search for Obama...you will see hundreds of Ebay sellers making money using Obama's name and without Obama's permission.

RonPaul.com has disclaimers saying it's run by grassroots supporters and not approved by Ron Paul...the image at the top says "fan site".

Then how come Hillary Clinton and Boris Johnson won their claims?

Ron hasn't asked for money in trust collected for tshirts, he just wants to do business under his own name, and doesn't think he should have to change his name to do that. The value of the site is based on HIS fame. And the 'property rights' the site registrant had in the license to use that name for the domain owner specifically prohibited certain uses, so the domain registrant never had property rights to use it that way.

The claim is whether the registrant violated those rules or not, and Ron first tried to buy the site and had it appraised, in light of the fact that the site was supportive.

The arbitrators will decide who is right under their site rules, however, as I see it there are equities on the side of the registrant only to the extent it was a real supporter, to my mind, since the rules do exist. Someone posted about them putting up a long period of material at once and back dating it, and gave some dates of that. The more of that that was done, the more it looks like the information on there was secondary to show casing the ad potential. I don't know about that, because I stopped going there when the media kept confusing the site as Ron's and the most they did was put up a badge in the screen after the welcome screen, saying 'fan site' - which didn't stop the media thinking it was his. To my mind this kept people from seeing Ron's own site and getting their email addresses into his campaign organization lists. Never once in the time I've been here have I gotten news from there to post here, we ALWAYS had it before them, though, so maybe post dating stuff was typical there.

Now we find out the registrant is a panamanian company created to buy and sell domains, and is parked on multiple 'well known domain names' to get money off those, at least I see no other reason for their having them.

So I am less sympathetic than I was, but I still hope it settles, because they did still put up nice information. Ron obviously tried to go that route first. But if we are talking about what is the fair price, which it seems we are, since the site was for sale in any event, I hope the site owner is offering to help transfer the site authority, and is explaining why that is important to Ron. I am not at all confident those advising him on this are aware of that. I would like them to settle fairly, but not having all of the facts, I think we here are just spinning on this subject.

[newbitech]

NOW it says "fan site". It did not just a few days ago. In fact the whole place has changed extensively since I searched it.

Wonder why?:rolleyes:

no it hasn't

[CaptLouAlbano]

Then how come Hillary Clinton and Boris Johnson won their claims?

I have not read the Boris Johnson decision, but I have read the Clinton one. Clinton was able to show three things:

1) That the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
2) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the respondent.

In the Clinton case, the respondent did not offer any defense.

"The panel noted that as the respondent did not respond to the complaint, "[the Panel] has chosen to view the Complaint in a light most favourable to Complainant, and will accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true". The panel also assumed that, as the respondent failed to answer "Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name." Moreover, the panel found that "Respondent presumably derives commercial benefit by receiving click-through fees for redirecting Internet users to other commercial websites". (source: http://www.domainesinfo.fr/english/016/hillary-clinton-wins-hillaryclinton-com-case.php)

Whether Ron can prove all three of these points is yet to be determined. However, I am still unsure if they refiled or not.

[sailingaway]

It has had the fan site logo since Nov 2010, web archive shows this - http://web.archive.org/web/20101101191048/http://www.ronpaul.com/

It has had the disclaimer (which really is all that is required) since May of 2008 when the site was launched - http://web.archive.org/web/20080519212829/http://www.ronpaul.com/

Why do you keep saying a disclaimer at the bottom is 'really all that is required' when that is unsupported by law?

And the tiny fan badge was put up in response to people being pissed off, and commenting there to that effect for some time, that media confused it with Ron's site. The tiny badge may have clued a few in, but media continued to confuse it, and the site made no more changes that I noticed, which is why I stopped even going there when it came up in google search

You are consistently trying to paint Ron in a bad light, here, and with CPAC and whenever you see a possibility as far as I can tell.

[qh4dotcom]

Then how come Hillary Clinton and Boris Johnson won their claims?

The defendants could have hired incompetent lawyers, best lawyer wins.

[newbitech]

I have not read the Boris Johnson decision, but I have read the Clinton one. Clinton was able to show three things:

1) That the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
2) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the respondent.

Whether Ron can prove all three of these points is yet to be determined. However, I am still unsure if they refiled or not.

case is still in compliance review. I don't think the WIPO site posts immediately. WIPO decides to commence 5 days after the filing. If there is a problem with the filing, WIPO gives the complaint 5 days to correct the mistakes. I have been reading tho, that if the complaint doesn't respond to WIPO during compliance review, WIPO will attempt to contact them a couple of times. Then if complaint still doesn't respond, WIPO will commence if the case has merit even tho the complaint might not be in compliance. So we could see a commencement even tho the case may fall short of compliance. I am not sure how much bearing that has on a decision, but the one example I read extensively, WIPO did not rule in favor of the complain.

The complaint also named the privacy service as the respondent. In that particular case, WIPO went through the trouble of contacting the registrar and getting the information about the registered party and forwarded that information to the complainant. After 3 emails from WIPO to the complainant, the complainant still did not amend their complaint. Instead, the complainant sent WIPO a response saying "you have all the information you need". WIPO commenced and found denied the claim based on the complainant naming the wrong respondent. In that case no response was even filed.

I guess the point is, the only way we'll know if they commence is if WIPO updates the site or if one of the parties announces. Even if WIPO does commence, we are not likely to see the amended complain or have any further information about what the hang up was. Although, in the decision, we will see the procedural facts, which may explain why the original complaint was rejected.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Why do you keep saying a disclaimer at the bottom is 'really all that is required' when that is unsupported by law?

And the tiny fan badge was put up in response to people being pissed off, and commenting there to that effect for some time, that media confused it with Ron's site. The tiny badge may have clued a few in, but media continued to confuse it, and the site made no more changes that I noticed, which is why I stopped even going there when it came up in google search.

They could put a big flashing red light saying "This is not Ron Paul's official site" and there still would be some people confused. People are idiots sometimes. The site owner is not responsible for people's failure to read the disclaimer or their choice to ignore the graphic on the site.

When I say that is all that is required, there is no law per se on website disclaimers that I am aware of. But a disclaimer is used on all sites for the simple purpose of limiting liability of the website owner. Just as this site has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page to limit its liability.

[CaptLouAlbano]

The defendants could have hired incompetent lawyers, best lawyer wins.

In the Clinton case they never responded.

[sailingaway]

They could put a big flashing red light saying "This is not Ron Paul's official site" and there still would be some people confused. People are idiots sometimes. The site owner is not responsible for people's failure to read the disclaimer or their choice to ignore the graphic on the site.

When I say that is all that is required, there is no law per se on website disclaimers that I am aware of. But a disclaimer is used on all sites for the simple purpose of limiting liability of the website owner. Just as this site has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page to limit its liability.


Yeah, and there are tons of cases on when a disclaimer isn't big enough or obvious enough to overcome the overwhelming visual impact leading to a reasonable belief of sponsorship.

[newbitech]

Why do you keep saying a disclaimer at the bottom is 'really all that is required' when that is unsupported by law?

And the tiny fan badge was put up in response to people being pissed off, and commenting there to that effect for some time, that media confused it with Ron's site. The tiny badge may have clued a few in, but media continued to confuse it, and the site made no more changes that I noticed, which is why I stopped even going there when it came up in google search

You are consistently trying to paint Ron in a bad light, here, and with CPAC and whenever you see a possibility as far as I can tell.

lol "tiny". It's obviously noticeable. They didn't even have to do that. The disclaimer was placed in the standard location where everyone looks for trademark and copyright notice. IN the footer. Also, the site redirected to the campaign site until it got going live.

The site was not, and has not been masquerading as the official Ron Paul site since it was transferred to the new "owners". So the media confused the site, and the and rather than allowing that confusion to continue, IN GOOD FAITH, the added the teeny weenie barely legible need a magnifying glass to see it from 2 inches away badge. They didn't have to do that.

Ron Paul never came out and told anyone that the site was masquerading as him. There may have been some people confused about the site, but the site owners did everything they could to make that right. I think they even refunded donations to people who were confused! That is in good faith. That is the honest thing to do.

I am sure folks would have been happy if the site looked more like ronpaulshomepage.com for the past 5 years. Ironically, the only reason Ron Paul even has a case is because the people ran a good honest Ron Paul information site. Had they been running something like ronpaulshomepage.com, no case at all!

It's so sick and twisted that people would rather have a dead site at ronpaul.com instead of what we have now. But really, that is what people arguing against RonPaul.com are arguing FOR. There is just no sense of justice at all, and if there is, it's coming across as vanity of the highest order.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yeah, and there are tons of cases on when a disclaimer isn't big enough or obvious enough to overcome the overwhelming visual impact leading to a reasonable belief of sponsorship.

Maybe there are. Nonetheless, that really only addresses one of the 3 points that are needed to be proven, that being point one on the issue of confusion. The question that might be addressed though is if Ron Paul was the holder of the mark at the time of purchase and site launch. If I recall from reading on here, he was not.

[sailingaway]

I am sure folks would have been happy if the site looked more like ronpaulshomepage.com for the past 5 years. Ironically, the only reason Ron Paul even has a case is because the people ran a good honest Ron Paul information site. Had they been running something like ronpaulshomepage.com, no case at all!

It's so sick and twisted that people would rather have a dead site at ronpaul.com instead of what we have now. But really, that is what people arguing against RonPaul.com are arguing FOR. There is just no sense of justice at all, and if there is, it's coming across as vanity of the highest order.


No, that is the part that gives them any equities in MY judgement (as a Ron Paul supporter, not necessarily as an arbitrator). But the entire claim aside, I would really like Ron to get the authority that site has, and I agree it is worth money although I have no experience to value it, and he wouldn't get that, as I understand from reading these threads, unless the current domain owner cooperates to transfer it. It has consistently been on the first page of Ron Paul google searches -- a huge reason WHY people have confused it as his. That dominance takes authority, and I don't know if the people advising him are helping him to realize what it takes, and what it would take for him to keep it. Or what it is worth.

[sailingaway]

Maybe there are. Nonetheless, that really only addresses one of the 3 points that are needed to be proven, that being point one on the issue of confusion. The question that might be addressed though is if Ron Paul was the holder of the mark at the time of purchase and site launch. If I recall from reading on here, he was not.

Wrong, Ron published books in the 80s and traveled giving speeches etc. The initial complaint even said that. That is before the INITIAL purchase, and I don't know if they even know about the resale in 2007/2008 on ebay. There is no question Ron had trademark before that. Since the time the current owner took it, it has reflected THIS Ron Paul.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Wrong, Ron published books in the 80s and traveled giving speeches etc. The initial complaint even said that. That is before the INITIAL purchase, and I don't know if they even know about the resale in 2007/2008 on ebay. There is no question Ron had trademark before that. Since the time the current owner took it, it has reflected THIS Ron Paul.

This might be of some interest. From an article written by an attorney (http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/222994/Trademark/Ron+Paul+Seeks+To+Liberate+RonpaulComFrom+The+Hand s+Of+Ron+Paul+Supporters)

"In support of the first UDRP prong, Ron Paul alleges trademark rights in the mark RON PAUL in connection with books and other writings, public speaking, counseling, and political commentary. While he may indeed have trademark rights in his name, he does not point to any federal registrations to support his claim (his consulting company's application to register RON PAUL, filed back in 2007, was abandoned for failure to file a Statement of Use). While federal registrations are not necessary to establish trademark rights and prevail in a UDRP proceeding, they can help considerably, quickly establishing the first prong and often helping to establish bad faith domain name registration. Trademark registrations are particularly helpful when filing UDRP complaints involving personal names, as even the names of famous people might not necessarily be considered to be trademarks without ample evidence of actual trademark use. Although the evidence submitted in support of Ron Paul's claim to trademark rights has not been made public, he may well satisfy this prong. Other sections of the complaint refer to the RON PAUL mark itself as "famous," which is a considerably steeper hurdle (a "famous" person does not necessarily equal a trademark, let alone a "famous" trademark)."

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

There is already a poll on this. Not to mention that 'FINAL polls' were funny for the first few times I saw them but after the last 50 or so I'd say they are getting borderline annoying.

Borderline? Borderline? BORDERLINE?

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/there-s-a-point-where-you-should-stop-and-clearly-we-ve-passed-it.png

FFS, this has turned into a valid, intelligent discussion. Must it be burdened with this ridiculous "FINAL" bullshit?

[compromise]

No neutral/don't care option?

[newbitech]

In the Clinton case they never responded.

I thought this was interesting.


However, there is insufficient evidence that his personal name has been used commercially as a trademark to promote goods and services, other than the incorporation of "Ted Turner" into the name TTFP. The inclusion of the Turner name in that of several media companies is not enough to make the name ‘Ted Turner’ a trademark at common law.

[sailingaway]

This might be of some interest. From an article written by an attorney (http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/222994/Trademark/Ron+Paul+Seeks+To+Liberate+RonpaulComFrom+The+Hand s+Of+Ron+Paul+Supporters)

"In support of the first UDRP prong, Ron Paul alleges trademark rights in the mark RON PAUL in connection with books and other writings, public speaking, counseling, and political commentary. While he may indeed have trademark rights in his name, he does not point to any federal registrations to support his claim (his consulting company's application to register RON PAUL, filed back in 2007, was abandoned for failure to file a Statement of Use). While federal registrations are not necessary to establish trademark rights and prevail in a UDRP proceeding, they can help considerably, quickly establishing the first prong and often helping to establish bad faith domain name registration. Trademark registrations are particularly helpful when filing UDRP complaints involving personal names, as even the names of famous people might not necessarily be considered to be trademarks without ample evidence of actual trademark use. Although the evidence submitted in support of Ron Paul's claim to trademark rights has not been made public, he may well satisfy this prong. Other sections of the complaint refer to the RON PAUL mark itself as "famous," which is a considerably steeper hurdle (a "famous" person does not necessarily equal a trademark, let alone a "famous" trademark)."

Not really, because the claims make it clear that you don't need to register, and Hillary Clinton hadn't, either.

[sailingaway]

I thought this was interesting.

And the last time you saw a Ted Turner tshirt was when?

Ted Turner isn't known as a celebrity mark in the same way Ron is.

[newbitech]

This might be of some interest. From an article written by an attorney (http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/222994/Trademark/Ron+Paul+Seeks+To+Liberate+RonpaulComFrom+The+Hand s+Of+Ron+Paul+Supporters)

"In support of the first UDRP prong, Ron Paul alleges trademark rights in the mark RON PAUL in connection with books and other writings, public speaking, counseling, and political commentary. While he may indeed have trademark rights in his name, he does not point to any federal registrations to support his claim (his consulting company's application to register RON PAUL, filed back in 2007, was abandoned for failure to file a Statement of Use). While federal registrations are not necessary to establish trademark rights and prevail in a UDRP proceeding, they can help considerably, quickly establishing the first prong and often helping to establish bad faith domain name registration. Trademark registrations are particularly helpful when filing UDRP complaints involving personal names, as even the names of famous people might not necessarily be considered to be trademarks without ample evidence of actual trademark use. Although the evidence submitted in support of Ron Paul's claim to trademark rights has not been made public, he may well satisfy this prong. Other sections of the complaint refer to the RON PAUL mark itself as "famous," which is a considerably steeper hurdle (a "famous" person does not necessarily equal a trademark, let alone a "famous" trademark)."

They actually got this part wrong tho. If you take a look at USTPO, you'll see the same attorney David P Cooper and the same city and state Portland Ore for the OTHER Ron Paul. So The Honorable Dr. Paul didn't file for primary register mark. He also didn't object to the use of his name for someone who registered with the following intent to use :
(ABANDONED) IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: political consulting; lobbying services, namely, promoting the interests of food-service providers, restaurants, farmers, and food-product providers of fruit, produce, fish, meat and game, all in the fields of news, legislation and regulation; business consulting services to civic organizations, and to individuals and companies

But the rest of this opinion is spot on.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Not really, because the claims make it clear that you don't need to register, and Hillary Clinton hadn't, either.

Read the Clinton decision. The domain owner did not respond, so they offered no defense. That weighed in the arbitrators decision and they stated so.

[newbitech]

And the last time you saw a Ted Turner tshirt was when?

Ted Turner isn't known as a celebrity mark in the same way Ron is.

celebrity mark? I'm sorry what is a celebrity mark?

The point was, just because he has a famous name doesn't give him secondary meaning. The test for secondary meaning is simple. When you think of Ron Paul, what do you think of?

[newbitech]

heres another interesting one.


The claim is barred by laches for the failure of Complainant to raise it until more than five years had passed since the registration of the disputed domain name.

alberteinstein.com

take a good long hard look at that site.

THAT is what cybersquatting looks like.

[sailingaway]

heres another interesting one.



alberteinstein.com

take a good long hard look at that site.

THAT is what cybersquatting looks like.

American Airlines didn't get theirs for a long time either.

We continue to spin when we just debate the merits of the case, since we don't even have the current complaint, much less are we the arbitrators who will decide this.

I do hope they are discussing pricing and effort to transfer site authority as part of a settlement instead of fighting the complaint out to the end, however.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I do hope they are discussing pricing and effort to transfer site authority as part of a settlement instead of fighting the complaint out to the end, however.

I agree. That is what should have been done from the start and would have avoided the bad press Ron Paul received from this. From a PR standpoint this was potentially more costly than whatever savings he might have netted by taking the domain through UDRP rather than negotiating a price.

[qh4dotcom]

We continue to spin when we just debate the merits of the case, since we don't even have the current complaint, much less are we the arbitrators who will decide this.


Sure we do

http://www.scribd.com/doc/124832322/RONPAUL-COM-Complaint

[sailingaway]

Read the Clinton decision. The domain owner did not respond, so they offered no defense. That weighed in the arbitrators decision and they stated so.

sure, but the primae facie case still had to be made that it was a trademark or the claim would have been lost.

[sailingaway]

Sure we do

http://www.scribd.com/doc/124832322/RONPAUL-COM-Complaint

That was the February 7 filing not the new one, which I am assuming, without knowing, was filed, since the media hasn't said it wasn't filed.

[K466]

This poll needs a neither (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?832-Ron-Paul-vs-Ron-Paul-com-Both-Are-in-the-Wrong)option...

...though aside from the libertarian issue at stake I'd of course pick Ron Paul.

[newbitech]

American Airlines didn't get theirs for a long time either.

We continue to spin when we just debate the merits of the case, since we don't even have the current complaint, much less are we the arbitrators who will decide this.

I do hope they are discussing pricing and effort to transfer site authority as part of a settlement instead of fighting the complaint out to the end, however.

Not really spin, just trying to show you how having a "famous" name is not enough to satisfy secondary meaning (ted turner) and even when it is (albert einstein) it's just 1 of 3 pillars that must be argued.

And even then, the panel takes the totality of the evidence. One good argument is all it takes to turn the claimant away empty handed.

That aspect of the UDRP has gone completely ignored. You see, UDRP is designed for clear cut cases of abusiveness. There is nothing clear cut about Ron Paul's claim.

This is the biggest part that upsets me about the whole thing to be honest. Had anyone around Ron Paul been doing there due diligence, none of this would be going on. And we will see what happens when the decision comes out, if at all.

In the mean time, its a very good study and worthy of discussion IMO. Once the emotion is detached from the scenario, certain truths come to light that would otherwise have escaped all of us. I find that valuable in and of itself. However, I do see this as a wasted opportunity to consolidate support for Ron Paul. This discussion should have happened YEARS ago.

In any event, I hope that Ron Paul eventually gets control of RonPaul.com, I just hope that when he does, the people around him are more responsible with HIS NAME than they have been in the past. I am extremely weary of that.

And you never answered my question. When you think of Ron Paul, or when you hear someone say his name, or you see his image, what do you think of?

[sailingaway]

And you never answered my question. When you think of Ron Paul, or when you hear someone say his name, or you see his image, what do you think of?

I think if all kinds of things, depending on the context. So I'm not sure what you are asking.

[newbitech]

Sure we do

http://www.scribd.com/doc/124832322/RONPAUL-COM-Complaint


better link. This one has the annexes full 65 page filing.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/125951143/Ron-Paul-Full-UDRP-complaint-with-ANNEX-against-ronpaul-com-WIPO-arbitration

[newbitech]

I think if all kinds of things, depending on the context. So I'm not sure what you are asking.

So you think of all kinds of things depending on the context. That is what I was asking.

Now, when you think of American Airlines, or when you hear someone say that name, or when you see their logo, what do you think of?

[sailingaway]

So you think of all kinds of things depending on the context. That is what I was asking.

Now, when you think of American Airlines, or when you hear someone say that name, or when you see their logo, what do you think of?

not a lot, to be honest.

I do know the definition of secondary meaning and I definitely think Ron has that.

But again you are arguing the merits, and again, I think that isn't very productive since the arbitrators, not we, will decide that.

[newbitech]

not a lot, to be honest.

I do know the definition of secondary meaning and I definitely think Ron has that.

But again you are arguing the merits, and again, I think that isn't very productive since the arbitrators, not we, will decide that.

exactly when you think of American Airlines, you don't think of a lot, for one very simple reason. The name has acquired distinctiveness. Ron Paul has not acquired distinctiveness.

We could do the same test on any other Descriptive or Generic mark which is the range that these two particular marks fall in terms of distinctiveness. But because American Airlines has acquired a secondary meaning to its Descriptive or Generic meaning, the trademark is protected. Ron Paul has acquired no such secondary meaning because you are unable to identify distinctiveness.

You need a context to have some idea of what the mark "Ron Paul" means. You do not need a context to have some idea what the mark "American Airlines" means. In fact, with the American Airlines mark, there is so much distinctiveness to it, that the utterance of the name or the image of the words or its logo is automatically associated with the service in your mind thus, not much thought is really needed to understand what "American Airlines" stands for.

Ron Paul on the other hand? Could stand for liberty and freedom. Could stand for the politician. Could stand for the OBGYN. Could stand for the inspirational speaker. Could stand for a number of different ideas or even services, again as you said, depending on the context.



We can try that test again if you like. In a court case with legal jurisdiction in intellectual property, these are formal tests that are conducted by both parties in the suit and presented as evidence. In fact, this was the exact subject of my witness testimony. I conducted the tests for the plaintiff, as well as gathered other evidence to establish secondary meaning. In that particular case we weren't even talking about an exact replication of the mark. Which made it all the more difficult, but provable non the less.

Distinctiveness is the key for establishing secondary meaning. Ron Paul, as Ted Turner is a common name. There is nothing inherently distinctive about the mark "Ron Paul". It is barely a descriptive mark, and I think I would come at this for Ron Paul as if it were a generic mark instead.

Yes he was an author and wrote many books with his name on them. He also ran a campaign that asked the question "Who is Ron Paul?" The grassroots celebrated in at the beginning of the 2012 primary season when it first became obvious that Ron Paul had become a household name. At that point the mark "Ron Paul" no doubt moved from being merely a generic common name mark, to becoming descriptive.

However, descriptive marks are not protected. So he would still need to move up at least one more level of distinction where Ron Paul would become suggestive of a particular product or service. I think that happened too. Ron Paul became suggestive of freedom and liberty. Ron Paul became suggestive of books and speeches.

So the only question really comes down to, is RonPaul.com violating Ron Paul's right to be suggestively related to the selling of freedom and liberty and/or suggestively related to the selling of books and speeches.

RonPaul.com represents neither. That is your context argument. If ronpaul.com began selling books under the mark, or selling freedom and liberty under the mark, or selling speaking engagements under the mark, then you have a solid case.

Otherwise, you have to further prove how people looking to buy Ron Paul's services are confused by RonPaul.com representation in their offerings (memorabilia from the political campaign.)

[PatriotOne]

it's fine, I appreciate the humorous side of this as well.

Did you not notice how he emphasized "ronpaulshomepage.com"? That stuck out to me like a sore thumb when I first heard. If you go to "ronpaulshomepage.com" it's pretty obvious that he had no plans of getting that domain name!

How many people went to "ronpaulshomepage.com" after they heard Ron Paul say that on air and then after the many reposts of this vid later on?

If you will notice, RonPaulsHomepage.com IS being squatted and has been since the day it was registered which "coincidentally" was the day the show aired on Alex Jones.

But, there was absolutely NO outcry for what is being done on RonPaulsHomepage.com. NONE. I would not be surprised at all if people have actually went to RonPaulsHomepage.com, and see the message they have up, and get extremely pissed because THIS is what Ron Paul must be fighting against!

Everyone against RonPaul.com has been busting their chops trying to find out who those folks are, but no one seems to care about the people squatting ronpaulshomepage.com, you know the site that Ron Paul said was his?

Again, listen how he emphasizes ronpaulshomepage.com He was passing this information to Alex Jones as if it were the official link to his site. What's going on there? Maybe he just misspoke about it, but I am not gonna sit here an believe that Ron Paul is clueless about how the internet works as far as domain names.

He gets credit all the time for running an internet savvy campaign. It's not because he is an idiot about the internet.

Ron Paul is an expert when it comes to rallying grassroots to his cause. He is methodical and plans his steps in advance. I cannot believe that Ron Paul didn't know before he mentioned ronpaulshomepage.com that he was going to be filing with the UN against ronpaul.com. I also cannot believe that Ron Paul didn't know that he was never going to get ronpaulshomepage.com, and I do believe he doesn't wanted, never wanted, and only mentioned it to gain sympathy for not being able to control ronpaul.com and instead had to settle for an idiot domain name.

Newbie's Ron Paul pre-complaint

http://i49.tinypic.com/2r75agn.jpg

Newbie's Ron Paul post complaint

http://i47.tinypic.com/mbloia.jpg

[newbitech]

Newbie's Ron Paul pre-complaint

http://i49.tinypic.com/2r75agn.jpg

Newbie's Ron Paul post complaint

http://i47.tinypic.com/mbloia.jpg

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc81/njriverman/republican%20gop/Ron-Paul-2012-google-18x24-jpg.jpg

will always be that image.

[PatriotOne]

In any event, I hope that Ron Paul eventually gets control of RonPaul.com, I just hope that when he does, the people around him are more responsible with HIS NAME than they have been in the past. I am extremely weary of that.


We agree on something :D. + rep

[newbitech]

We agree on something :D. + rep

I am sure we agree on lots of things :)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

This poll needs a neither (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?832-Ron-Paul-vs-Ron-Paul-com-Both-Are-in-the-Wrong)option...

It has one: don't vote in the poll.

No cop-out poll options. If one is going to vote, pick a side.

[angelatc]

It has consistently been on the first page of Ron Paul google searches -- a huge reason WHY people have confused it as his. That dominance takes authority, and I don't know if the people advising him are helping him to realize what it takes, and what it would take for him to keep it. Or what it is worth.


According to threads on this very forum, when the domain was sold Campaign For Liberty was the #1 site on Google's index. The .com wasn't anywhere on the first page. In fact, that was one of the arguments people had for him not buying it.

[sailingaway]

According to threads on this very forum, when the domain was sold Campaign For Liberty was the #1 site on Google's index. The .com wasn't anywhere on the first page. In fact, that was one of the arguments people had for him not buying it.

Which is why I say he added a value (though scooping up Ron's own sites and redirecting them there may have been part of it) which Ron isn't aware of and maybe hasn't valued in. And which Ron won't get transferred with the name if he wins his claim. I am suggesting that explaining that to him might help the parties settle.

[PatriotOne]

I am sure we agree on lots of things :)

After reading your posts for the past 5+yrs, I'd say we agree on most things. That's why I will give you a pass on your temporary insanity when all is said and done :p.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Which is why I say he added a value (though scooping up Ron's own sites and redirecting them there may have been part of it) which Ron isn't aware of and maybe hasn't valued in. And which Ron won't get transferred with the name if he wins his claim. I am suggesting that explaining that to him might help the parties settle.

Multiple domains pointing to one do not help with Google ranking. Now how come I can find this out, but others cannot?

http://www.seo.com/blog/multiple-domains-seo/

[newbitech]

After reading your posts for the past 5+yrs, I'd say we agree on most things. That's why I will give you a pass on your temporary insanity when all is said and done :p.

“There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.”
― Oscar Levant (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/504377.Oscar_Levant)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVOl49AHD6Q

with Fred Astaire


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGNih0TWAQs

[sailingaway]

Multiple domains pointing to one do not help with Google ranking. Now how come I can find this out, but others cannot?

http://www.seo.com/blog/multiple-domains-seo/

some here have said otherwise, but maybe I described it wrong. It has high authority and people on here were saying that will not be transfered with the name in a claim dispute but COULD be if the domain registrant reached a settlement and that was a part of it. I am just taking that as true, and saying Ron may well not be aware of that, and more information of the value of that might bring the parties together.

[CaptLouAlbano]

some here have said otherwise, but maybe I described it wrong. It has high authority and people on here were saying that will not be transfered with the name in a claim dispute but COULD be if the domain registrant reached a settlement and that was a part of it. I am just taking that as true, and saying Ron may well not be aware of that, and more information of the value of that might bring the parties together.

ronpaul.com is currently ranked high because of several factors that I have discovered when learning about all this: the number of pages (over 46,000), the optimization of each page as to pertinent key terms, the number of sites linking into it (over 300), the ranking of the sites linking to it (i.e. it is better to get a link from the NY Times than Joe's Opinion Blog), the "freshness" of the content, etc.

Basically, all of that goes away pretty quickly if Ron Paul takes over the domain and puts something new up on it. Google's bots will scan the site, see all the broken links, and slowly over time knock the site down in its rankings. Now this may or may not mean that ronpaul.com will be the #1 site when you search for "Ron Paul", but it is quite possible that C4L, Daily Paul, Fox News or any other site could take the number one spot. Currently ronpaul.com is 3rd on the search (C4L is #1 and wikipedia is #2)

The real value, as I see it, for Ron Paul to purchase ronpaul.com is for his radio spots. It is a lot easier for a listener in their car to remember ronpaul.com rather than ronpaulradiopage.com or some other URL. It is good business for him to have his own name, which is why I am perplexed why he never decided to purchase it until now. From what I gather he could have had it for $10/yr if he would have purchased it when it was seemingly abandoned in 03-06 (if I recall the years correctly)

[newbitech]

some here have said otherwise, but maybe I described it wrong. It has high authority and people on here were saying that will not be transfered with the name in a claim dispute but COULD be if the domain registrant reached a settlement and that was a part of it. I am just taking that as true, and saying Ron may well not be aware of that, and more information of the value of that might bring the parties together.

well two points

1.) from the link

Someone I’m working with on SEO (http://www.seo.com/) will own multiple domains for the same business. I don’t mean that they have a couple related domains, I mean the same business and same offerings or services on more than one domain.

the key here is related domains. So if you think about it, any site with values has 10's if not 100's or even 1000's of other domains pointing to it. So to your credit, yes the authority of ronpaul.com increased as more authoritative sites began pointing to it with relation to the particular subject.

2.) While Ron Paul's popularity was vital to any site traffic in the subject matter of Ron Paul, simply having his name in the domain, or simply relying on that popularity to get traffic is no where close to enough. Take this site for instance. http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/

Page 12 of google for a search for Ron Paul.

There was more than a substantial effort in the form of time and ingenuity that went in to getting RonPaul.com the #1 rank for the search term Ron Paul.

[sailingaway]

well two points

1.) from the link


the key here is related domains. So if you think about it, any site with values has 10's if not 100's or even 1000's of other domains pointing to it. So to your credit, yes the authority of ronpaul.com increased as more authoritative sites began pointing to it with relation to the particular subject.

2.) While Ron Paul's popularity was vital to any site traffic in the subject matter of Ron Paul, simply having his name in the domain, or simply relying on that popularity to get traffic is no where close to enough. Take this site for instance. http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/

Page 12 of google for a search for Ron Paul.

There was more than a substantial effort in the form of time and ingenuity that went in to getting RonPaul.com the #1 rank for the search term Ron Paul.

but whatever made that happen doesn't transfer with the name, right? so it has more value, and it would be great if Ron understood that. I would like him to get that.

[CaptLouAlbano]

but whatever made that happen doesn't transfer with the name, right? so it has more value, and it would be great if Ron understood that. I would like him to get that.

Yes and no. It will transfer, but unless whatever is placed on ronpaul.com maintains a high level of SEO and other aspects the site can eventually fall away in the rankings.

Take this site for example. If you search for "Ron Paul Forum" it comes up as #1, 2 & 3 with dailypaul as #4. Now let's say for example that everyone decided to stop posting here, and the site became a ghost town. Eventually, dailypaul (assuming it continued on as it is now) or any of the sites further down the list would overtake ronpaulforums.com in the rankings.

[sailingaway]

currently the site is high. No one is going to 'stop posting' at Ron's site. However newbitech explained previously how authority could be transfered with the cooperation of the site owner, which is why I asked him the question.

[CaptLouAlbano]

currently the site is high. No one is going to 'stop posting' at Ron's site. However newbitech explained previously how authority could be transfered with the cooperation of the site owner, which is why I asked him the question.

It can. The point is that unless someone maintains the site in a way that warrants a high ranking, the site can either rise or fall. If Ron's folks create a 5-page static site that never gets updated, it's ranking will fall over time. SEO is a full time job, which is why companies and individuals that are skilled in that command a pretty nice penny for their work. But yes, the current page rank will transfer.

[mport1]

No he's not.

How is he not? The site it somebody else's property and he is trying to steal it. That is an infringement of property right...

I really don't get why somebody as principled as Ron Paul would engage in something like this.

[CPUd]

How is he not? The site it somebody else's property and he is trying to steal it. That is an infringement of property right...

I really don't get why somebody as principled as Ron Paul would engage in something like this.

Nothing so far has shown that they're trying to stop people from having a Ron Paul site, and selling Ron Paul stuff. This is just about the ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org domains.

[qh4dotcom]

Nothing so far has shown that they're trying to stop people from having a Ron Paul site, and selling Ron Paul stuff. This is just about the ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org domains.

The RP lawyers and RonPaul.com opponents have made a big deal about the site owners making money from Ron Paul's name and image....even though there's nothing wrong with that...so yes they are trying to stop people from having a Ron Paul site.

[LibertyEagle]

1. Ronpaul.com peeps have 3 different corporations in Panama buying domain names. It was discovered one of them had 150+ domain names alone for sale at $500.00 apiece.

2. Hid their identities until a complaint was filed against them.

3. Tried to extort Ron out of 848k after using his image and name to sell ads and merchandise for thier own enrichment for 5 yrs.

Not exactly the "ron paul super supporter" most people had in mind when they first voted on the other poll.

This seems to me to be rather germane to the subject.

[Danan]

How is he not? The site it somebody else's property and he is trying to steal it. That is an infringement of property right...

I really don't get why somebody as principled as Ron Paul would engage in something like this.

As already explained in great detail, Ron Paul is not trying to take their site. They own the webservers and the content and that's legitimate property. Ron Paul has made no attempt to seize their servers or content. What he has done, however, is filing a complaint at ICANN that the owners of the servers commited a breach of contract. If they did indeed violate the terms of contract, ICANN must not anylonger redirect incoming requests for "ronpaul.com" to their servers. Because that's the only thing the ronpaul.com people "own" - the right to be forwarded to by ICANN as long as they don't violate ICANN's rules.

A domain name is a conceptual object, like a number or a word. It's nothing you can "own", it doesn't exist anywhere in the pyhsical world and it's not property that someone homesteaded in any real sense. When we say that somebody "owns" a domain name, what we really mean is that this person has an agreement with ICANN to be redirected to when somebody types in a domain into their browser. That agreement is only conditional. When you don't follow ICANN's rules, they don't have to forward to your servers anylonger. The defined way to find out whether or not someone violated these rules is through a complaint decided uppon by an arbitrator. And that's what's happening right now. What's morally wrong with this? I really don't see it.

[qh4dotcom]

As already explained in great detail, Ron Paul is not trying to take their site. They own the webservers and the content and that's legitimate property. Ron Paul has made no attempt to seize their servers or content. What he has done, however, is filing a complaint at ICANN that the owners of the servers commited a breach of contract. If they did indeed violate the terms of contract, ICANN must not anylonger redirect incoming requests for "ronpaul.com" to their servers. Because that's the only thing the ronpaul.com people "own" - the right to be forwarded to by ICANN as long as they don't violate ICANN's rules.

A domain name is a conceptual object, like a number or a word. It's nothing you can "own", it doesn't exist anywhere in the pyhsical world and it's not property that someone homesteaded in any real sense. When we say that somebody "owns" a domain name, what we really mean is that this person has an agreement with ICANN to be redirected to when somebody types in a domain into their browser. That agreement is only conditional. When you don't follow ICANN's rules, they don't have to forward to your servers anylonger. The defined way to find out whether or not someone violated these rules is through a complaint decided uppon by an arbitrator. And that's what's happening right now. What's morally wrong with this? I really don't see it.

The morally wrong thing is the hypocrisy...Ron Paul files a complaint against some of his supporters for allegedly violating ICANN rules while giving other supporters who are also violating the same ICANN rules a free pass. It's pretty obvious by now that he doesn't care nor disapprove what the RonPaul.com owners have done for the past 5 years...he just wants their domain name.

They also "own" ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc. Have they broken the ICANN rules in operating those domains? Why didn't Ron Paul file a complaint about those domains? Especially ronpaul2008.com...it was used for his first presidential campaign site.

[newbitech]

The morally wrong thing is the hypocrisy...Ron Paul files a complaint against some of his supporters for allegedly violating ICANN rules while giving other supporters who are also violating the same ICANN rules a free pass. It's pretty obvious by now that he doesn't care nor disapprove what the RonPaul.com owners have done for the past 5 years...he just wants their domain name.

They also "own" ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc. Have they broken the ICANN rules in operating those domains? Why didn't Ron Paul file a complaint about those domains? Especially ronpaul2008.com...it was used for his first presidential campaign site.

I also think it is immoral in the complaint itself to try and make it sound like the "owners" of the domain were acting in bad faith in regards to the ronpaul.org FREE offering. Instead, the lawyers in the complaint made it sound as if the only way Ron Paul was going to have ronpaul.org is if he also paid for the domain. That is completely untrue. But they try to use that to show bad faith.

Regardless if the "owners" broke the rules of the monopoly or not, Ron Paul is also trying to circumvent the rules that domain registrations are offered on a first come first serve basis and if you don't use it (pay the renewal fee) you lose it. That is exactly what happened with ronpaul.org and it was an established pattern of Ron Paul to abandon domain names under his control for whatever reason.

Ron Paul sent out the signal long ago that controlling domains containing his name was something he was not interested in. He failed to register ronpaul.com, failed to take up a legitimate offer to purchase, allowed several domains to expire after he was finished with them. So now that he is interested again for whatever reason, he is asking for special treatment by ICANN to be handed those domains. AND only the domains he wants. So he isn't even really arguing on the principle of trademark protection. He's simply arguing, hey my name is Ron Paul, so I should have exclusive control over these particular domains since that is what I want from ICANN.

I've done my best to remain unbiased, it's difficult to say the least. But, I don't think that an unbiased person can look at all the facts in this case and honestly say that it is right for Ron Paul to get what he wants from ICANN. ICANN's rules are not set in place to protect trademark at the trademark owners whim. ICANN's rules are in place to prevent blatant trademark violation and abuse of their domain name provisioning policies.

So in order for Ron Paul to win, he has to make the case of blatant violation and abuse, which means he has to go out of his way to trash the people running ronpaul.com. This has led his lawyers, and many supporters to utter untruths about the matter and to make up fanciful arguments that paint those people in a bad light. I think that is immoral. We hate when people do that to Ron Paul because it is dishonest and immoral. Why should we feel any different when the shoe is on the other foot?

[MisfitToy]

all i've done is give facts...and assumptions, and opinions, and spins, and...

You can be cute and hide from what I see in you but it doesn't erase your unsuccessful attempts at debate.

I mostly come to this forum to find information that I can relay onto to others in various places of my personal playground. I didn't see a need to come here and debate people who are already, in my opinion, "on the right side". No, I didn't care about this subject since it seemed to be a lot of posturing and bickering. Until one day, some barry cliff-jumper posted about this issue from something they read in the MSM so I came here to investigate it. I read all the arguments, read the complaint, read the responses by RP.com people, studied the facts and came up with my conclusion.

All I'm saying to you is that thus far nothing you've posted has ever been relevant to supporting your arguments nor have they been binding enough to change perceptions on the subject. Now, you have no intention to change my mind, however you have the balls to condescend me just because I've pointed out that your arguments aren't convincing and your complaints about others are hypocritical. I've been playfully trying to get you, who seems knowledgeable about this subject and was adamant in his stance that Ron Paul was being immoral, to convince me that my initial conclusion was wrong.

If you have a great argument, I'm open to hear it. I'm opened minded that. Otherwise, continue to run away from yourself because that's what I've been trying to get you to face.

Regards.

[Peace Piper]

You can be cute and hide from what I see in you but it doesn't erase your unsuccessful attempts at debate.

I mostly come to this forum to find information that I can relay onto to others in various places of my personal playground. I didn't see a need to come here and debate people who are already, in my opinion, "on the right side". No, I didn't care about this subject since it seemed to be a lot of posturing and bickering. Until one day, some barry cliff-jumper posted about this issue from something they read in the MSM so I came here to investigate it. I read all the arguments, read the complaint, read the responses by RP.com people, studied the facts and came up with my conclusion.

All I'm saying to you is that thus far nothing you've posted has ever been relevant to supporting your arguments nor have they been binding enough to change perceptions on the subject. Now, you have no intention to change my mind, however you have the balls to condescend me just because I've pointed out that your arguments aren't convincing and your complaints about others are hypocritical. I've been playfully trying to get you, who seems knowledgeable about this subject and was adamant in his stance that Ron Paul was being immoral, to convince me that my initial conclusion was wrong.

If you have a great argument, I'm open to hear it. I'm opened minded that. Otherwise, continue to run away from yourself because that's what I've been trying to get you to face.

Regards.

The only thing that might even begin to make sense here is that you made a mistake by addressing the wrong poster.

Otherwise, wow. Perhaps it's a comprehension problem.

This is an issue that separates those who were drawn to Ron Paul because of his message, and those that are along for the ride.

[Barrex]

Good video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAwgSWzQFwQ

[newbitech]

You can be cute and hide from what I see in you but it doesn't erase your unsuccessful attempts at debate.




what does this even mean lol.

[newbitech]

Good video:

The Ron Paul flix guy. It's interesting, I heard some complaints about all ronpaul.com did was regurgitate content. I am not sure how that is much different from RonPaulFlix.com.

At least on ronpaul.com, people can sign up and make comments, but then I do appreciate how ronpaulflix.com has focused on videos. We really needed a site like his during the height of campaigning.

He is wrong about the UN tho. I am not sure what else to call it when someone appeals to an illegitimate authority to get something they don't have for free.

[BlackTerrel]

My vote is for Ron.

And this is all a distraction from real issues.

[sailingaway]

He is wrong about the UN tho. I am not sure what else to call it when someone appeals to an illegitimate authority to get something they don't have for free.

If the UN ended tomorrow, WIPO would continue, because it can self sustain on arbitration fees, given ICANN lists it as an approved contractual arbitrator. And the question is whether the domain registrant NEVER had the right under its domain contract to use it as they do.

but you know my points on this. I want it to settle, but I think the 'UN' bit is a deliberate smear, and untrue in the way it is baited out, as if Ron were availing himself of their attempts to circumvent sovereignty, rather just using an arbitration service which just HAPPENS to have been devised under their auspices, because it is approved by a third party contract.

[Barrex]

The Ron Paul flix guy. It's interesting, I heard some complaints about all ronpaul.com did was regurgitate content. I am not sure how that is much different from RonPaulFlix.com.

At least on ronpaul.com, people can sign up and make comments, but then I do appreciate how ronpaulflix.com has focused on videos. We really needed a site like his during the height of campaigning.

He is wrong about the UN tho. I am not sure what else to call it when someone appeals to an illegitimate authority to get something they don't have for free.

Owner of RonPaul.com signed a contract that no one forced him to sign. Part of the contract is that in case of dispute there is a remedy that Ron Paul (real Ron Paul) is pursuing. It is not illegitimate if he agreed to it! And we dont know does he want it for free.

Another libertarian standpoint riddle: Non-aggression principle.

If you spend your entire life building your character and name for your self as an honest man etc.... and then someone steals you your name and makes profit from it is that theft(initiation of force)? They sold RON PAULS pictures, merchandise, earned from traffic using RON PAULS name, character, brand etc. They took and profited from RON PAULS IDENTITY?
What would happen if some bands (eg. Metallica) "Fan site" starts selling merchandise and songs of that band for that sites owner profit? Someone would go to jail and would be forced to pay a lot of money.

[qh4dotcom]

If you spend your entire life building your character and name for your self as an honest man etc.... and then someone steals you your name and makes profit from it is that theft(initiation of force)? They sold RON PAULS pictures, merchandise, earned from traffic using RON PAULS name, character, brand etc. They took and profited from RON PAULS IDENTITY?


So did a bunch of other Ron Paul sites....ronpaulswag.com, Zazzle, ronpaulmarket.com, etc. They also signed the ICANN contract.

Besides Ron Paul was a publicly elected official and as such his name and image are in the public domain...you have the right to use and profit from public domain....go to Ebay, do a search for Obama and you'll see hundreds of Ebay sellers using public domain and profiting from Obama's identity.

[Barrex]

So did a bunch of other Ron Paul sites....ronpaulswag.com, Zazzle, ronpaulmarket.com, etc. They also signed the ICANN contract.

Besides Ron Paul was a publicly elected official and as such his name and image are in the public domain...you have the right to use and profit from public domain....go to Ebay, do a search for Obama and you'll see hundreds of Ebay sellers using public domain and profiting from Obama's identity.

He was publicly elected official. Not anymore.

[kcchiefs6465]

So did a bunch of other Ron Paul sites....ronpaulswag.com, Zazzle, ronpaulmarket.com, etc. They also signed the ICANN contract.

Besides Ron Paul was a publicly elected official and as such his name and image are in the public domain...you have the right to use and profit from public domain....go to Ebay, do a search for Obama and you'll see hundreds of Ebay sellers using public domain and profiting from Obama's identity.
He was.

Now he is not.

The man built a legacy of honesty and Statesmanship. Seems to me that he should have his name. I was unaware that ronpaul.com was not directly affiliated with the campaign when I started visiting. That is a problem. [for them] Hell, as I understand, they did not donate any of the money to the campaign, or compensate Ron Paul whatsoever? Just seems shady. Then the information of different people in various countries comes out, not to mention some of the ronpaul.com 'representatives' dickish attitudes [and lack of response to pertinent questions] and it is not hard to see their true colors. Me personally, would wish them the best of luck with future endeavors. (I heard they have quite a few other politicians' names) Maybe I am biased, but I feel that Ron Paul should have his name, and I look forward to his first webisode.

[qh4dotcom]

He was.

Now he is not.

The man built a legacy of honesty and Statesmanship. Seems to me that he should have his name. I was unaware that ronpaul.com was not directly affiliated with the campaign when I started visiting. That is a problem. [for them] Hell, as I understand, they did not donate any of the money to the campaign, or compensate Ron Paul whatsoever? Just seems shady. Then the information of different people in various countries comes out, not to mention some of the ronpaul.com 'representatives' dickish attitudes [and lack of response to pertinent questions] and it is not hard to see their true colors. Me personally, would wish them the best of luck with future endeavors. (I heard they have quite a few other politicians' names) Maybe I am biased, but I feel that Ron Paul should have his name, and I look forward to his first webisode.

They compensated Ron Paul with website visitors...who likely donated to his 2008 campaign...during the first 3 months after acquiring the domain all of ronpaul.com's visitors were redirected to the official ronpaul2008.com campaign site.

By the way, George Bush was a publicly elected official...he is still in the public domain...people are still allowed to use his identity and profit from him

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trks...at=0&_from=R40

Also do you disagree with what Trevor Lyman said about RonPaul.com and George Bush?

http://libertycrier.com/politics/is-the-battle-over-ronpaul-com-really-a-battle-over-freedom-of-speech/

[itshappening]

So did a bunch of other Ron Paul sites....ronpaulswag.com, Zazzle, ronpaulmarket.com, etc. They also signed the ICANN contract.

Besides Ron Paul was a publicly elected official and as such his name and image are in the public domain...you have the right to use and profit from public domain....go to Ebay, do a search for Obama and you'll see hundreds of Ebay sellers using public domain and profiting from Obama's identity.



Yes but Ron Paul doesn't want those domains he wants RONPAUL.COM and has specifically filed the complaint against RONPAUL.COM and not any other domain name and is unlikely to want any other domain or sites.

Do you understand? Just because he wants RONPAUL.COM doesn't mean he wants to go after the multitude of other domains using his name.

And being in the public domain merely strengthens his claim to the name. The more famous he is the more rights he has to the common law trademark "Ron Paul"

[itshappening]

They compensated Ron Paul with website visitors...who likely donated to his 2008 campaign...during the first 3 months after acquiring the domain all of ronpaul.com's visitors were redirected to the official ronpaul2008.com campaign site.

By the way, George Bush was a publicly elected official...he is still in the public domain...people are still allowed to use his identity and profit from him

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trks...at=0&_from=R40

Also do you disagree with what Trevor Lyman said about RonPaul.com and George Bush?

http://libertycrier.com/politics/is-the-battle-over-ronpaul-com-really-a-battle-over-freedom-of-speech/

Ugh, Bush has nothing to do with Ron Paul. if Bush wants to file complaints for his name that's HIS business it has no bearing on Ron or his complaints.

Will you please stop your whining? And what has Trevor's opinion go to do with ANYTHING?

[itshappening]

I also think it is immoral in the complaint itself to try and make it sound like the "owners" of the domain were acting in bad faith in regards to the ronpaul.org FREE offering. Instead, the lawyers in the complaint made it sound as if the only way Ron Paul was going to have ronpaul.org is if he also paid for the domain. That is completely untrue. But they try to use that to show bad faith.

Regardless if the "owners" broke the rules of the monopoly or not, Ron Paul is also trying to circumvent the rules that domain registrations are offered on a first come first serve basis and if you don't use it (pay the renewal fee) you lose it. That is exactly what happened with ronpaul.org and it was an established pattern of Ron Paul to abandon domain names under his control for whatever reason.

Ron Paul sent out the signal long ago that controlling domains containing his name was something he was not interested in. He failed to register ronpaul.com, failed to take up a legitimate offer to purchase, allowed several domains to expire after he was finished with them. So now that he is interested again for whatever reason, he is asking for special treatment by ICANN to be handed those domains. AND only the domains he wants. So he isn't even really arguing on the principle of trademark protection. He's simply arguing, hey my name is Ron Paul, so I should have exclusive control over these particular domains since that is what I want from ICANN.

I've done my best to remain unbiased, it's difficult to say the least. But, I don't think that an unbiased person can look at all the facts in this case and honestly say that it is right for Ron Paul to get what he wants from ICANN. ICANN's rules are not set in place to protect trademark at the trademark owners whim. ICANN's rules are in place to prevent blatant trademark violation and abuse of their domain name provisioning policies.

So in order for Ron Paul to win, he has to make the case of blatant violation and abuse, which means he has to go out of his way to trash the people running ronpaul.com. This has led his lawyers, and many supporters to utter untruths about the matter and to make up fanciful arguments that paint those people in a bad light. I think that is immoral. We hate when people do that to Ron Paul because it is dishonest and immoral. Why should we feel any different when the shoe is on the other foot?

Firstly what's gone on in the past has no bearing on this complaint and the judge will not be taking into account the fact that Ron dropped ronpaul.org years ago. It has no relevance to this complaint so why are you going on about it? so what.

Secondly, it is an abuse to use someone's common law trademark to profit commercially as RonPaul.com is by selling tshirts at grossly inflated prices with the common law trademark owners image. The owners name is not Ron Paul so his legitimate interest in the domain name is questionable UNDER the ICANN UDRP rules. His bad faith stems from trying to pimp it for 850,000 THOUSAND DOLLARS to the common law trademark owner.

Therefore, in my judgement and yes I've won UDRP's before, this is pretty open and shut case and I'd be surprised if Ron didn't win!

[qh4dotcom]

Yes but Ron Paul doesn't want those domains he wants RONPAUL.COM and has specifically filed the complaint against RONPAUL.COM and not any other domain name and is unlikely to want any other domain or sites.

Do you understand? Just because he wants RONPAUL.COM doesn't mean he wants to go after the multitude of other domains using his name.

And being in the public domain merely strengthens his claim to the name. The more famous he is the more rights he has to the common law trademark "Ron Paul"

Sorry, you're wrong

RonPaul.ORG was included in the complaint.

Ron Paul is not only going after RonPaul.com, he is also going after RonPaul.ORG

Yes, it's obvious he only wants both domains, doesn't want to pay for them and couldn't care less nor disapproved of the way the RonPaul.com folks have been operating the site for the past 5 years.
Newbitech summed it up nicely below


Regardless if the "owners" broke the rules of the monopoly or not, Ron Paul is also trying to circumvent the rules that domain registrations are offered on a first come first serve basis and if you don't use it (pay the renewal fee) you lose it. That is exactly what happened with ronpaul.org and it was an established pattern of Ron Paul to abandon domain names under his control for whatever reason.

Ron Paul sent out the signal long ago that controlling domains containing his name was something he was not interested in. He failed to register ronpaul.com, failed to take up a legitimate offer to purchase, allowed several domains to expire after he was finished with them. So now that he is interested again for whatever reason, he is asking for special treatment by ICANN to be handed those domains. AND only the domains he wants. So he isn't even really arguing on the principle of trademark protection. He's simply arguing, hey my name is Ron Paul, so I should have exclusive control over these particular domains since that is what I want from ICANN.

I've done my best to remain unbiased, it's difficult to say the least. But, I don't think that an unbiased person can look at all the facts in this case and honestly say that it is right for Ron Paul to get what he wants from ICANN. ICANN's rules are not set in place to protect trademark at the trademark owners whim. ICANN's rules are in place to prevent blatant trademark violation and abuse of their domain name provisioning policies.

[Barrex]

They compensated Ron Paul with website visitors...who likely donated to his 2008 campaign...during the first 3 months after acquiring the domain all of ronpaul.com's visitors were redirected to the official ronpaul2008.com campaign site.

By the way, George Bush was a publicly elected official...he is still in the public domain...people are still allowed to use his identity and profit from him

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trks...at=0&_from=R40

Also do you disagree with what Trevor Lyman said about RonPaul.com and George Bush?

http://libertycrier.com/politics/is-the-battle-over-ronpaul-com-really-a-battle-over-freedom-of-speech/

Could we please just keep debate on this topic instead of writing same text in here and in private message?
Politicians do not give away their right of publicity: This means they are in control of their name, image etc and thet they can do with it what they want (sell). Right of privacy, right of publicity and copyright laws are not the same. RonPaul.com had right to use Ron Pauls name and image based on "fair use". They went waaaay beyond that.

I didnt want to bring current laws because it was interesting standpoint (for me) initiation of force (taking identity, image etc.) but:
RonPaul.com will go in flames if Ron decides to go all in... hell even some supporters could get money from ronpaul.com

Ronpaul.com is filled with pictures material and merchandise that is infringing copyright, privacy, public ...laws.

You think that they have premission for this picture (or any other paterial?):
http://www.ronpaul.com/images/ron-paul-ronald-reagan.jpg
?

Did the RonPaul.com guy invented RLOVEUTION? is it protected?


P.s.
In that article:What is your opinion? Is this a first amendment freedom of speech issue, or no? Please share your opinion in the comment section below.
My answer: Freedom of speech is not freedom to earn money from other peoples (lack word in english). RonPaul.com wasnt speaking he was profiting.
Politicians dont pursue this because it can bring them bad publicity.

[qh4dotcom]

Firstly what's gone on in the past has no bearing on this complaint and the judge will not be taking into account the fact that Ron dropped ronpaul.org years ago. It has no relevance to this complaint so why are you going on about it? so what.

Secondly, it is an abuse to use someone's common law trademark to profit commercially as RonPaul.com is by selling tshirts at grossly inflated prices with the common law trademark owners image. The owners name is not Ron Paul so his legitimate interest in the domain name is questionable UNDER the ICANN UDRP rules. His bad faith stems from trying to pimp it for 850,000 THOUSAND DOLLARS to the common law trademark owner.

Therefore, in my judgement and yes I've won UDRP's before, this is pretty open and shut case and I'd be surprised if Ron didn't win!

There's no proof the RonPaul.com folks asked for $850K, the RonPaul.com folks deny asking for 850K.

Sure there's an e-mail asking for $848K in the complaint but no proof the RonPaul.com owner sent that email.

[SilenceDewgooder]

can you spend as much time on this http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405441-Campaign-to-Defeat-CISPA-(H-R-624) as you have spent on Ron Paul vs Ron Paul.com?

[itshappening]

exactly when you think of American Airlines, you don't think of a lot, for one very simple reason. The name has acquired distinctiveness. Ron Paul has not acquired distinctiveness.

We could do the same test on any other Descriptive or Generic mark which is the range that these two particular marks fall in terms of distinctiveness. But because American Airlines has acquired a secondary meaning to its Descriptive or Generic meaning, the trademark is protected. Ron Paul has acquired no such secondary meaning because you are unable to identify distinctiveness.

You need a context to have some idea of what the mark "Ron Paul" means. You do not need a context to have some idea what the mark "American Airlines" means. In fact, with the American Airlines mark, there is so much distinctiveness to it, that the utterance of the name or the image of the words or its logo is automatically associated with the service in your mind thus, not much thought is really needed to understand what "American Airlines" stands for.

Ron Paul on the other hand? Could stand for liberty and freedom. Could stand for the politician. Could stand for the OBGYN. Could stand for the inspirational speaker. Could stand for a number of different ideas or even services, again as you said, depending on the context.



We can try that test again if you like. In a court case with legal jurisdiction in intellectual property, these are formal tests that are conducted by both parties in the suit and presented as evidence. In fact, this was the exact subject of my witness testimony. I conducted the tests for the plaintiff, as well as gathered other evidence to establish secondary meaning. In that particular case we weren't even talking about an exact replication of the mark. Which made it all the more difficult, but provable non the less.

Distinctiveness is the key for establishing secondary meaning. Ron Paul, as Ted Turner is a common name. There is nothing inherently distinctive about the mark "Ron Paul". It is barely a descriptive mark, and I think I would come at this for Ron Paul as if it were a generic mark instead.

Yes he was an author and wrote many books with his name on them. He also ran a campaign that asked the question "Who is Ron Paul?" The grassroots celebrated in at the beginning of the 2012 primary season when it first became obvious that Ron Paul had become a household name. At that point the mark "Ron Paul" no doubt moved from being merely a generic common name mark, to becoming descriptive.

However, descriptive marks are not protected. So he would still need to move up at least one more level of distinction where Ron Paul would become suggestive of a particular product or service. I think that happened too. Ron Paul became suggestive of freedom and liberty. Ron Paul became suggestive of books and speeches.

So the only question really comes down to, is RonPaul.com violating Ron Paul's right to be suggestively related to the selling of freedom and liberty and/or suggestively related to the selling of books and speeches.

RonPaul.com represents neither. That is your context argument. If ronpaul.com began selling books under the mark, or selling freedom and liberty under the mark, or selling speaking engagements under the mark, then you have a solid case.

Otherwise, you have to further prove how people looking to buy Ron Paul's services are confused by RonPaul.com representation in their offerings (memorabilia from the political campaign.)

You obviously have no idea about trademark law so why are you going on about it?

Ron Paul is FAMOUS, he's the author of best selling books, former elected official, presidential candidate, writer etc etc. His fame is pretty well established and documented and so he has a common law trademark.

is that difficult to understand or what ?? ????

You're not an attorney and know NOTHING about trademark law.

Under UDRP he has to prove three elements.

i) trademark? yes
ii) does the registrant have rights or legitimate interest? well his name is NOT Ron Paul and he lives in Panama so obviously not
iii) bad faith... well he tried to pimp it for 850k to Ron so i'd say that's evidence of bad faith

case closed.

[qh4dotcom]

Could we please just keep debate on this topic instead of writing same text in here and in private message?
Politicians do not give away their right of publicity: This means they are in control of their name, image etc and thet they can do with it what they want (sell). Right of privacy, right of publicity and copyright laws are not the same. RonPaul.com had right to use Ron Pauls name and image based on "fair use". They went waaaay beyond that.

I didnt want to bring current laws because it was interesting standpoint (for me) initiation of force (taking identity, image etc.) but:
RonPaul.com will go in flames if Ron decides to go all in... hell even some supporters could get money from ronpaul.com

Ronpaul.com is filled with pictures material and merchandise that is infringing copyright, privacy, public ...laws.

You think that they have premission for this picture (or any other paterial?):
http://www.ronpaul.com/images/ron-paul-ronald-reagan.jpg
?

Did the RonPaul.com guy invented RLOVEUTION? is it protected?


P.s.
Politicians dont pursue this because it can bring them bad publicity.

I don't see why that picture is in violation of the fair use doctrine/public domain...it's a political picture....anything relating to politics is fair game...now, if the RonPaul.com folks were giving OBGYN advice to pregnant women while using a Ron Paul picture dressed as a doctor...that would definitely not be fair use.

I don't see what RonPaul.com did that other Ron Paul sites have not done.

[itshappening]

Sorry, you're wrong

RonPaul.ORG was included in the complaint.

Ron Paul is not only going after RonPaul.com, he is also going after RonPaul.ORG

Yes, it's obvious he only wants both domains, doesn't want to pay for them and couldn't care less nor disapproved of the way the RonPaul.com folks have been operating the site for the past 5 years.
Newbitech summed it up nicely below


So what, he wants RonPaul.org as well... BIG deal? He doesn't want RONPAULFORUMS.COM or any other variant, just his name because that's his common law trademark.

And newbitech is wrong, he's not circumventing first come 1st serve he's playing by the rules. When you register a .com you agree to the conditions under UDRP and that action maybe taken against you if a complaint is made. It's called TERMS OF SERVICE and everyone who registers a domain name can be subject to a UDRP if a complaint is made.

So just what is your problem? Ron Paul has every right to do this and he's playing by the rules. The RonPaul.com guy is NOT Called RON PAUL so why does he want it? He wants it to make money off Ron Paul's name, fame and image. He's selling tshirts for 30 bucks that cost 5 bucks to produce. It's obvious he's commercially benefiting from Ron name and image and has no other legitimate interest plus he tried to sell it to him for 850 THOUSAND dollars. Crazy!

[itshappening]

I don't see why that picture is in violation of the fair use doctrine/public domain...it's a political picture....anything relating to politics is fair game...now, if the RonPaul.com folks were giving OBGYN advice to pregnant women while using a Ron Paul picture dressed as a doctor...that would definitely not be fair use.

I don't see what RonPaul.com did that other Ron Paul sites have not done.

OK, i'll make this real simple so even you can understand

i) he doesn't want any other sites, just ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org
ii) other sites aren't trying to pimp their domain to Ron for nearly a million dollars

[fr33]

Did the RonPaul.com guy invented RLOVEUTION? is it protected?

I believe Ernest Hancock (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/) is the one who made that logo. It's been written about in a few articles and I seem to remember that he wants no credit and does not believe in IP.

[Barrex]

I don't see why that picture is in violation of the fair use doctrine/public domain...it's a political picture....anything relating to politics is fair game...now, if the RonPaul.com folks were giving OBGYN advice to pregnant women while using a Ron Paul picture dressed as a doctor...that would definitely not be fair use.

I don't see what RonPaul.com did that other Ron Paul sites have not done.

Who took that picture? Did RonPaul.com asked for permission?


How about:
http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_2012_doodle-p166367746521844741w1a0j_500.jpg
http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_campaign_for_liberty_revolution_bumper_st icker-p12834109490596000683h9_325.jpg
Using C4L trademark and campaigns?

Ron Paul T-Shirts, Ron Paul Posters, Ron Paul Mugs, Ron Paul Speakers, Ron Paul Mousepads, Ron Paul Shoes, More Ron Paul Gear…

They dont speak they sell.





I don't see what RonPaul.com did that other Ron Paul sites have not done.
Justifying crimes because others did it too is like cleaning your face with a mud.

[qh4dotcom]

OK, i'll make this real simple so even you can understand

i) he doesn't want any other sites, just ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org
ii) other sites aren't trying to pimp their domain to Ron for nearly a million dollars

He only asked for 250K and denies asking for 848K...no proof the 848K offer.

Sure there's an e-mail asking for $848K in the complaint but no proof the RonPaul.com owner sent that email.

[itshappening]

He only asked for 250K and denies asking for 848K...no proof the 848K offer.

Sure there's an e-mail asking for $848K in the complaint but no proof the RonPaul.com owner sent that email.

Ugh, they emailed the site owner and got a reply asking for 850k that's plenty of proof

[newbitech]

Firstly what's gone on in the past has no bearing on this complaint and the judge will not be taking into account the fact that Ron dropped ronpaul.org years ago. It has no relevance to this complaint so why are you going on about it? so what.

Secondly, it is an abuse to use someone's common law trademark to profit commercially as RonPaul.com is by selling tshirts at grossly inflated prices with the common law trademark owners image. The owners name is not Ron Paul so his legitimate interest in the domain name is questionable UNDER the ICANN UDRP rules. His bad faith stems from trying to pimp it for 850,000 THOUSAND DOLLARS to the common law trademark owner.

Therefore, in my judgement and yes I've won UDRP's before, this is pretty open and shut case and I'd be surprised if Ron didn't win!

First, actually, what the "judges" will look at is the totality of evidence. I have already posted examples of decisions that are contrary to what you are saying so I don't believe there is a need for further debate on what I have stated. I will repost the decisions if it helps you.

Secondly, I have already given ample evidence to show that Ron Paul has not established a common law mark before the domain was transferred to the current "owner". The evidence presented by Ron Paul does not meet the rigorous test for secondary meaning, and even if we agree that today he has met that test, the arbitration must determine if secondary meaning was established prior to the transfer of the domain to the current owners. The evidence as presented by Ron Paul's complaint does not support that determination in light of the fact that the mark "Ron Paul" was on the primary registered and not owned by the complainant. A simple defense in this case is to show that the mark Dr. Paul is claiming could not have been his mark since a simple search at the trademark offices shows the mark was used by the person the who actually had control of the domain.

I think you are in for a big surprise! And congratulations on your successful cases! As I have already mentioned, I was on the plaintiff side of a trademark case and we presented tons of evidence and also believed the case to be open in shut. The case was lost due to the totality of the evidence. A very good defense canceled out a stellar claim.

[sailingaway]

Trademarks don't have to be registered under ICANN claim cases. There are common law trademarks. Hillary's was, etc. Clearly, we don't know how they will rule, but all the discussion in the world, here, won't change that.

[newbitech]

You obviously have no idea about trademark law so why are you going on about it?

Ron Paul is FAMOUS, he's the author of best selling books, former elected official, presidential candidate, writer etc etc. His fame is pretty well established and documented and so he has a common law trademark.

is that difficult to understand or what ?? ????

You're not an attorney and know NOTHING about trademark law.

Under UDRP he has to prove three elements.

i) trademark? yes
ii) does the registrant have rights or legitimate interest? well his name is NOT Ron Paul and he lives in Panama so obviously not
iii) bad faith... well he tried to pimp it for 850k to Ron so i'd say that's evidence of bad faith

case closed.

as I have already shown, in both trademark law and ICANN arbitration decisions, being "famous" is not a measure of secondary meaning. Ted Turner. Albert Einstein. Adrian Peterson.


His fame is pretty well established and documented and so he has a common law trademark.

True or false, "pretty well established fame" takes precedence over primary federal register mark?

True or false, famous names are always protected under common law trademark?

True or false, establishing secondary meaning must come before domain registration in order for pillar 1 to be violated?

True or false, fans sites are legitimate use?

True or false, solicitation from Ron Paul's team about a selling price is evidence of "bad faith"?

True or false, in order to close an arbitration case it needs to commence first?

True or false, Ron Paul's claimed has passed the deadline for commencement?

You know what lawyers are good for? They are good for researching precedence and speaking navigating the legal landscape (lingo, procedure, etc).

So by your logic since we are not doctors we cannot have a discussion, nor can we have opinions, nor can we recite facts about catching a cold.

;)Gotcha.

[Article V]

Politicians do not give away their right of publicity: This means they are in control of their name, image etc and thet they can do with it what they want (sell). Right of privacy, right of publicity and copyright laws are not the same. RonPaul.com had right to use Ron Pauls name and image based on "fair use". They went waaaay beyond that.

I didnt want to bring current laws because it was interesting standpoint (for me) initiation of force (taking identity, image etc.) but:
RonPaul.com will go in flames if Ron decides to go all in... hell even some supporters could get money from ronpaul.com

Ronpaul.com is filled with pictures material and merchandise that is infringing copyright, privacy, public ...laws.Okay, so this comment is one of the few that addresses the actual infringement (publicity rights!) of the website domain name RonPaul.com. All this talk of trademark, copyright, etc. is fine and good; but has nothing to do with whether Dr. Paul can actually take the domain name RonPaul.com. Because you've addressed the real issue (publicity rights!), I'll engage you.

Justifying crimes because others did it too is like cleaning your face with a mud.Normally I'd agree; but when it comes to publicity rights (or mud baths :p), it's actually a little different. If a person (celebrity, politician, or otherwise) doesn't maintain their publicity rights when they are aware of infringements, then eventually their publicity rights become abandoned. Essentially, if a person willfully and knowingly doesn't protect their own publicity rights, their publicity rights fall into public domain. So the more a known crime is committed without the publicity rights holder objecting, the more likely that act no longer becomes a crime.

I've no doubt that most of the Ron Paul websites around the internet, including this one, have ALL criminally infringed on Ron Paul's publicity rights; but the current question is, given the length of time Ron knew about these infringements and chose not to stop them, have Ron Paul's publicity rights become legally abandoned? Once abandoned, Ron Paul cannot reclaim his publicity rights nor can he selectively enforce his publicity rights (as that would confuse the public as to when Dr. Paul's actually endorsing a product/website or when someone is just using it without his objection, thus rendering Ron Paul publicity rights meaningless). If Dr. Paul has abandoned his publicity rights, and in my view he has (chalk it up to more bad management), then he has no legal standing to prevent RonPaul.com from using those publicity rights now, even if RonPaul.com initially used those publicity rights illegally. Make sense?

Moreover, if Dr. Paul selectively targets RonPaul.com while allowing the hundreds of other RonPaul websites (including this one) to continue, then he is openly abandoning his publicity rights by actively permitting (if not outright encouraging) public confusion as to his endorsements; and, in this way, he'd lose all rights to prevent RonPaul.com from maintaining their domain on the grounds of publicity rights.

On a separate note: If RonPaul.com is engaging in copyright infringement by illegally posting pictures, writings, etc. they don't own without a license, or if RonPaul.com is engaging in trademark infringement by wrongfully associating its products with other specific companies without authorization, than those unique trademark and copyright infringements could be prosecuted and removed from the website RonPaul.com; but the overall website and domain RonPaul.com would still be allowed to exist and operate as a Ron Paul fan site without Dr. Paul having any rights to own the domain name even though all of the site's content may be about him.

For these reasons, Ron Paul would likely lose his case for the domain name; but this whole discussion is likely moot as I am guessing both sides will settle before the case ever comes to judgement.

[qh4dotcom]

Okay, so this comment is one of the few that addresses the actual infringement (publicity rights!) of the website domain name RonPaul.com. All this talk of trademark, copyright, etc. is fine and good; but has nothing to do with whether Dr. Paul can actually take the domain name RonPaul.com. Because you've addressed the real issue (publicity rights!), I'll engage you.
Normally I'd agree; but when it comes to publicity rights (or mud baths :p), it's actually a little different. If a person (celebrity, politician, or otherwise) doesn't maintain their publicity rights when they are aware of infringements, then eventually their publicity rights become abandoned. Essentially, if a person willfully and knowingly doesn't protect their own publicity rights, their publicity rights fall into public domain. So the more a known crime is committed without the publicity rights holder objecting, the more likely that act no longer becomes a crime.

I've no doubt that most of the Ron Paul websites around the internet, including this one, have ALL criminally infringed on Ron Paul's publicity rights; but the current question is, given the length of time Ron knew about these infringements and chose not to stop them, have Ron Paul's publicity rights become legally abandoned? Once abandoned, Ron Paul cannot reclaim his publicity rights nor can he selectively enforce his publicity rights (as that would confuse the public as to when Dr. Paul's actually endorsing a product/website or when someone is just using it without his objection, thus rendering Ron Paul publicity rights meaningless). If Dr. Paul has abandoned his publicity rights, and in my view he has (chalk it up to more bad management), then he has no legal standing to prevent RonPaul.com from using those publicity rights now, even if RonPaul.com initially used those publicity rights illegally. Make sense?

Moreover, if Dr. Paul selectively targets RonPaul.com while allowing the hundreds of other RonPaul websites (including this one) to continue, then he is openly abandoning his publicity rights by actively permitting (if not outright encouraging) public confusion as to his endorsements; and, in this way, he'd lose all rights to prevent RonPaul.com from maintaining their domain on the grounds of publicity rights.

On a separate note: If RonPaul.com is engaging in copyright infringement by illegally posting pictures, writings, etc. they don't own without a license, or if RonPaul.com is engaging in trademark infringement by wrongfully associating its products with other specific companies without authorization, than those unique trademark and copyright infringements could be prosecuted and removed from the website RonPaul.com; but the overall website and domain RonPaul.com would still be allowed to exist and operate as a Ron Paul fan site without Dr. Paul having any rights to own the domain name even though all of the site's content may be about him.

For these reasons, Ron Paul would likely lose his case for the domain name; but this whole discussion is likely moot as I am guessing both sides will settle before the case ever comes to judgement.

Don't forget that the RonPaul.com folks also own ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc. and Ron Paul chose to exclude them from his complaint....especially ronpaul2008.com, which was used for his 1st presidential campaign site. How can Dr. Paul not have abandoned his publicity rights when he will allow these domain names to continue operating?

By the way...aren't politicians' names and images in the public domain? Go to Ebay, make a search for Obama and you'll see hundreds of Ebay sellers profiting from Obama's name and image....why didn't they have to get permission from Obama to use his name and image?

[Barrex]

Okay, so this comment is one of the few that addresses the actual infringement (publicity rights!) of the website domain name RonPaul.com. All this talk of trademark, copyright, etc. is fine and good; but has nothing to do with whether Dr. Paul can actually take the domain name RonPaul.com. Because you've addressed the real issue (publicity rights!), I'll engage you.
Normally I'd agree; but when it comes to publicity rights (or mud baths :p), it's actually a little different. If a person (celebrity, politician, or otherwise) doesn't maintain their publicity rights when they are aware of infringements, then eventually their publicity rights become abandoned. Essentially, if a person willfully and knowingly doesn't protect their own publicity rights, their publicity rights fall into public domain. So the more a known crime is committed without the publicity rights holder objecting, the more likely that act no longer becomes a crime.

I've no doubt that most of the Ron Paul websites around the internet, including this one, have ALL criminally infringed on Ron Paul's publicity rights; but the current question is, given the length of time Ron knew about these infringements and chose not to stop them, have Ron Paul's publicity rights become legally abandoned? Once abandoned, Ron Paul cannot reclaim his publicity rights nor can he selectively enforce his publicity rights (as that would confuse the public as to when Dr. Paul's actually endorsing a product/website or when someone is just using it without his objection, thus rendering Ron Paul publicity rights meaningless). If Dr. Paul has abandoned his publicity rights, and in my view he has (chalk it up to more bad management), then he has no legal standing to prevent RonPaul.com from using those publicity rights now, even if RonPaul.com initially used those publicity rights illegally. Make sense?

Moreover, if Dr. Paul selectively targets RonPaul.com while allowing the hundreds of other RonPaul websites (including this one) to continue, then he is openly abandoning his publicity rights by actively permitting (if not outright encouraging) public confusion as to his endorsements; and, in this way, he'd lose all rights to prevent RonPaul.com from maintaining their domain on the grounds of publicity rights.

On a separate note: If RonPaul.com is engaging in copyright infringement by illegally posting pictures, writings, etc. they don't own without a license, or if RonPaul.com is engaging in trademark infringement by wrongfully associating its products with other specific companies without authorization, than those unique trademark and copyright infringements could be prosecuted and removed from the website RonPaul.com; but the overall website and domain RonPaul.com would still be allowed to exist and operate as a Ron Paul fan site without Dr. Paul having any rights to own the domain name even though all of the site's content may be about him.

For these reasons, Ron Paul would likely lose his case for the domain name; but this whole discussion is likely moot as I am guessing both sides will settle before the case ever comes to judgement.
I believe all agree on these:
-Ron Paul has the right to control commercial use of his face, name etc.
-RonPaul.com used Ron Pauls identity;
-RonPaul.com used Ron Pauls identity for commercial use. He profited from it;
-Ron Paul didnt give consent;

I understand what are you saying but my perspective is different.
Right of publicity is not fully developed and is not uniformly applied as a legal doctrine. Statutory abandonment is hard to prove.
"abandoned"(derelict) is not same as "not enforcing your copy(property)rights". RonPaul.com used C4l and Ron Pauls trademark. Neither of those 2 abandoned their trademarks. Ron Paul didnt explicitly say he is abandoning it and he had no intention of doing so. He didnt abandoned it he just didnt enforce it 100% that is not the same thing.
Lets say that Ron Pauls persona (image, voice, name, face...) is his property like a water well. He has every right to give people to drink from his water well. He also has every right to give 50% of the people to drink from his well. He also can allow everyone except one person (RonPaul.com) to drink from his well. Same applies here. He has the right to give everyone to use his persona (image, voice, name, face...) but he also has the right to allow everyone except one person (RonPaul.com) to use his property. Not enforcing is not abandonment.

[Ender]

I believe all agree on these:
-Ron Paul has the right to control commercial use of his face, name etc.
-RonPaul.com used Ron Pauls identity;
-RonPaul.com used Ron Pauls identity for commercial use. He profited from it;
-Ron Paul didnt give consent;

I understand what are you saying but my perspective is different.
Right of publicity is not fully developed and is not uniformly applied as a legal doctrine. Statutory abandonment is hard to prove.
"abandoned"(derelict) is not same as "not enforcing your copy(property)rights". RonPaul.com used C4l and Ron Pauls trademark. Neither of those 2 abandoned their trademarks. Ron Paul didnt explicitly say he is abandoning it and he had no intention of doing so. He didnt abandoned it he just didnt enforce it 100% that is not the same thing.
Lets say that Ron Pauls persona (image, voice, name, face...) is his property like a water well. He has every right to give people to drink from his water well. He also has every right to give 50% of the people to drink from his well. He also can allow everyone except one person (RonPaul.com) to drink from his well. Same applies here. He has the right to give everyone to use his persona (image, voice, name, face...) but he also has the right to allow everyone except one person (RonPaul.com) to use his property. Not enforcing is not abandonment.


Well said- thank you.

And I agree!

[Peace Piper]

I believe all agree on these:
-Ron Paul has the right to control commercial use of his face, name etc.
-RonPaul.com used Ron Pauls identity;
-RonPaul.com used Ron Pauls identity for commercial use. He profited from it;
-Ron Paul didnt give consent;

I understand what are you saying but my perspective is different.
Right of publicity is not fully developed and is not uniformly applied as a legal doctrine. Statutory abandonment is hard to prove.
"abandoned"(derelict) is not same as "not enforcing your copy(property)rights". RonPaul.com used C4l and Ron Pauls trademark. Neither of those 2 abandoned their trademarks. Ron Paul didnt explicitly say he is abandoning it and he had no intention of doing so. He didnt abandoned it he just didnt enforce it 100% that is not the same thing.
Lets say that Ron Pauls persona (image, voice, name, face...) is his property like a water well. He has every right to give people to drink from his water well. He also has every right to give 50% of the people to drink from his well. He also can allow everyone except one person (RonPaul.com) to drink from his well. Same applies here. He has the right to give everyone to use his persona (image, voice, name, face...) but he also has the right to allow everyone except one person (RonPaul.com) to use his property. Not enforcing is not abandonment.



Used his identity kinda like this?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/ronpaulforumslogo.png


If Ron gets his way do this site's owners have written permission to continue to use his name? Better hope so

Because once one RonPaul domain is taken, the clock starts ticking...

[newbitech]

I believe all agree on these:
-Ron Paul has the right to control commercial use of his face, name etc.
-RonPaul.com used Ron Pauls identity;
-RonPaul.com used Ron Pauls identity for commercial use. He profited from it;
-Ron Paul didnt give consent;

I understand what are you saying but my perspective is different.
Right of publicity is not fully developed and is not uniformly applied as a legal doctrine. Statutory abandonment is hard to prove.
"abandoned"(derelict) is not same as "not enforcing your copy(property)rights". RonPaul.com used C4l and Ron Pauls trademark. Neither of those 2 abandoned their trademarks. Ron Paul didnt explicitly say he is abandoning it and he had no intention of doing so. He didnt abandoned it he just didnt enforce it 100% that is not the same thing.
Lets say that Ron Pauls persona (image, voice, name, face...) is his property like a water well. He has every right to give people to drink from his water well. He also has every right to give 50% of the people to drink from his well. He also can allow everyone except one person (RonPaul.com) to drink from his well. Same applies here. He has the right to give everyone to use his persona (image, voice, name, face...) but he also has the right to allow everyone except one person (RonPaul.com) to use his property. Not enforcing is not abandonment.



The only instance I can find of the mark "Ron Paul" being protected is from a primary register of the mark by someone else named Ron Paul. Generic and descriptive marks are not protected. Name are not automatically protected either. A claim to fame does not establish protection in a mark. It must be determined not only IF, but WHEN secondary meaning was established in order for generic or descriptive marks to acquire (suggestive) distinctiveness. Suggestive distinctiveness must confer distinctiveness upon a product or service.

I do believe Ron Paul has acquired suggestive distinctiveness for his authorship and for his speeches, about freedom and liberty sometime between late 2009 and now. Prior to 2009, Ron Paul was merely descriptive of a man named Ron Paul who was a congressman from Texas who was previously and OBGYN.

The following is a list of books from Lew Rockwell called the Ron Paul collection. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-books.html

*note* The Free PDF editions are all available at mises.com.

New School Manifesto: A Libertarian Look at American Education (Sept, 2013)
Liberty Defined (2011) New York Times Bestseller Debuted at #3 for non-fiction hardcover (April 2011)
End the Fed (2009) 2nd New York Times Bestseller (debuted at #6 Sept. 2009)
The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008) 1st New York Times Bestseller (#1 on May 18th, 2008)

Pillars of Prosperity (2008) – Free PDF

A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship (2007)



Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years (1987) – Free PDF
Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View (1984) – Free PDF
The Case For Gold (1982) – Free PDF
Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency (1981) – Free PDF

Ron had not established himself as a "famous" author until well after the domain was transferred. ALL of his early works were released FOR FREE and encouraged to be spread FOR FREE.

[qh4dotcom]

Just found a forum thread from six years ago in which the other Ron Paul wanted $150,000 for ronpaul.com

So I guess six years later asking for 250K seems reasonable since Ron Paul had no mailing list.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-37599.html?

[sailingaway]

Used his identity kinda like this?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/ronpaulforumslogo.png


If Ron gets his way do this site's owners have written permission to continue to use his name? Better hope so

Because once one RonPaul domain is taken, the clock starts ticking...

uh, no. The totality of the facts are considered and it is very clear this is not 'Ron Paul's site' but dedicated to his principles. Not only is the bulk of the forums actually in general politics and other sections, the very lead in language on google says this was 'inspired' by Ron Paul for grass roots action, as does the legend that comes up to anyone not logged in. The google lead in for the other site is word for word from one of Ron's sites old sites, actually. And using just his name 'dot com' is recognized as suggesting it is his to many.

[sailingaway]

Just found a forum thread from six years ago in which the other Ron Paul wanted $150,000 for ronpaul.com

So I guess six years later asking for 250K seems reasonable since Ron Paul had no mailing list.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-37599.html?

the mailing list is not worth anything to Ron. Either people signed up because they thought it was Ron's to begin with, or he will have those on his own, as well. If people signed up thinking they were signing up with Ron, that is exactly the problem the rules try to prevent.

Now transferring the authority, that could be worth something.

[qh4dotcom]

:)

[sailingaway]

Just found an old forum thread with an e-mail from the first and previous owner of RonPaul.com, another man named Ron Paul, in which he wanted $150,000 for RonPaul.com

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-37599.html?

So I guess asking for 250K six years later seems reasonable considering the other Ron Paul had no mailing list.

I already responded to this the first time you posted it, but the price does make it look as if he was trying to get money off of Ron Paul (our Ron Paul) 's name too, then, since he was closing his own consultancy and I don't know why else it would have been worth anything like that.

[qh4dotcom]

the mailing list is not worth anything to Ron. Either people signed up because they thought it was Ron's to begin with, or he will have those on his own, as well. If people signed up thinking they were signing up with Ron, that is exactly the problem the rules try to prevent.

Now transferring the authority, that could be worth something.

You forgot that the squeeze page used to collect email addresses had the disclaimer on it stating that the site was run by the grassroots and not approved by Ron Paul.

[Barrex]

Used his identity kinda like this?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/ronpaulforumslogo.png
Like he said:

...
I've no doubt that most of the Ron Paul websites around the internet, including this one, have ALL criminally infringed on Ron Paul's publicity rights...

Not enforcing is not abandonment.


If Ron gets his way do this site's owners have written permission to continue to use his name? Better hope so

Because once one RonPaul domain is taken, the clock starts ticking...

These are the property rights that all of us have and are nothing "special" for Ron Paul.



The only instance I can find of the mark "Ron Paul" ...


Trademarks(are signs designs etc.):

http://www.coca-cola.com/template1/global/images/coke_disc.pnghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aLQugo4MSJU/T0qbR9sP0yI/AAAAAAAAOx8/U99bb9C8aXE/s320/ron-paul-1.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Campaign_for_Liberty.png
Commercial exploitation of someone elses trademark without approval (initiation of force-violation of private property)

[qh4dotcom]

:)

[sailingaway]

You forgot that the squeeze page used to collect email addresses had the disclaimer on it stating that the site was run by the grassroots and not approved by Ron Paul.

Way at the bottom below the screen frame for most computers. There are a whole line of cases on when the 'totality of the look' of something suggests sponsorship to a reasonable person despite a self serving, but not prominent disclaimer

[newbitech]

Trademarks(are signs designs etc.):

http://www.coca-cola.com/template1/global/images/coke_disc.pnghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aLQugo4MSJU/T0qbR9sP0yI/AAAAAAAAOx8/U99bb9C8aXE/s320/ron-paul-1.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Campaign_for_Liberty.png
Commercial exploitation of someone elses trademark without approval (initiation of force-violation of private property)

mmm hmm. So of the 3 you posted. Which one are you suggesting contains the mark "Ron Paul"?

I have spotted one. Can you spot it? Anyways...

I think it is hilarious that you used Thomas Jefferson's image without his permission to "sell" "Ron Paul"!

I'd also like to know what product or service you think the mark "Ron Paul" is offering that anyone using the mark to spread the message of freedom and liberty are competing with? Do you really believe that when people think of the mark "Ron Paul" they are thinking of t-shirts, mugs, and mouse pads?

If the fact of the matter is that the mark "Ron Paul" is suggestive PRIMARILY of freedom and liberty, are you really complaining that people are making money off of spreading that "product" or "service"?

I think everyone should ask the question to themselves, IS freedom and liberty for sale? If it is not, then what is Ron Paul doing trying to sell it? If it is, then what is the problem with using the mark "Ron Paul" for profit?

I think anyone who is honest with themselves and everyone else will agree that "Ron Paul" is suggestive of freedom and liberty.

In some circles "Ron Paul" is suggestive of OGBYN, or writing some books ABOUT freedom and liberty, or as Dr. No in the US congress. However, "Ron Paul" has become a household name for his great effort to bring the message of freedom and liberty back to America. He was actually paid to do this as a Congressman. So basically, all the taxpayers have funded his fame and fortune to a greater extent. He owes that to the American people as a whole.

[sailingaway]

sounds like you are the one against private property, here.

[Barrex]

mmm hmm. So of the 3 you posted. Which one are you suggesting contains the mark "Ron Paul"?

I have spotted one. Can you spot it? Anyways...

I think it is hilarious that you used Thomas Jefferson's image without his permission to "sell" "Ron Paul"!

I'd also like to know what product or service you think the mark "Ron Paul" is offering that anyone using the mark to spread the message of freedom and liberty are competing with? Do you really believe that when people think of the mark "Ron Paul" they are thinking of t-shirts, mugs, and mouse pads?

If the fact of the matter is that the mark "Ron Paul" is suggestive PRIMARILY of freedom and liberty, are you really complaining that people are making money off of spreading that "product" or "service"?

I think everyone should ask the question to themselves, IS freedom and liberty for sale? If it is not, then what is Ron Paul doing trying to sell it? If it is, then what is the problem with using the mark "Ron Paul" for profit?

I think anyone who is honest with themselves and everyone else will agree that "Ron Paul" is suggestive of freedom and liberty.

In some circles "Ron Paul" is suggestive of OGBYN, or writing some books ABOUT freedom and liberty, or as Dr. No in the US congress. However, "Ron Paul" has become a household name for his great effort to bring the message of freedom and liberty back to America. He was actually paid to do this as a Congressman. So basically, all the taxpayers have funded his fame and fortune to a greater extent. He owes that to the American people as a whole.

I wasnt selling anything unlike owners of RonPaul.com. Huge difference. You are mixing fair use, private property, public domain... and drawing false conclusions.
Muhammed Ali was champion of Boxing. If someone wants to promote boxing ("product" or "service") he has no right to sell Muhammad Alis image in the name of "promoting boxing".
Ron Paul is champion of Liberty. If someone wants to promote Liberty ("product" or "service") he has no right to sell Ron Pauls image in the name of "promoting Liberty".

[newbitech]

I wasnt selling anything unlike owners of RonPaul.com. Huge difference. You are mixing fair use, private property, public domain... and drawing false conclusions.
Muhammed Ali was champion of Boxing. If someone wants to promote boxing ("product" or "service") he has no right to sell Muhammad Alis image in the name of "promoting boxing".
Ron Paul is champion of Liberty. If someone wants to promote Liberty ("product" or "service") he has no right to sell Ron Pauls image in the name of "promoting Liberty".

We can go that route. So what is Dr. Paul selling?

[Ender]

mmm hmm. So of the 3 you posted. Which one are you suggesting contains the mark "Ron Paul"?

I have spotted one. Can you spot it? Anyways...

I think it is hilarious that you used Thomas Jefferson's image without his permission to "sell" "Ron Paul"!

I'd also like to know what product or service you think the mark "Ron Paul" is offering that anyone using the mark to spread the message of freedom and liberty are competing with? Do you really believe that when people think of the mark "Ron Paul" they are thinking of t-shirts, mugs, and mouse pads?

If the fact of the matter is that the mark "Ron Paul" is suggestive PRIMARILY of freedom and liberty, are you really complaining that people are making money off of spreading that "product" or "service"?

I think everyone should ask the question to themselves, IS freedom and liberty for sale? If it is not, then what is Ron Paul doing trying to sell it? If it is, then what is the problem with using the mark "Ron Paul" for profit?

I think anyone who is honest with themselves and everyone else will agree that "Ron Paul" is suggestive of freedom and liberty.

In some circles "Ron Paul" is suggestive of OGBYN, or writing some books ABOUT freedom and liberty, or as Dr. No in the US congress. However, "Ron Paul" has become a household name for his great effort to bring the message of freedom and liberty back to America. He was actually paid to do this as a Congressman. So basically, all the taxpayers have funded his fame and fortune to a greater extent. He owes that to the American people as a whole.

THAT is the biggest pile of horse shit I have ever heard about Ron Paul. HE OWES the taxpayers his name and mark?

The man who has educated more people to the principles of freedom than anyone in the past 100 years? The man who gave back every cent of his used budget every year? The man who voted against every unconstitutional bill presented before him? The man who took a pay cut to serve in government rather than doctoring?

GROW UP.

You have a definite problem with the principles of liberty- maybe you should take that "e" outta your avatar name; would certainly be more fitting.

[newbitech]

THAT is the biggest pile of horse shit I have ever heard about Ron Paul. HE OWES the taxpayers his name and mark?

The man who has educated more people to the principles of freedom than anyone in the past 100 years? The man who gave back every cent of his used budget every year? The man who voted against every unconstitutional bill presented before him? The man who took a pay cut to serve in government rather than doctoring?

GROW UP.

You have a definite problem with the principles of liberty- maybe you should take that "e" outta your avatar name; would certainly be more fitting.

If you are going to address me in a disrespectful manner, at least respect yourself and don't address me at all.\

And please, this topic has enough irony from the Ron Paul is always right camp.

[Barrex]

We can go that route. So what is Dr. Paul selling?

His own property.

[newbitech]

His own property.


which is?

[Barrex]

which is?

His face. Would you want to take that away from him?lol

...and other aspects of ones identity.


P.S.

MODERATOR CAN WE PLEASE MERGE ALL THESE THREADS.

[sailingaway]

I merged a bunch of them and kept one in grc. They breed like rabbits, by the same two or three people, typically.

[Ender]

If you are going to address me in a disrespectful manner, at least respect yourself and don't address me at all.\

And please, this topic has enough irony from the Ron Paul is always right camp.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE MOST DISRESPECTFUL PERSON ON THESE THREADS IS YOU.

And as to irony, I find it completely ironic that so-called liberty minded people do not think that one has a right to their own name.

And- you have NEVER heard me say that RP is always right- that is a dodge to cover your own disrespect.

[Article V]

Not enforcing is not abandonment.Educate me. How are publicity rights abandoned? To my knowledge, as with trademarks, one has a duty to maintain one's publicity rights or they become abandoned. And there's most definitely a statue of limitations on specific infringements such as the establishment of a domain name and website.


Trademarks(are signs designs etc.)Trademarks are irrelevant to the domain name dispute. If there are specific trademark infringements on the website RonPaul.com, those infringements would be separate disputes unrelated to the dispute over the domain name itself.

Moreover, and I think everyone needs to understand this so I'll set it apart:


A Service Mark is used to identify and distinguish the services of one company from another, such as Sears for retail stores, and American Express for credit cards. A Trade Name or commercial name distinguishes and identifies a business. The same name or portion of a name may also serve as a trademark, trade name, or service mark. An example is the name Ford Motor Company, which is the trade name of a company that builds and sells cars and trucks that bear the trademark "Ford." In short, trademarks apply to products, service marks to services, and trade names to businesses.

The key to the right of publicity is the commercial value of a human identity, while the key to the law of trademarks is the use of a word or symbol in such a way that it identifies and distinguishes a commercial source. Thus, while a trademark identifies and distinguishes a commercial source of goods and services, the "persona" protected by right of publicity law identifies a single human being.

Are we clear now?

Commercial exploitation of someone elses trademark without approval (initiation of force-violation of private property)Again, there is no trademark in the "persona" of Ron Paul because trademarks belong to businesses not human identities. The dispute over the domain RonPaul.com is a dispute over publicity rights, not trademarks.

That said, even if some of the products offered on RonPaul.com are wrongfully infringing on any of Ron Paul's publicity rights, trademarks, service marks, certification marks, trade names, copyrights, etc., that does not mean the RonPaul.com website and/or domain name are themselves infringing on Ron Paul's publicity rights. In other words, RonPaul.com may be offering merchandise that other companies produce (after all, I highly doubt the owners of RonPaul.com produce coffee mugs); but RonPaul.com is not liable for the infringements of the companies that produce its goods in the same way that Amazon.com is not liable for copyright infringements of authors who produce Amazon.com's goods.

Does all that make sense? I'm aware it's a lot of info, but I hope I've laid it out in an easily digestible form.

[sailingaway]

if the entire page trades off the appearance of being 'Ron's' it would be.

[Peace Piper]

I merged a bunch of them and kept one in grc. They breed like rabbits, by the same two or three people, typically.

You mean the people that are bringing facts, case history and relevant legal arguments to the threads? There's a ton of "Just Take It" (literally, someone here on this forum said that) because Ron is the Man or Ron should get what he wants because he's brought a good message to so many but that is just exactly the point. It's not about Ron Paul!

It's about his message. Everyone needs to be accountable to that, especially the one that brings the message in the first place. He got bad advice, couldn't keep up with it for whatever reason, didn't care much before now, and now we're all supposed to say hey, here's a mulligan? His *Reputation* is worth far more than a domain name. Leave the hero worship to the obama/bush sycophants.

If Rand was as smart as everyone says HE would have registered his Dads name back when I started registering names, around 1995.

[Article V]

if the entire page trades off the appearance of being 'Ron's' it would be.Assuming (and it's a big assumption since you've put no quote) you're referencing my post and not someone else's (but I can't be certain since you've put no quote) and assuming you're responding to the specific wording of the final paragraph in that post of mine, namely the part where I said:
even if some of the products offered on RonPaul.com are wrongfully infringing on any of Ron Paul's publicity rights, trademarks, service marks, certification marks, trade names, copyrights, etc., that does not mean the RonPaul.com website and/or domain name are themselves infringing on Ron Paul's publicity rights, then perhaps you're correct. But that particular paragraph of that particular post was not addressing that particular issue, which is why I left wiggle room on that particular point so I could focus that paragraph exclusively on Barrex's complaint about the multitude of merchandise related to Ron Paul on RonPaul.com.

The separate issue to which you're responding I actually addressed in an alternative paragraph of that same post and even more specifically in a few other different posts I made earlier in this thread. Furthermore, while you presume to know the answer to the publicity rights dispute:
it would be, I point out that this conclusion is only a mere possibility among several outcomes as it's also very possible (even likely) that Ron Paul has abandoned his publicity rights with regards to this particular website via statute of limitations or abandoned his publicity rights at large via non-maintenance, which would similarly make Ron's publicity rights fair use for RonPaul.com to use as their domain name. And, if all that weren't enough to disprove the certainty of your conclusion even if we accept that the accuracy of the conditions you've laid out, namely:
if the entire page trades off the appearance of being 'Ron's,' it's not entirely clear that any judge would view RonPaul.com in violation according to those terms. By that I mean to say, a judge may very well conclude that because RonPaul.com clearly says on every page that it is a "Fan Site," it is reasonable to assume RonPaul.com is not "trading on the appearance of being 'Ron's.'"

So for all those various reasons, there are still multiple methods for Ron's claim to publicity rights to have lapsed or be non-existent with regards to RonPaul.com's domain name.

[sailingaway]

And quite a few ways to argue the opposite, as well. The arbitrators will hand down their decision when and if it gets that far.

[Article V]

And quite a few ways to argue the opposite, as well. The arbitrators will hand down their decision when and if it gets that far.Well now you're just stating the obvious.

[Barrex]

Does all that make sense? I'm aware it's a lot of info, but I hope I've laid it out in an easily digestible form.
Yes it makes sense. I was referring to entire scope of RonPaul.com and their business not just RonPaul.com domain. They are violating many laws.
I simply dont agree that Ron Paul abandoned his right of publicity. He has been continuously using his name, image, identity etc. He did not abandon it. He used it and also let other use it too. Do you see the difference?
Copyright and right of publicity protect person (legal and physical) from appropriations, commercial exploitation etc. These laws exist not just to protect owner but to stop unjust enrichment!!! In this case they caused damage to Ron Paul by misappropriating and infringing. I admit that I am not expert in this field but abandonment cases that I know of were abandoned for decades and were about dead people (poets , Einstein etc.). Monopolie on copyright (and publicitiy/most agree/) is duration of life + 50 or 100 years. Ron Paul is still alive. Few years doesnt mean abandonment...especially when he couldnt have it for free (they were selling it).


P.s.
Some laws developed from customs that were around for thousands of years. Some are refined through centuries... copyright/cyber laws are still young and there is a lot to debate and lot to be discussed and refined. I understand what people are saying but I believe my point of view is the right one... What court/arbiter will decide? I dont know... but if he doesnt bring some par excellence or "WOW" explanation of current situation I am still going to believe that my point of view is the right one.:D

[Article V]

You mean the people that are bringing facts, case history and relevant legal arguments to the threads? There's a ton of "Just Take It" (literally, someone here on this forum said that) because Ron is the Man or Ron should get what he wants because he's brought a good message to so many but that is just exactly the point. It's not about Ron Paul!

It's about his message. Everyone needs to be accountable to that, especially the one that brings the message in the first place. He got bad advice, couldn't keep up with it for whatever reason, didn't care much before now, and now we're all supposed to say hey, here's a mulligan? His *Reputation* is worth far more than a domain name. Leave the hero worship to the obama/bush sycophants. Terrific point. And I'll add to it: not only is the topic not about Ron Paul the man, it's not even exclusively about his message. By that I mean to say, giving Ron a mulligan on this would set precedent that would effect every single person on earth in defending their own property (both web-based and real world) regardless of whether that property includes Ron Paul or even if that person knows Ron Paul. Judgements in cases have consequences that are far-reaching and long felt. Heck, most of American copyright law is based off the single judgement of a dispute involving something as arbitrary and boring as an informational telephone book!

[newbitech]

His face. Would you want to take that away from him?lol

...and other aspects of ones identity.


P.S.

MODERATOR CAN WE PLEASE MERGE ALL THESE THREADS.

Ok, so you are here to tell me that Ron Paul is selling his face. Do you not fine that vain? I love the man and he is adored by many, but do you really believe that what he is selling is his face? I don't. If he is selling anything or has sold anything at all it is the following.

1.) His services as an OBGYN
2.) His thoughts about liberty, freedom, the constitution, sound money, foreign policy etc etc.. (books and speeches)

I am not sure the last time he delivered a baby, but I don't think he is selling that any more.

His most recent books (Since 2007) have been for sale. Prior to 2007, the most recent book "release" was in 1987, some 25 years ago. I can't be 100% sure because I have found nothing to indicate one way or the other, but it appears as tho the books he produced in the 80's were originally made available through the von Mises institute for free, and were only published for sale recently (2007-2008) in paperback. Those works are still available for free at their original source.

I am also aware that he recently (2013) began charging $50,000 an event per speech.

I also believe he is in some kind of deal to sell his voice on the radio.

So not sure when, where, how, or why Ron Paul is or began selling his face. How much did Josh of RonPaulForums pay for the use of his face? How much did dailypaul pay for the use of his face? How much did ronpaulflix pay for the use of his face?

Did they pay for his face? No? So really Ron Paul is NOT selling his face? Is he?

No, if Ron Paul decided that his face was for sale, I bet he'd put all the other people selling his face out of business in a snap just by offering products that no one else can generate. Those products would be non public domain images of himself that he would create exclusively for his product. But I really don't believe Dr. Paul is vain in that regard.

I do believe he IS selling liberty and freedom and has created a nice little nest egg for his family and friends by sticking by his principles and consistently making decisions in line with what he preaches.

Yeah, Ron Paul is selling liberty and freedom. The mark "Ron Paul" is fast becoming synonymous with liberty and freedom. While I appreciate the man, it's not his IMAGE or name that sells. It's his principled belief in liberty and freedom.

Liberty and Freedom are the products here. Not "Ron Paul" and his face.

And the fact of the matter is, none of us have to 'BUY' liberty and freedom. We can get it from the same place Ron Paul has gotten it from.

The man set himself up as gatekeeper of that knowledge and he has every right to charge a toll for access to that knowledge, access to his knowledge. However, he cannot prevent others from using his name and likeness to refer to that knowledge especially if the distinction "Ron Paul" has acquired is suggestive of something wholly NOT the man OR access to the man's knowledge.

That is, the real battle here is whether or not Dr. Ron Paul get's to tell us that the mark "Ron Paul" means whatever he wants it to mean, OR if the mark "Ron Paul" means what everyone else thinks it means.

Abandonment is a passive non-action. Dr. Ron Paul went on (and profited from) for at least the last 5 years allowing his name to be synonymous with the liberty movement, a modern day founding father. Dr. Paul ALLOWED the mark "Ron Paul" to mean something other than his name and his likeness (profiting from that other meaning) while he had ample opportunity and full control over that fact.

He didn't have to allow (and profit from) the mark "Ron Paul" to becoming synonymous with the liberty movement. He could have exercised his trademark right at any time before the mark acquired that suggestive distinctiveness.

He did not. He cannot now therefor go back and time and erase the meaning of the mark "Ron Paul" from people'e minds. HE can however appeal to an illegitimate authority that will undoubtedly try and convince those people that the mark "Ron Paul" no longer stands for what people have come to believe it stands for.

He may be successful in that and get his domain name back with an arb decision (I doubt it), but lets hope not. I'd rather him be successful in negotiating a deal to change people's minds with more of his consistent principles in mind. I think that would be more effective, don't you?

[Barrex]

Ok...Liberty and Freedom are the products here. Not "Ron Paul" and his face.
Read my previous posts they are responding to your. it is going in circle.

If Liberty and Freedom are the products then LEAVE RON PAUL OUT OF IT... and there would be no problem.

[newbitech]

Read my previous posts they are responding to your. it is going in circle.

If Liberty and Freedom are the products then LEAVE RON PAUL OUT OF IT... and there would be no problem.

well its kind of hard to leave the mark "Ron Paul" out of it since the man did spend the last 5 years campaigning to make his name synonymous with liberty and freedom. Can't really blame me for that.

[Article V]

Monopolie on copyright (and publicitiy/most agree/) is duration of life + 50 or 100 years. Ron Paul is still alive. Few years doesnt mean abandonment...especially when he couldnt have it for free (they were selling it).This is incorrect. The only relationship between copyright and publicity rights is that they are both intellectual property. There is no relationship between duration of copyright with duration of publicity rights, and similarly there is no relationship between abandonment of copyright and abandonment of publicity rights. Copyright law is a U.S. Constitutional protection and thus the strongest of all intellectual property rights; conversely, publicity rights aren't even recognized by many states and townships, so it's protections are far weaker. Furthermore, copyright does not require one to be proactive in maintenance, while trademarks, trade names, service marks, certification marks, and publicity rights all require proactive maintenance.
I simply dont agree that Ron Paul abandoned his right of publicity. He has been continuously using his name, image, identity etc. He did not abandon it. He used it and also let other use it too. Do you see the difference?Yes, I see the difference; but it's exactly the fact that Ron Paul lets other people, groups, and businesses use his publicity rights without a license that gives RonPaul.com legal standing toward abandonment. After all, if Ron Paul is letting various people and business use his publicity rights without requiring a license for that use, then how is anyone supposed to know when and if they can use those publicity rights? Are business owners expected to invest their time and capital and then hope they're one of the lucky ones Ron Paul "lets" use his name? The law protects business owners from needlessly wasting their time and capital in faulty ventures by requiring publicity rights holders actively maintain their publicity rights, including all licensing. If the publicity rights holder elects not to maintain their publicity rights by just letting people use those rights without condition (i.e. without a license), then the law considers these publicity rights abandoned in those specific instances and eventually abandoned at large as the use of those publicity rights without condition becomes more and more widespread. So Ron's letting of other sites, businesses, groups, and individuals use his publicity rights (like Ron Paul Forums does) is exactly an argument against Ron's own case.

Moreover, another reason the law requires publicity rights holders to maintain their own publicity rights actively is to ensure that consumers know when a person is actually endorsing a particular product. So if Ron Paul merely "lets" some business, site, individual, or group use his publicity rights without condition (i.e. without a license), then that willful lack of maintenance by Ron Paul actively confuses consumers and the public at large enough to render those publicity rights abandoned.

[Barrex]

well its kind of hard to leave the mark "Ron Paul" out of it since the man did spend the last 5 years campaigning to make his name synonymous with liberty and freedom. Can't really blame me for that.

Like I said in previous post:


Muhammed Ali was champion of Boxing. If someone wants to promote boxing ("product" or "service") he has no right to sell Muhammad Alis image in the name of "promoting boxing".

[TheTexan]

My final opinion is I don't give a shit. Private matter between two parties

[Article V]

Ok, so you are here to tell me that Ron Paul is selling his face. Do you not fine that vain? I love the man and he is adored by many, but do you really believe that what he is selling is his face? I don't. If he is selling anything or has sold anything at all it is the following.

1.) His services as an OBGYN
2.) His thoughts about liberty, freedom, the constitution, sound money, foreign policy etc etc.. (books and speeches)

I am not sure the last time he delivered a baby, but I don't think he is selling that any more.

His most recent books (Since 2007) have been for sale. Prior to 2007, the most recent book "release" was in 1987, some 25 years ago. I can't be 100% sure because I have found nothing to indicate one way or the other, but it appears as tho the books he produced in the 80's were originally made available through the von Mises institute for free, and were only published for sale recently (2007-2008) in paperback. Those works are still available for free at their original source.

I am also aware that he recently (2013) began charging $50,000 an event per speech.

I also believe he is in some kind of deal to sell his voice on the radio.

So not sure when, where, how, or why Ron Paul is or began selling his face. How much did Josh of RonPaulForums pay for the use of his face? How much did dailypaul pay for the use of his face? How much did ronpaulflix pay for the use of his face?

Did they pay for his face? No? So really Ron Paul is NOT selling his face? Is he?

No, if Ron Paul decided that his face was for sale, I bet he'd put all the other people selling his face out of business in a snap just by offering products that no one else can generate. Those products would be non public domain images of himself that he would create exclusively for his product. But I really don't believe Dr. Paul is vain in that regard.

I do believe he IS selling liberty and freedom and has created a nice little nest egg for his family and friends by sticking by his principles and consistently making decisions in line with what he preaches.

Yeah, Ron Paul is selling liberty and freedom. The mark "Ron Paul" is fast becoming synonymous with liberty and freedom. While I appreciate the man, it's not his IMAGE or name that sells. It's his principled belief in liberty and freedom.

Liberty and Freedom are the products here. Not "Ron Paul" and his face.

And the fact of the matter is, none of us have to 'BUY' liberty and freedom. We can get it from the same place Ron Paul has gotten it from.

The man set himself up as gatekeeper of that knowledge and he has every right to charge a toll for access to that knowledge, access to his knowledge. However, he cannot prevent others from using his name and likeness to refer to that knowledge especially if the distinction "Ron Paul" has acquired is suggestive of something wholly NOT the man OR access to the man's knowledge.

That is, the real battle here is whether or not Dr. Ron Paul get's to tell us that the mark "Ron Paul" means whatever he wants it to mean, OR if the mark "Ron Paul" means what everyone else thinks it means.

Abandonment is a passive non-action. Dr. Ron Paul went on (and profited from) for at least the last 5 years allowing his name to be synonymous with the liberty movement, a modern day founding father. Dr. Paul ALLOWED the mark "Ron Paul" to mean something other than his name and his likeness (profiting from that other meaning) while he had ample opportunity and full control over that fact.

He didn't have to allow (and profit from) the mark "Ron Paul" to becoming synonymous with the liberty movement. He could have exercised his trademark right at any time before the mark acquired that suggestive distinctiveness.

He did not. He cannot now therefor go back and time and erase the meaning of the mark "Ron Paul" from people'e minds. HE can however appeal to an illegitimate authority that will undoubtedly try and convince those people that the mark "Ron Paul" no longer stands for what people have come to believe it stands for.

He may be successful in that and get his domain name back with an arb decision (I doubt it), but lets hope not. I'd rather him be successful in negotiating a deal to change people's minds with more of his consistent principles in mind. I think that would be more effective, don't you?newbitech, you're now hurting your own case because you largely don't know what you're talking about when it comes to intellectual property. The man is most definitely selling his publicity rights, which include his name and likeness (and thus include his face as some have argued).

Making one's name synonymous with liberty and/or freedom is called building a brand. I'm building a brand right now by responding to you with intelligence, and I'd eventually like my name to be associated with intelligence. But that association, however widespread, does not mean anyone who wants to promote intelligence gets rights to my name, likeness, or persona. This method of brand building is commonplace in publicity rights: Jillian Michaels name conjures up "fitness," Donald Trump's name evokes "wealth," Walt Disney's name represents "quality family entertainment," etc. Standing for something is exactly the best way to build up the value of one's publicity rights and there's no requirement that one must use that valuable asset (i.e. regularly writing books or giving lectures, etc.) in order to retain it, the only requirement is that one must maintain it.

[Article V]

My final opinion is I don't give a shit. Private matter between two partiesNot a bad position. I like it.

[newbitech]

newbitech, you're now hurting your own case because you largely don't know what you're talking about when it comes to intellectual property. The man is most definitely selling his publicity rights, which include his name and likeness (and thus include his face as some have argued).

Making one's name synonymous with liberty and/or freedom is called building a brand. I'm building a brand right now by responding to you with intelligence, and I'd eventually like my name to be associated with intelligence. But that association, however widespread, does not mean anyone who wants to promote intelligence gets rights to my name, likeness, or persona. This method of brand building is commonplace in publicity rights: Jillian Michaels name conjures up "fitness," Donald Trump's name evokes "wealth," Walt Disney's name represents "quality family entertainment," etc. Standing for something is exactly the best way to build up the value of one's publicity rights and there's no requirement that one must use that valuable asset (i.e. regularly writing books or giving lectures, etc.) in order to retain it, the only requirement is that one must maintain it.

Building a brand that is given away for free. The argument is what is Ron Paul selling. Not what is Ron Paul giving away for free. He sells books. He sells speeches. I can only find evidence that he started selling books in 2007.

I think there is a difference between a brand and a reputation. I think in your example, you are talking about your reputation. I am open to the idea that branding is something other than the merchandising meaning which I fully understand. I am not aware of any merchandising of products or services using the "Ron Paul" brand prior to 2007 other than his medical practice.

Building a reputation can HELP with a brand, but the two I believe are very different in terms of merchandising products and services. A brand can have a reputation, and a reputation can make or break a brand. All of the examples you give of names and reputations have a product TO brand.

Now, I completely agree at this point, Ron Paul has products to brand. Namely, his books and speeches. This brand sells on the basis of Ron Paul's reputation for defending freedom and liberty.

There is no difference between intellectual property and trademark. If someone gives away their property, intellectually or not, they do not have a right to take it back because their name was on it when they gave it away, any more than Jillian Michaels, Donald Trump, Walt Disney or any other branded product (for some reason I am thinking of Tony the Tiger and Kellogs) have a right to come in to my home and take my cereal box after I bought it.

Ron Paul does not have any intellectual property at stake here. No one has taken anything that was not first given or bought.

That the mark "Ron Paul" has acquired distinctiveness beyond generic or descriptive is not in question. What is in question is whether or not that mark represents a product or service that may be sold, OR if it represents a principle or set of ideals that have been widely distributed and given away for free.

I believe that the mark has already been widely distributed and given away freely and is represents a principle and a set of ideals that have been widely distributed and given away for free. The mark I believe is suggestive of freedom and liberty.

Yes, I do believe at some point the mark has been used as a brand to help promote and sell books, however, the distinctiveness of the mark was acquired not thru the branding of a product or service. The distinctiveness was acquired thru the wide distribution of Ron Paul's ideas.

He can sell his books all day long using the pen name "Ron Paul". However, I do not believe that use of that mark can be protected outside of book sales and speeches at this point. I also believe I could write a book entitled, "When I met Ron Paul" by newbitech, and not be infringing upon his authorship rights. What I cannot do is write a book entitled, "The Truth" by Ron Paul.

[sailingaway]

he sold t shirts and mugs and beer coozies and cookbooks and hoodies.... that 'store' is now off C4L and the campaign web page is closed down, but it is clear he is going to be in a new business and I would expect him to sell that stuff there as well.

[sailingaway]

woo! I was trying to find an old picture of stuff Ron Paul sold, but when I put in Ron Paul store most of what I see is the dot com folks.... https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+store&aq=f&oq=ron+paul+store&aqs=chrome.0.57j60j65j0j60j0.3608&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

but I found these copied somewhere:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-aKwQYfz9xms/TesZUpI2rQI/AAAAAAAACF0/NQs0oLhuWE0/s200/Revolution-Blue-Tshirt%252520copy.png

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Py5s1H5fPU0/TesZU0iLYTI/AAAAAAAACF4/hNF7rwAZXNc/s200/I-Support-RP-Tshirt-Red%252520copy.png

and this guy posted a bunch of stuff he got from Ron's store; http://s170.beta.photobucket.com/user/gchuggins/media/Ron%20Paul%20Store/T-ShirtGray.jpg.html

[The Northbreather]

Victim #4 Muhuhahahahahahaha

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405550-The-FINAL-opinion-on-the-FINAL-countdown-for-FINAL-polls


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9jK-NcRmVcw

[Barrex]

This is incorrect. The only relationship between copyright and publicity rights is that they are both intellectual property. There is no relationship between duration of copyright with duration of publicity rights, and similarly there is no relationship between abandonment of copyright and abandonment of publicity rights.
Maybe in U.S.A.(maybe) In continental Europe there is. Main reason is because there was a need to put time limits to abandonment of publicity rights and those 2 are similar and like you said it are both intellectual property so it was logical that creator of abandonment of publicity rights laws put similar time limits.(when certain law doesnt specify answer you look at similar laws and customs for solutions).



Copyright law is a U.S. Constitutional protection and thus the strongest of all intellectual property rights; conversely, publicity rights aren't even recognized by many states and townships, so it's protections are far weaker. Furthermore, copyright does not require one to be proactive in maintenance, while trademarks, trade names, service marks, certification marks, and publicity rights all require proactive maintenance.Yes, I see the difference; but it's exactly the fact that Ron Paul lets other people, groups, and businesses use his publicity rights without a license that gives RonPaul.com legal standing toward abandonment. After all, if Ron Paul is letting various people and business use his publicity rights without requiring a license for that use, then how is anyone supposed to know when and if they can use those publicity rights? Are business owners expected to invest their time and capital and then hope they're one of the lucky ones Ron Paul "lets" use his name? The law protects business owners from needlessly wasting their time and capital in faulty ventures by requiring publicity rights holders actively maintain their publicity rights, including all licensing. If the publicity rights holder elects not to maintain their publicity rights by just letting people use those rights without condition (i.e. without a license), then the law considers these publicity rights abandoned in those specific instances and eventually abandoned at large as the use of those publicity rights without condition becomes more and more widespread. So Ron's letting of other sites, businesses, groups, and individuals use his publicity rights (like Ron Paul Forums does) is exactly an argument against Ron's own case.

Moreover, another reason the law requires publicity rights holders to maintain their own publicity rights actively is to ensure that consumers know when a person is actually endorsing a particular product. So if Ron Paul merely "lets" some business, site, individual, or group use his publicity rights without condition (i.e. without a license), then that willful lack of maintenance by Ron Paul actively confuses consumers and the public at large enough to render those publicity rights abandoned.

You are quoting US laws. But RonPaul.com guy registered it in Australia and it is going infront of WIPA (UP) so international perspective is needed.

In German law rights of publicity are protected for 10 years after persons death. It also states that time-limit for seeking remedies is 10 years. Right of publicity is forfeited if person that is infringing has no reason to expect that this right will be enforced in the future(my opinion in this case is that owner of RonPaul.com cant prove this). Right of publicity is protected even if it wasnt exercised while the individual was still alive.

In Croatia we dont have them (too young state and I mentioned that laws take time...);)

WIPO is not U.S.A. organization so this case can not be viewed through U.S.A legal standards only.

[Article V]

Building a brand that is given away for free. The argument is what is Ron Paul selling. Not what is Ron Paul giving away for free. He sells books. He sells speeches. I can only find evidence that he started selling books in 2007.

I think there is a difference between a brand and a reputation. I think in your example, you are talking about your reputation. I am open to the idea that branding is something other than the merchandising meaning which I fully understand. I am not aware of any merchandising of products or services using the "Ron Paul" brand prior to 2007 other than his medical practice.

Building a reputation can HELP with a brand, but the two I believe are very different in terms of merchandising products and services. A brand can have a reputation, and a reputation can make or break a brand. All of the examples you give of names and reputations have a product TO brand.

Now, I completely agree at this point, Ron Paul has products to brand. Namely, his books and speeches. This brand sells on the basis of Ron Paul's reputation for defending freedom and liberty.

There is no difference between intellectual property and trademark. If someone gives away their property, intellectually or not, they do not have a right to take it back because their name was on it when they gave it away, any more than Jillian Michaels, Donald Trump, Walt Disney or any other branded product (for some reason I am thinking of Tony the Tiger and Kellogs) have a right to come in to my home and take my cereal box after I bought it.

Ron Paul does not have any intellectual property at stake here. No one has taken anything that was not first given or bought.

That the mark "Ron Paul" has acquired distinctiveness beyond generic or descriptive is not in question. What is in question is whether or not that mark represents a product or service that may be sold, OR if it represents a principle or set of ideals that have been widely distributed and given away for free.

I believe that the mark has already been widely distributed and given away freely and is represents a principle and a set of ideals that have been widely distributed and given away for free. The mark I believe is suggestive of freedom and liberty.

Yes, I do believe at some point the mark has been used as a brand to help promote and sell books, however, the distinctiveness of the mark was acquired not thru the branding of a product or service. The distinctiveness was acquired thru the wide distribution of Ron Paul's ideas.

He can sell his books all day long using the pen name "Ron Paul". However, I do not believe that use of that mark can be protected outside of book sales and speeches at this point. I also believe I could write a book entitled, "When I met Ron Paul" by newbitech, and not be infringing upon his authorship rights. What I cannot do is write a book entitled, "The Truth" by Ron Paul.Again, despite what Ron's ignoramus lawyers claim, this case is not about a "trademark" or a "service mark" or "certification mark" or any other "mark." Like Ron's lawyers, you don't get seem to understand that. Marks are never associated with individuals, only with commercial sources.

You also don't seem to have any understanding of what this case is actually about: publicity rights. Ron Paul most definitely has something to sell: his persona, including his name and likeness! Ron Paul's books and/or pen name have nothing to do with publicity rights! Those are related to copyrights for his selection and arrangement of ideas in a fixed form, not for who he is as a person. Publicity rights are rights associated with a human identity! Publicity rights often have extreme commercial valuable because a well built brand, or as you put it "reputation," is what allows one to make vast sums of wealth through endorsements. Ron Paul lending his moniker to a product (such as a website) is a valuable thing and Ron Paul retaining his moniker for use elsewhere is a valuable thing. These are choices he has as the publicity rights holder of his own persona, name, and likeness.

The only questions in the case for the domain name are:
would a reasonable person think RonPaul.com is endorsed by Ron Paul? if no, then Ron loses case immediately. if yes, then continue to next question.
has Ron Paul actively maintained his publicity rights to ensure consumers, business owners, and the public at large understand when Ron Paul is actually endorsing a product or service? If no, then Ron loses case. If yes, then continue to next question.
has Ron Paul actively maintained his publicity rights in a timely manner as related to the publicity rights infringements of RonPaul.com? If no, then Ron loses case. If yes to this and all the above, then Ron wins.
Personally, I think Ron loses all three of those questions and thus loses the case. But all the bullshit you're bringing up about books, pen names, liberty and freedom, public office, etc. are completely irrelevant and ignorant with regards to this case or publicity rights in general.

[Article V]

Maybe in U.S.A.(maybe) In continental Europe there is. Main reason is because there was a need to put time limits to abandonment of publicity rights and those 2 are similar and like you said it are both intellectual property so it was logical that creator of abandonment of publicity rights laws put similar time limits.(when certain law doesnt specify answer you look at similar laws and customs for solutions). Pretending that the time limits of publicity rights (which is not a fixed form) is similar to time limits of copyrights (which is a fixed form) simply because they are both intellectual property is analogous to pretending that time limits of hat-ownership left in lost & found is similar to a time limits of a house left on a city block simply because they are both physical property. This is absurd logic and it doesn't pass the smell test.


You are quoting US laws. But RonPaul.com guy registered it in Australia and it is going infront of WIPA (UP) so international perspective is needed.

In German law rights of publicity are protected for 10 years after persons death. It also states that time-limit for seeking remedies is 10 years. Right of publicity is forfeited if person that is infringing has no reason to expect that this right will be enforced in the future(my opinion in this case is that owner of RonPaul.com cant prove this). Right of publicity is protected even if it wasnt exercised while the individual was still alive.

In Croatia we dont have them (too young state and I mentioned that laws take time...);)

WIPO is not U.S.A. organization so this case can not be viewed through U.S.A legal standards only.You are ignoring the fact that one of the possibilities I suggested is that Ron Paul retains his overall publicity rights, but loses them with regards to the specific infringement of RonPaul.com. It is very possible they may decide Ron Paul hasn't actively maintained his publicity rights in this instance and thus abandons them with regards to RonPaul.com but that he can still retain his publicity rights for other uses. It is also possible that the international statue of limitations may be several years longer than the various US versions of publicity rights law, but it is beyond imagination that an international statute would be so lax at to permit a statue of limitations for a specific known infringement to go anything near that or over. Note that this means: someone may be able to retain publicity rights even after the death of an individual, which would prevent others from throwing the Michael Jackson name on their product today as an example; but it would not permit someone near retirement from reclaiming publicity rights in a specific infringement instance that occurred when the person was in early adulthood.

[Professor8000]

Will a mod please rename this thread. "FINAL Opinion" just pisses me off every time I see this thread bumped.

[newbitech]

Again, despite what Ron's ignoramus lawyers claim, this case is not about a "trademark" or a "service mark" or "certification mark" or any other "mark." Like Ron's lawyers, you don't get seem to understand that. Marks are never associated with individuals, only with commercial sources.

You also don't seem to have any understanding of what this case is actually about: publicity rights. Ron Paul most definitely has something to sell: his persona, including his name and likeness! Ron Paul's books and/or pen name have nothing to do with publicity rights! Those are related to copyrights for his selection and arrangement of ideas in a fixed form, not for who he is as a person. Publicity rights are rights associated with a human identity! Publicity rights often have extreme commercial valuable because a well built brand, or as you put it "reputation," is what allows one to make vast sums of wealth through endorsements. Ron Paul lending his moniker to a product (such as a website) is a valuable thing and Ron Paul retaining his moniker for use elsewhere is a valuable thing. These are choices he has as the publicity rights holder of his own persona, name, and likeness.

The only questions in the case for the domain name are:

would a reasonable person think RonPaul.com is endorsed by Ron Paul? if no, then Ron loses case immediately. if yes, then continue to next question.
has Ron Paul actively maintained his publicity rights to ensure consumers, business owners, and the public at large understand when Ron Paul is actually endorsing a product or service? If no, then Ron loses case. If yes, then continue to next question.
has Ron Paul actively maintained his publicity rights in a timely manner as related to the publicity rights infringements of RonPaul.com? If no, then Ron loses case. If yes to this and all the above, then Ron wins.

Personally, I think Ron loses all three of those questions and thus loses the case. But all the bullshit you're bringing up about books, pen names, liberty and freedom, public office, etc. are completely irrelevant and ignorant with regards to this case or publicity rights in general.


You are a little off the rails A5


All registrars must follow the the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (often referred to as the "UDRP"). Under the policy, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name. Disputes alleged to arise from abusive registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be addressed by expedited administrative proceedings that the holder of trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider.
To invoke the policy, a trademark owner should either (a) file a complaint in a court of proper jurisdiction against the domain-name holder (or where appropriate an in-rem action concerning the domain name) or (b) in cases of abusive registration submit a complaint to an approved dispute-resolution service provider (see below for a list and links).

Whether or not Ron Paul has a trademark interest in "Ron Paul" is what we have been discussing, the IF and WHEN. Ultimately, I think it boils down to when, not if. If he doesn't then the UDRP is not for him. If he does, we can begin testing the other 2 pillars of the policy.

[Barrex]

Again, despite what Ron's ignoramus lawyers claim
First answer me this:
Was this pointed at me? If yes this conversation ends. I am not Rons lawyer. I am not even in USA. I am in Croatia and I truly believe in my position. When you enter courtroom everything matters. It will matter (if it goes that far) all laws and all infringements that ROnPaul.com committed.
Second: That was low, uncivilized and totally uncalled for. I (or anyone else) never insulted you.


Pretending that the time limits of publicity rights (which is not a fixed form) is similar to time limits of copyrights (which is a fixed form) simply because they are both intellectual property is analogous to pretending that time limits of hat-ownership left in lost & found is similar to a time limits of a house left on a city block simply because they are both physical property. This is absurd logic and it doesn't pass the smell test.
I am not pretending about anything I am just stating what is written in German laws. Again: I simply stated how law was made and what it writes in German law If you have the time and know German (or there is a copy on english somewhere) you can read it for your self if you dont believe me.


You are ignoring the fact that one of the possibilities I suggested is that Ron Paul retains his overall publicity rights, but loses them with regards to the specific infringement of RonPaul.com. It is very possible they may decide Ron Paul hasn't actively maintained his publicity rights in this instance and thus abandons them with regards to RonPaul.com but that he can still retain his publicity rights for other uses. It is also possible that the international statue of limitations may be several years longer than the various US versions of publicity rights law, but it is beyond imagination that an international statute would be so lax at to permit a statue of limitations for a specific known infringement to go anything near that or over. Note that this means: someone may be able to retain publicity rights even after the death of an individual, which would prevent others from throwing the Michael Jackson name on their product today as an example; but it would not permit someone near retirement from reclaiming publicity rights in a specific infringement instance that occurred when the person was in early adulthood.

I am not ignoring anything. I am aware of pros and cons. I simply believe that RonPaul.com is wrong. Nowhere and no lawyer can 100% guarantee win in any courtroom or arbitration. This is not exception.

Am I getting this right (we disagree on):
Your argument is abandonment? Right? I understand but I dont think that Ron Paul abandoned it. Why? He was public official and was restrained to what he could do. He never gave permission. RonPaul.coms dont have strong enough reasons to expect that Ron Pauls right of publicity (regarding RonPaul.com) will not be enforced in the future. Owners of RonPaul.com are not named Ron Paul. They were unjustly enriched (and these laws are there exactley to stop unjust enrichment) They are not fans. They did nothing except earn from Ron Paul, Ron Pauls campaign, C4L etc.

If this escalates and goes to courtroom they can and should be accountable for all of those things (and some other)... so it is all connected. They didnt infringe and broke just 1 law/right they broke many.

What is statue of limitations regarding this in US?



As a human being: I think that this what RonPaul.com guys did is despicable and disgusting and evil.

[CPUd]

LOL @ this:



At the beginning of the year, President Barack Obama's new 501(c)4 political nonprofit, Organizing For Action, was launched with all the usual bells and whistles. But the tech wizards at OFA forgot one important rule in today's Internet world: Register all the iterations of your website address before someone else does.

Now Obama's team is filing complaints against the folks smart enough to get the addresses before he did.

As Obama's OFA made its debut, no one in his purportedly Internet-savvy campaign had obtained the corresponding .com, .net, .org or .us sites, nor did OFA register other names that are close to its official one, as is the sensible practice. In the case of the .net address, a fellow named Derek Bovard had already registered the .net address by the time Obama's team took notice.

Bovard has routed his new site to the homepage of the National Rifle Association.

So, whenever anyone goes to www.organizingforaction.net they end up seeing the homepage of the NRA.

Naturally, Obama and his fellow community organizers were furious. So furious, in fact, that they have replied by filing complaints against Bovard--and, apparently, a variety of other people who had registered domain names that OFA now wants.

Obama's group filed the complaints with the authority that governs website domain addresses, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The complaints were filed under Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) rules. Obama's case number is 1483257 and was filed on Feb 6. UDRP cases are usually decided within one to two months after first filing.
...


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/25/Obama-s-Organizing-For-Action-Files-Complaints-Against-Website-Owners

[Dr.3D]

Damn, I half expect to see a poll on "The FINAL opinion on opinions." thread.

[sailingaway]

Damn, I half expect to see a poll on "The FINAL opinion on opinions." thread.

I think there are two or three in 'off topics'

[qh4dotcom]

Comment from article



OFA = Obama Fails Again



At the beginning of the year, President Barack Obama's new 501(c)4 political nonprofit, Organizing For Action, was launched with all the usual bells and whistles. But the tech wizards at OFA forgot one important rule in today's Internet world: Register all the iterations of your website address before someone else does.

Now Obama's team is filing complaints against the folks smart enough to get the addresses before he did.

As Obama's OFA made its debut, no one in his purportedly Internet-savvy campaign had obtained the corresponding .com, .net, .org or .us sites, nor did OFA register other names that are close to its official one, as is the sensible practice. In the case of the .net address, a fellow named Derek Bovard had already registered the .net address by the time Obama's team took notice.

Bovard has routed his new site to the homepage of the National Rifle Association.

So, whenever anyone goes to www.organizingforaction.net they end up seeing the homepage of the NRA.

Naturally, Obama and his fellow community organizers were furious. So furious, in fact, that they have replied by filing complaints against Bovard--and, apparently, a variety of other people who had registered domain names that OFA now wants.

Obama's group filed the complaints with the authority that governs website domain addresses, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The complaints were filed under Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) rules. Obama's case number is 1483257 and was filed on Feb 6. UDRP cases are usually decided within one to two months after first filing.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/25/Obama-s-Organizing-For-Action-Files-Complaints-Against-Website-Owners

[Article V]

You are a little off the rails A5



Whether or not Ron Paul has a trademark interest in "Ron Paul" is what we have been discussing, the IF and WHEN. Ultimately, I think it boils down to when, not if. If he doesn't then the UDRP is not for him. If he does, we can begin testing the other 2 pillars of the policy.No one can trademark a human identity! There is no commercial business called "Ron Paul"; "Ron Paul" is a man. It's not a trademark dispute; it's a dispute about RonPaul.com's commercial infringement on Ron Paul's publicity rights.

Notice that the Rules you reference did not include requirements to acquire a trademark. So your posting it is incorrect because you are already making the wrongheaded intellectual leap that Ron Paul actually own the trademark "Ron Paul." But that is an impossibility, because no one can trademark a human identity!

Call an intellectual property law attorney if you don't believe me. Or do the due diligence yourself to learn the difference between trademark and publicity rights.

[newbitech]

No one can trademark a human identity! There is no commercial business called "Ron Paul"; "Ron Paul" is a man. It's not a trademark dispute; it's a dispute about RonPaul.com's commercial infringement on Ron Paul's publicity rights.

Notice that your rules quote did not include requirements of trademarks. That rule is for trademark owners, which Ron Paul does not have because no one can trademark a human identity!

Call an intellectual property law attorney if you don't believe me. Or do the due diligence yourself to learn the difference between trademark and publicity rights.

Actually, all three of my businesses are my first name. So its completely legitimate to do business using your name. My insurance paperwork, my bonds, my articles of incorporation, my bank accounts, all list the business name as my full name.

I am not disputing that it is possible to trademark a persons identity. I think I have already said that a trademark needs a product or service.

I agree, it's not a trademark dispute, but what we have been discussing is the ICANN arbitration claim. One of the many documented failures of the ICANN dispute policy is the distinct lack of any language on determining publicity rights. It's simply not feasible to make those types of arbitrary determinations outside of a formal court proceeding with decisions bound to the rule of law and civil code. The furthest ICANN arbitration goes in that regard is to somewhat loosely establish secondary meaning. The major difference between the two being that secondary meaning is acquired and is not a right, and publicity right is given like a natural right at birth.
Other differences are, trademark protects words and images associated with products and services while publicity right is asserted over persona including name, image or likeness, speech such as quotes, and character.

Publicity rights and trademarks are both intellectual property protection. Where on the one hand, a trademark identifies and protects the source of products and services, and on the other hand publicity right statutes and tort laws protects the identity of individuals or other DBA's.

"Confusingly similar" is the closest language in the ICANN policy describing personality rights. That and the idea that someone holding a trademark on their name either primarily registered and commercially used, or secondary meaning, has asserted their right.

[Article V]

Again, despite what Ron's ignoramus lawyers claimFirst answer me this:
Was this pointed at me? If yes this conversation ends. I am not Rons lawyer. I am not even in USA. I am in Croatia and I truly believe in my position. When you enter courtroom everything matters. It will matter (if it goes that far) all laws and all infringements that ROnPaul.com committed.
Second: That was low, uncivilized and totally uncalled for. I (or anyone else) never insulted you.Of course it was NOT aimed at you. It was clearly pointed at Ron's legal team based off the legalese used in the initial complaint those lawyers filed. I have no idea how you would ever think from that wording that it was pointed at you. I already said I respect you and think you understand the dispute far more than most other RPF-users.


Pretending that the time limits of publicity rights (which is not a fixed form) is similar to time limits of copyrights (which is a fixed form) simply because they are both intellectual property is analogous to pretending that time limits of hat-ownership left in lost & found is similar to a time limits of a house left on a city block simply because they are both physical property. This is absurd logic and it doesn't pass the smell test.I am not pretending about anything I am just stating what is written in German laws. Again: I simply stated how law was made and what it writes in German law If you have the time and know German (or there is a copy on english somewhere) you can read it for your self if you dont believe me.Ha. Again, I was NOT saying that you are pretending, haha. I trust that you are quoting German law accurately. I was attempting to say that if German law is pretending that, because both are intellectual property, the statue of limitations for publicity rights is equivalent to the statute of limitations for copyrights, then the logic of that Germanic law is absurd, weakly founded, and will not pass the smell test for world-wide adoption. I hope that's now clear.


You are ignoring the fact that one of the possibilities I suggested is that Ron Paul retains his overall publicity rights, but loses them with regards to the specific infringement of RonPaul.com. It is very possible they may decide Ron Paul hasn't actively maintained his publicity rights in this instance and thus abandons them with regards to RonPaul.com but that he can still retain his publicity rights for other uses. It is also possible that the international statue of limitations may be several years longer than the various US versions of publicity rights law, but it is beyond imagination that an international statute would be so lax at to permit a statue of limitations for a specific known infringement to go anything near that or over. Note that this means: someone may be able to retain publicity rights even after the death of an individual, which would prevent others from throwing the Michael Jackson name on their product today as an example; but it would not permit someone near retirement from reclaiming publicity rights in a specific infringement instance that occurred when the person was in early adulthood.I am not ignoring anything. I am aware of pros and cons. I simply believe that RonPaul.com is wrong. Nowhere and no lawyer can 100% guarantee win in any courtroom or arbitration. This is not exception.Once more, you're either missing my point or ignoring it. You may very well be correct that RonPaul.com is wrong. (I have always included that outcome as a possibility. Indeed, I've always maintained that most unlicensed Ron Paul websites, including both RonPaul.com and RPF, were wrong and infringing on Ron Paul's publicity rights at the time of their creation.) My point, however, was not about who is right or wrong. My point was that even if you are correct that RonPaul.com is in the wrong, it's still possible that Ron Paul may lose the case against RonPaul.com because the statute of limitations may have already expired with regards to that RonPaul.com infringement. If this point is still confusing to you, then please try to explain my own argument back to me so that I can understand what you're not getting; because, right now, I don't know how to explain it any better than the quote you quoted and still seem to misunderstand.

Am I getting this right (we disagree on):
Your argument is abandonment? Right? I understand but I dont think that Ron Paul abandoned it. Why? He was public official and was restrained to what he could do. He never gave permission. RonPaul.coms dont have strong enough reasons to expect that Ron Pauls right of publicity (regarding RonPaul.com) will not be enforced in the future. Owners of RonPaul.com are not named Ron Paul. They were unjustly enriched (and these laws are there exactley to stop unjust enrichment) They are not fans. They did nothing except earn from Ron Paul, Ron Pauls campaign, C4L etc.Ron Paul was restrained from doing what he could? By whom? This is where your legal argument against abandonment falls apart. There is no law restraining Ron Paul from enforcing the protections of his publicity rights while in office. Quite the contrary, the law still expects and even demands all politicians, whether in or out of public life/office, must maintain their own publicity rights against any and all infringements at all times.

Let's be clear: Ron Paul chose not to maintain his publicity rights because he decided his publicity rights would retain more value if he didn't pursue a potential lawsuit while in office (i.e. Ron Paul decided avoiding potential bad press while in office was worth more to his publicity rights than preventing the publicity rights infringments of RonPaul.com). Ergo, Ron Paul made an active choice in the management of his publicity rights that may have resulted in the statute of limitations expiring for this particular RonPaul.com infringement. What don't you understand about that?

For more information, here's a decent, brief, easy-to-read academic argument about the publicity rights of President Obama: http://bciptf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/6-THE-PRESIDENTIAL-RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY.pdf. Please read Section: "C. Use it or Lose it" on pgs. 4-5.

If this escalates and goes to courtroom they can and should be accountable for all of those things (and some other)... so it is all connected. They didnt infringe and broke just 1 law/right they broke many.They will be accountable for all laws they've broken. But, legally speaking, it's not "all connected"; instead, legally speaking, it's merely all related. There's a huge difference. Each broken law has its own judgement, they do not all get lumped into one judgement even if those various judgements all occur in the same trial. Is that clear? This is why I am not addressing other laws or infringements as other laws and infringements are separate and apart from the domain name dispute itself which is exclusively a publicity rights lawsuit about the legal right of ownership of the domain name. If RonPaul.com broke copyright law, for example, then they'll have to pay fines and remove the infringing material from their website; but that guilty judgement would have no legal bearing on RonPaul.com's ownership of the domain name itself because their copyright infringements are separate and apart from the legal dispute over domain ownership.

What is statue of limitations regarding this in US?It varies wildly state to state and sometimes county to county. (Heck, some states don't even respect publicity rights at all.) However, the general consensus in the US for the statute of limitations on publicity rights infringements is two years. They arrive at this two year time span because they equate a publicity rights infringement with libel lawsuits. (In other words, judges have decided that infringements on publicity rights are similar in effect to someone telling a lie such as, "Ron Paul is part of this," "Ron Paul endorses this," "Ron Paul supports this," "Ron Paul profits from this," etc. when the reality is that Ron Paul isn't, hasn't, and/or doesn't. So, because it is the perpetuation of a lie which spurs and perpetuates the wrongfully gained profits, if the publicity rights holder doesn't actively seek to prevent that lie (within a 2-year time span starting once the publicity rights holder becomes aware of the lie), then the publicity rights holder has no legal standing to seek compensation.

As a human being: I think that this what RonPaul.com guys did is despicable and disgusting and evil.Our feelings on the matter are irrelevant and only serve to confuse our mutual effort to discover legal truth. For all I know, your feelings on the matter may perhaps make you bias rather than objective in a discussion where objectivity is a requirement. Please leave your feelings out of it if you want to debate the law.

That said, I think your feelings result from an assumption that RonPaul.com engaged in willful wrongdoing with malicious intent. While I have no doubt they wrongly profited from Ron Paul's name, I am not yet convinced the intentions of the creators of RonPaul.com at the time of its creation were any less pure than other site owners (e.g. RPF-owners) who likewise wrongfully profited from Ron Paul's name. Yes, RonPaul.com has not handled everything in a classy manner now that they are being sued by Ron Paul; but RonPaul.com's response could be a simple poor handling of their own feelings of shock, frustration, betrayal, fear, disappointment, etc. all of which happen to most people when they get slapped with a lawsuit. This is one of the reasons lawsuits are messy: people get emotional and often respond inappropriately.

PS. Please stop wrongfully accusing me of disrespecting you. The very length and detail of my responses to you are evidence that I have respect for you.

[FSP-Rebel]

I'll be so happy when this whole ordeal is finally put to bed.

[Article V]

Actually, all three of my businesses are my first name. So its completely legitimate to do business using your name. My insurance paperwork, my bonds, my articles of incorporation, my bank accounts, all list the business name as my full name.Yes, that's true: a business could be named after a person and then that business could have a trademark. But, correct me if I am wrong, that's not what's happening here. "Ron Paul, Inc." is not suing RonPaul.com, instead Ron Paul (the person) is suing RonPaul.com.

I am not disputing that it is impossible to trademark a persons identity. I think I have already said that a trademark needs a product or service.Then we're both in agreement with each other and with the law: human identities cannot be trademarked.

I agree, it's not a trademark dispute, but what we have been discussing is the ICANN arbitration claim. One of the many documented failures of the ICANN dispute policy is the distinct lack of any language on determining publicity rights. It's simply not feasible to make those types of arbitrary determinations outside of a formal court proceeding with decisions bound to the rule of law and civil code. The furthest ICANN arbitration goes in that regard is to somewhat loosely establish secondary meaning.
...
"Confusingly similar" is the closest language in the ICANN policy describing personality rights. That and the idea that someone holding a trademark on their name either primarily registered and commercially used, or secondary meaning, has asserted their right.I can agree with all that. But there's little guarantee that ICANN would wade into such distant waters; and it would be an incredibly difficult case for one of Ron Paul's trademarked businesses to argue that their business trademark has acquired secondary meaning with the name "Ron Paul."

Here are some other relevant facts that may be of interest to you and/or others:

Ron Paul, Inc. (literally that was the name of our Ron Paul's business) between 1997-2004 actually owned the trademark "Ron Paul" but then opted to cancel that trademark in 2004 (Reference: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:kq17z1.3.4),
Three years later in 2007, Ron Paul Consulting Company (another business owned by our Ron Paul) applied to register the trademark "Ron Paul"; but abandoned that application in 2009 without ever completing its registration (Reference: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:kq17z1.3.3), and As it stands today:
no business owns a "Ron Paul" trademark, no business has owned a "Ron Paul" trademark since 2004 when Ron Paul, Inc. elected to cancel their ownership of that trademark, and no business now or since has a pending application to own the trademark "Ron Paul."

[newbitech]

Yes, that's true: a business could be named after a person and then that business could have a trademark. But, correct me if I am wrong, that's not what's happening here. "Ron Paul, Inc." is not suing RonPaul.com, instead Ron Paul (the person) is suing RonPaul.com.
Then we're both in agreement with each other and with the law: human identities cannot be trademarked.
I can agree with all that. But there's little guarantee that ICANN would wade into such distant waters; and it would be an incredibly difficult case for one of Ron Paul's trademarked businesses to argue that their business trademark has acquired secondary meaning with the name "Ron Paul."

Then there are also the interesting facts that:

Ron Paul, Inc. (literally that was the name of our Ron Paul's business) between 1997-2994 actually owned the trademark "Ron Paul" but then opted to cancel that trademark (Reference: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:kq17z1.3.4),
Three years later in 2007, Ron Paul Consulting Company (another business owned by our Ron Paul) applied to register the trademark "Ron Paul"; but abandoned the application in 2009 without ever completing that registration (Reference: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:kq17z1.3.3), and
As it stands today:




no business owns a "Ron Paul" trademark,
no business has owned a "Ron Paul" trademark since 2004 when Ron Paul, Inc. elected to cancel their ownership of that trademark,
and no business has a pending application to own the trademark "Ron Paul."



well couple things,

I don't believe there is a lawsuit occurring. But generally yes, the complainant in the UDRP claim is identified as a person and not a business, the Honorable Ron Paul is not a business.

I suppose a person can be trademarked if they really wanted to be. People get tattoos and stuff. We trademark cattle still I believe, and sadly in the past, I believe people were trademarked. But again speaking generally, UDRP complaints are made by someone claiming to own a trademark and this is the first pillar that must be established to support the claim.

The ICANN policy is specifically designed to handle blatant trademark infringement and domain registration abuse. It doesn't even handle copyright, much less right of publicity claims. Sometimes these issue can all be wrapped together when it is clear that the domain registrant is trying to scam people. So it's easy to confuse. Certainly those who believe that the mark "Ron Paul" has established suggestive secondary meaning of some product or service that the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul is selling would tend to also want to accuse those infringes of every other IP violation they can list. However, for the purposes of UDRP that all hinges on the trademark decision.

Finally, I think your research into the US Patent and Trademark Office turned up a different Ron Paul than the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul. Those links won't work by the way as they are session state stored locally in a cookie on your machine. I checked that out too, and I would suspect that anyone spending 25k on purchasing a domain would have done the same research and found that the person they were giving 25k to was the person who held that mark "Ron Paul".

In essence, any secondary meaning that the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul may have established in order to increase the distinctiveness of the mark "Ron Paul" to suggest a product or service that he offered occurred after the domain was registered. It can even be argued that ronpaul.com, the way it was run, helped him acquire that distinctiveness by linking the mark with the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul's products vis a vis the amazon book links and free mises PDF's and videos and transcripts of the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul's speeches, commentary, and debates.

So fair use and good faith are also being displayed at ronpaul.com in terms of the mark "Ron Paul".

[angelatc]

Here are some other relevant facts that may be of interest to you and/or others:


Ron Paul, Inc. (literally that was the name of our Ron Paul's business) between 1997-2004 actually owned the trademark "Ron Paul" but then opted to cancel that trademark in 2004 (Reference: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:kq17z1.3.4),




When I search "Ron Paul" it shows me that the trademark that was registered from 1997 - 2004 was also the restaurant guy. The link above doesn't work, so I assume mine won't work either, but here's a copy-n-paste:

Word Mark RON PAUL
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: restaurant and catering services. FIRST USE: 19831101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19831101
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75065313
Filing Date February 29, 1996
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition July 29, 1997
Registration Number 2106377
Registration Date October 21, 1997
Owner (REGISTRANT) Ron Paul, Inc. CORPORATION OREGON 1441 N.E. Broadway Portland OREGON 97232
Attorney of Record DAVID P COOPER
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Other Data "RON PAUL" identifies a living individual whose consent is of record.
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date July 24, 2004

[Article V]

I don't believe there is a lawsuit occurring.Ha. Then why are we talking about this? I vote we let the thread die if there's no longer a case as my primary interest in the matter were the legal ramifications of the outcome of that now seemingly nonexistent case.

I suppose a person can be trademarked if they really wanted to be. People get tattoos and stuff. We trademark cattle still I believe, and sadly in the past, I believe people were trademarked.No, this is incorrect. There's a difference between wearing a trademark, donning a trademark, imprinting a trademark, tattooing a trademark, or branding a trademark onto someone and someone actually being themselves a trademark.

The ICANN policy is specifically designed to handle blatant trademark infringement and domain registration abuse. It doesn't even handle copyright, much less right of publicity claims. Sometimes these issue can all be wrapped together when it is clear that the domain registrant is trying to scam people. So it's easy to confuse. Certainly those who believe that the mark "Ron Paul" has established suggestive secondary meaning of some product or service that the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul is selling would tend to also want to accuse those infringes of every other IP violation they can list. However, for the purposes of UDRP that all hinges on the trademark decision.

Finally, I think your research into the US Patent and Trademark Office turned up a different Ron Paul than the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul. Those links won't work by the way as they are session state stored locally in a cookie on your machine. I checked that out too, and I would suspect that anyone spending 25k on purchasing a domain would have done the same research and found that the person they were giving 25k to was the person who held that mark "Ron Paul".

In essence, any secondary meaning that the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul may have established in order to increase the distinctiveness of the mark "Ron Paul" to suggest a product or service that he offered occurred after the domain was registered. It can even be argued that ronpaul.com, the way it was run, helped him acquire that distinctiveness by linking the mark with the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul's products vis a vis the amazon book links and free mises PDF's and videos and transcripts of the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul's speeches, commentary, and debates.

So fair use and good faith are also being displayed at ronpaul.com in terms of the mark "Ron Paul".1. Damn, you know a lot about computers. Very impressive both in that post and in a bunch of others you've made elsewhere.
2. I agree with all that.

[Article V]

When I search "Ron Paul" it shows me that the trademark that was registered from 1997 - 2004 was also the restaurant guy. The link above doesn't work, so I assume mine won't work either, but here's a copy-n-paste:

Word Mark RON PAUL
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: restaurant and catering services. FIRST USE: 19831101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19831101
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75065313
Filing Date February 29, 1996
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition July 29, 1997
Registration Number 2106377
Registration Date October 21, 1997
Owner (REGISTRANT) Ron Paul, Inc. CORPORATION OREGON 1441 N.E. Broadway Portland OREGON 97232
Attorney of Record DAVID P COOPER
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Other Data "RON PAUL" identifies a living individual whose consent is of record.
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date July 24, 2004Yes, but if you look at the 2007 application, you'll see that it was filed by the same attorney from the same location as the 2004 guy; so I, perhaps wrongfully, assumed that our Ron registered both those companies in Oregon for tax purposes.

Here are the details of the 2007 application:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/ImageAgent/ImageAgentProxy?getImage=77097970
Mark Image
Word Mark RON PAUL
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: political consulting; lobbying services, namely, promoting the interests of food-service providers, restaurants, farmers, and food-product providers of fruit, produce, fish, meat and game, all in the fields of news, legislation and regulation; business consulting services to civic organizations, and to individuals and companies
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 77097970
Filing Date February 2, 2007
Current Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition July 8, 2008
Owner (APPLICANT) Ron Paul Consulting Company CORPORATION OREGON 2770 N.W. Upshur Portland OREGON 97210
Attorney of Record David P. Cooper
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Other Data The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies "RON PAUL", whose consent(s) to register is submitted.
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date November 2, 2009

[angelatc]

Yes, but if you look at the 2007 application, you'll see that it was filed by the same attorney from the same location; so I, perhaps wrongfully, assumed that Ron registered his company in Oregon for tax purposes.


The 2007 application is also the restaurant Ron Paul. Cut -n- paste below:


Word Mark RON PAUL
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: political consulting; lobbying services, namely, promoting the interests of food-service providers, restaurants, farmers, and food-product providers of fruit, produce, fish, meat and game, all in the fields of news, legislation and regulation; business consulting services to civic organizations, and to individuals and companies
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 77097970
Filing Date February 2, 2007
Current Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition July 8, 2008
Owner (APPLICANT) Ron Paul Consulting Company CORPORATION OREGON 2770 N.W. Upshur Portland OREGON 97210
Attorney of Record David P. Cooper
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Other Data The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies "RON PAUL", whose consent(s) to register is submitted.
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date November 2, 2009

[Article V]

The 2007 application is also the restaurant Ron Paul. Cut -n- paste below:See above. I was too slow in editing.

But I guess if you know who the "restaurant guy" is then it's probably safe to assume our Ron Paul has never owned the trademark if he isn't the "restaurant guy." Haha.

[newbitech]

Ha. Then why are we talking about this? I vote we let the thread die if there's no longer a case as my primary interest in the matter were the legal ramifications of the outcome of that now seemingly nonexistent case.
No, this is incorrect. There's a difference between wearing a trademark, donning a trademark, imprinting a trademark, tattooing a trademark, or branding a trademark onto someone and someone actually being themselves a trademark.
1. Damn, you know a lot about computers. Very impressive both in that post and in a bunch of others you've made elsewhere.
2. I agree with all that.

Oh, I see what you are getting at. lol, no I don't think a person can themselves be a trademark, that would be ludicrous! But yea, there never was a docket for this "case". I thought maybe the lawyers were gearing up for it based on the way they presented the claim, but from what I have been reading, it is rare for a claimant who pursues a UDRP claim to follow up with a legal claim. I think that has a lot to do with most true squatters are really looking to turn an easy buck and haven't done anything more than park a domain name. For those that have, very rarely do they have offline operations that would continue their infringement once the domain is transferred.

The claims that are lost seem to be not really based on any types of real monetary loss, so there doesn't seem to be an incentive to pursue for the claimant, and it would probably be cheaper to come to terms that pursue an IP case which almost always requires full time counsel for several years to realize a profitable outcome.

[CPUd]

Ha. Then why are we talking about this? I vote we let the thread die if there's no longer a case as my primary interest in the matter were the legal ramifications of the outcome of that now seemingly nonexistent case.
No, this is incorrect. There's a difference between wearing a trademark, donning a trademark, imprinting a trademark, tattooing a trademark, or branding a trademark onto someone and someone actually being themselves a trademark.
1. Damn, you know a lot about computers. Very impressive both in that post and in a bunch of others you've made elsewhere.
2. I agree with all that.

Have you read the original complaint?

[Article V]

Oh, I see what you are getting at. lol, no I don't think a person can themselves be a trademark, that would be ludicrous! But yea, there never was a docket for this "case". I thought maybe the lawyers were gearing up for it based on the way they presented the claim, but from what I have been reading, it is rare for a claimant who pursues a UDRP claim to follow up with a legal claim. I think that has a lot to do with most true squatters are really looking to turn an easy buck and haven't done anything more than park a domain name. For those that have, very rarely do they have offline operations that would continue their infringement once the domain is transferred.

The claims that are lost seem to be not really based on any types of real monetary loss, so there doesn't seem to be an incentive to pursue for the claimant, and it would probably be cheaper to come to terms that pursue an IP case which almost always requires full time counsel for several years to realize a profitable outcome.I wish Ron would have known all that before they started all this hoopla.

[Article V]

Have you read the original complaint?I think newbitech, or someone equally as resourceful, found a copy of it and linked it either in this or some other thread. Can't remember where it is now.

[The Free Hornet]

Are you saying that the person who originally held that control, a Mr. Ron Paul trademark owner of the mark Ron Paul did not have the right to sell his control to the highest bidder? If selling control of the domain was legitimate, then how can the person who purchased that control be illegitimate?

They may have had a right to sell* it, but the purchaser has to understand the limitations of what was bought*. Namely, they got something that could be easily taken by anybody named

-Ron Paul
-Ronpa Ul
-Ro n'Paul
-R.O. Paul
-et cetera

Unless, of course, they specifically disassociated with a "Ron Paul". For example, let's say they started a business "Ron Paul's Silver Imports" with NO connection to Ron Paul (not his image, persona, political quotes, NADA). They register that name, they trademark for that purpose, and they disclose to the clueless that there is no affiliation with any other Ron Paul including Ron Paul.

I've worked with a company whose namesake is dead and no relations worked there, yet the name survives. Half of us may be in a similar situation or have been. The Panamanians did no such thing. They played with fire, lied their asses off (the UN thing), besmirched Ron's good name, and I hope they get $ZERO for their troubles. Fuck them.


*this is not imply property is or was for sale, it isn't and won't be - no property is involved

[Barrex]

Of course it was NOT aimed at you. It was clearly pointed at Ron's legal team based off the legalese used in the initial complaint those lawyers filed. I have no idea how you would ever think from that wording that it was pointed at you. I already said I respect you and think you understand the dispute far more than most other RPF-users.
Ha. Again, I was NOT saying that you are pretending, haha.


I apologize for misunderstanding because I was the only one who was mentioned these rights and laws on these forums. Also I am having difficulties to find correct words and legal terms on English language when I try to translate from German or Croatian... as you can see my english is not nearly as good as it should be to have more in-depth debate about this (but I try:().



I trust that you are quoting German law accurately. I was attempting to say that if German law is pretending that, because both are intellectual property, the statue of limitations for publicity rights is equivalent to the statute of limitations for copyrights, then the logic of that Germanic law is absurd, weakly founded, and will not pass the smell test for world-wide adoption. I hope that's now clear.
Once more, you're either missing my point or ignoring it. You may very well be correct that RonPaul.com is wrong. (I have always included that outcome as a possibility. Indeed, I've always maintained that most unlicensed Ron Paul websites, including both RonPaul.com and RPF, were wrong and infringing on Ron Paul's publicity rights at the time of their creation.) My point, however, was not about who is right or wrong. My point was that even if you are correct that RonPaul.com is in the wrong, it's still possible that Ron Paul may lose the case against RonPaul.com because the statute of limitations may have already expired with regards to that RonPaul.com infringement. If this point is still confusing to you, then please try to explain my own argument back to me so that I can understand what you're not getting; because, right now, I don't know how to explain it any better than the quote you quoted and still seem to misunderstand.
Ron Paul was restrained from doing what he could? By whom? This is where your legal argument against abandonment falls apart. There is no law restraining Ron Paul from enforcing the protections of his publicity rights while in office. Quite the contrary, the law still expects and even demands all politicians, whether in or out of public life/office, must maintain their own publicity rights against any and all infringements at all times.
Let's be clear: Ron Paul chose not to maintain his publicity rights because he decided his publicity rights would retain more value if he didn't pursue a potential lawsuit while in office (i.e. Ron Paul decided avoiding potential bad press while in office was worth more to his publicity rights than preventing the publicity rights infringments of RonPaul.com). Ergo, Ron Paul made an active choice in the management of his publicity rights that may have resulted in the statute of limitations expiring for this particular RonPaul.com infringement. What don't you understand about that?
I understood your point. That is why I wrote: "Nowhere and no lawyer can 100% guarantee win in any courtroom or arbitration. This is not exception."... maybe I should have added: it depends what laws will be applied and who will be arbiter/judge.

Civil Law(Continental European law) and Common law (Anglo-Saxon) are taking (completely) different approaches to this. You are focusin and reffering to US laws and they are not only laws that will be used. I am Continental European law "guy" and from that perspective: Human rights and "General right of personality" are much better protected here than are in U.S.A. Crime (infingement) of right of publicity can be punished only if owner demands it (§ 33). It can lead up to 1 year in jail (very rarely-same as copyright). I am not going to quote Bundesverfassungsgericht, Grundgesetz etc. but Right of publicity( Recht am eigenen Bild) is looked through "abgestuftes Schutzkonzept" (each breach is specific/hard to explain in few words and without dissertation.) and German law coveres this in "general right of personality" (Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht). In Ron Pauls case there is also public interest in information (öffentliches Informationsinteresse), "historic figure" and few other laws that come in play. Under "öffentliches Informationsinteresse" Ron Paul was "absolute public figure" and was restrained from what he and his campaign could do to protect his rights (tredemark, publicity etc/ like I said different approaches here and in US).Ron Paul, under those circumstances, had to tolerate it. In German Law nowhere it is written that anyone must maintain their right of publicity, on contrary Objection, Cancelation and Forfeiting is always on side of victim/original owner (Anspruch auf Vernichtung, Rückruf und Überlassung). It also is heavily focused on stopping unjust enrichment and protecting rights of victims/owners of rights...
(and I agree with this school of thinking more than I agree with US laws. Your laws put people in bad position In case of Ron Paul: choose will you suffer by loosing your right of publicity or loosing by having bad publicity. That is why politicians rarely enforce /and yes it is different here that in US./ their right of publicity)


... legally speaking, it's not "all connected"; instead, legally speaking, it's merely all related. There's a huge difference. Each broken law has its own judgement, they do not all get lumped into one judgement even if those various judgements all occur in the same trial. Is that clear? This is why I am not addressing other laws or infringements as other laws and infringements are separate and apart from the domain name dispute itself which is exclusively a publicity rights lawsuit about the legal right of ownership of the domain name. If RonPaul.com broke copyright law, for example, then they'll have to pay fines and remove the infringing material from their website; but that guilty judgement would have no legal bearing on RonPaul.com's ownership of the domain name itself because their copyright infringements are separate and apart from the legal dispute over domain ownership.

When I read those documents it looked to me like they (Ron Paul side) are preparing for a trial where they would go "all in". Sue RonPaul.com for all infringements that they committed. That is why I mentioned it... and yes of course they would be decided separately even if they were part of the same case (that is why I used "all connected").

[newbitech]

They may have had a right to sell* it, but the purchaser has to understand the limitations of what was bought*. Namely, they got something that could be easily taken by anybody named

-Ron Paul
-Ronpa Ul
-Ro n'Paul
-R.O. Paul
-et cetera

Unless, of course, they specifically disassociated with a "Ron Paul". For example, let's say they started a business "Ron Paul's Silver Imports" with NO connection to Ron Paul (not his image, persona, political quotes, NADA). They register that name, they trademark for that purpose, and they disclose to the clueless that there is no affiliation with any other Ron Paul including Ron Paul.

I've worked with a company whose namesake is dead and no relations worked there, yet the name survives. Half of us may be in a similar situation or have been. The Panamanians did no such thing. They played with fire, lied their asses off (the UN thing), besmirched Ron's good name, and I hope they get $ZERO for their troubles. Fuck them.


*this is not imply property is or was for sale, it isn't and won't be - no property is involved


But why would a fan site disassociate from the object of their affection? I am not sure what you mean "they played with fire". I suspect they did their due diligence and checked with the USPTO and found no registry for the mark. Should they have called up Dr. Paul and discussed it? Oh you say they did and he wasn't interested? Mmmkay...

You still trying to spread rumors about lying, not cool.

The only besmirching I have seen has been directed at the ronpaul.com people from people in support of Ron Paul's claim, and maybe the obvious media besmirching that we've grown accustomed when Ron Paul says or does something that they can sell as highly controversial.

I also have it on good authority that the so called Panamanians are actually Americans. But I doubt that will make a difference to the people who like to refer to folks nationality in a derogatory sense anyways.

[Article V]

I apologize for misunderstanding because I was the only one who was mentioned these rights and laws on these forums. Also I am having difficulties to find correct words and legal terms on English language when I try to translate from German or Croatian... as you can see my english is not nearly as good as it should be to have more in-depth debate about this (but I try:().

I understood your point. That is why I wrote: "Nowhere and no lawyer can 100% guarantee win in any courtroom or arbitration. This is not exception."... maybe I should have added: it depends what laws will be applied and who will be arbiter/judge.

Civil Law(Continental European law) and Common law (Anglo-Saxon) are taking (completely) different approaches to this. You are focusin and reffering to US laws and they are not only laws that will be used. I am Continental European law "guy" and from that perspective: Human rights and "General right of personality" are much better protected here than are in U.S.A. Crime (infingement) of right of publicity can be punished only if owner demands it (§ 33). It can lead up to 1 year in jail (very rarely-same as copyright). I am not going to quote Bundesverfassungsgericht, Grundgesetz etc. but Right of publicity( Recht am eigenen Bild) is looked through "abgestuftes Schutzkonzept" (each breach is specific/hard to explain in few words and without dissertation.) and German law coveres this in "general right of personality" (Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht). In Ron Pauls case there is also public interest in information (öffentliches Informationsinteresse), "historic figure" and few other laws that come in play. Under "öffentliches Informationsinteresse" Ron Paul was "absolute public figure" and was restrained from what he and his campaign could do to protect his rights (tredemark, publicity etc/ like I said different approaches here and in US).Ron Paul, under those circumstances, had to tolerate it. In German Law nowhere it is written that anyone must maintain their right of publicity, on contrary Objection, Cancelation and Forfeiting is always on side of victim/original owner (Anspruch auf Vernichtung, Rückruf und Überlassung). It also is heavily focused on stopping unjust enrichment and protecting rights of victims/owners of rights...
(and I agree with this school of thinking more than I agree with US laws. Your laws put people in bad position In case of Ron Paul: choose will you suffer by loosing your right of publicity or loosing by having bad publicity. That is why politicians rarely enforce /and yes it is different here that in US./ their right of publicity)

When I read those documents it looked to me like they (Ron Paul side) are preparing for a trial where they would go "all in". Sue RonPaul.com for all infringements that they committed. That is why I mentioned it... and yes of course they would be decided separately even if they were part of the same case (that is why I used "all connected").Apology accepted. You're doing yeoman's work. ...and a remarkably good job of it at that. Not to mention the fact that you're doing it all without English being your first language!

Croatians are gorgeous people. Come to America, help support Rand Paul,...and bring some freedom-loving Croatian women with you. ;)

[The Free Hornet]

But why would a fan site disassociate from the object of their affection?

I don't know that they are fans. But the motivation to disassociate would be to keep the domain name which is a seperate entity from the site. If you want to start a Madonna fan site, you are safer with madannafans.com than madanna.com. Regardless, it would seem famous people get ".com" control quite easily (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/10/16/madonna.cybersquatter.reut/).


You still trying to spread rumors about lying, not cool.

I'm calling them liars for the "UN" thing. That's an opinion, not a rumor. I question that they are fans or even libertarian minded. That is more like a "rumor".


I also have it on good authority that the so called Panamanians are actually Americans. But I doubt that will make a difference to the people who like to refer to folks nationality in a derogatory sense anyways.

No, it is not a nationality thing. Shall I call them the cybersquatters - that's presumptive? The pretend fans? Also presumptive. Whoever they are, they have gone to some length to remain secretative while making web-wide headlines. Until real names/faces can be attached to the current controllers of ronpaul.com (not necessarily who they are leasing control to), what else shall we call them? Your info, is not in this piece posted today:


Both RonPaul.org and RonPaul.com are owned by companies in Panama. (Who knew that Paul’s greatest supporters fighting for him to be able to change America were based in Panama?)

domainnamewire.com/2013/02/27/ron-paul-files-another-domain-dispute-targeting-ronpaul-org/ (http://domainnamewire.com/2013/02/27/ron-paul-files-another-domain-dispute-targeting-ronpaul-org/)

This also matters because non Americans are statistically less likely to be libertarian minded (AFAIK - couldn't find a ref). The Panamanian connection adds more fishiness to the story but it is not necessarily a national thing. They haven't given us their names and the published news reports give "Panama"...

Edit: Any odds as to whether their real names align with the FEC/Ron Paul donor lists?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Talk about a slaughter. +40 votes for Ron Paul in this poll.

[qh4dotcom]

Talk about a slaughter. +40 votes for Ron Paul in this poll.

Many RPF members flip-flopped

In my poll, over 70% disagreed with Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404065-Do-you-agree-with-Ron-Paul-s-claim-against-the-owner-of-RonPaul-com

[Anti-Neocon]

Many RPF members flip-flopped

In my poll, over 70% disagreed with Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404065-Do-you-agree-with-Ron-Paul-s-claim-against-the-owner-of-RonPaul-com
The question was asked differently both times... You can be sympathetic towards Ron Paul's side without thinking that he should've tried to seize RonPaul.com.

[jj-]

ii) other sites aren't trying to pimp their domain to Ron for nearly a million dollars

Where do you draw the line? What's the point at which the price is high enough to be bad faith? 800,000? 849,999? How is that number calculated?

[jj-]

Trademarks don't have to be registered under ICANN claim cases. There are common law trademarks. Hillary's was, etc. Clearly, we don't know how they will rule, but all the discussion in the world, here, won't change that.

Oh my god, you must be a genius. Also, what does that have to do with anything?

[sailingaway]

Where do you draw the line? What's the point at which the price is high enough to be bad faith? 800,000? 849,999? How is that number calculated?

the point is the rules of the domain say how you can use it, to begin with. I don't know for sure Ron will win, but the question will be if it was used in violation of those rules.

Ron just tried to buy it first because he thought it was equitable under the circumstances, but if you break the rules of a license, you don't really 'have it' for that.

[jj-]

the point is the rules of the domain say how you can use it, to begin with. I don't know for sure Ron will win, but the question will be if it was used in violation of those rules.

Ron just tried to buy it first because he thought it was equitable under the circumstances, but if you break the rules of a license, you don't really 'have it' for that.

I don't care about any of that. I just want to know the price at which it becomes bad faith, and how it's calculated.

[qh4dotcom]

I don't care about any of that. I just want to know the price at which it becomes bad faith, and how it's calculated.

Exactly, I want to know that too...in a free market you can ask for any price that you want.

Don't forget that the RonPaul.com folks deny making an 848K offer....sure, there's an email asking for 848K in the complaint but no proof the email address on it belongs to the owner of RonPaul.com.

[itshappening]

Where do you draw the line? What's the point at which the price is high enough to be bad faith? 800,000? 849,999? How is that number calculated?

In the complaint Ron's attorney said they had it valued at $50k, so he's asking way more than fair value according to independent appraiser. The judges will decide if it's fair or not but according to my experience with domains he's asking an extortionate amount

[fr33]

I don't care about any of that. I just want to know the price at which it becomes bad faith, and how it's calculated.

When one claims to be a Ron Paul supporter but their name is not found to have given a donation to the campaign, bad faith starts to arise from such a domain owner.

[qh4dotcom]

When one claims to be a Ron Paul supporter but their name is not found to have given a donation to the campaign, bad faith starts to arise from such a domain owner.

You forgot that international Ron Paul supporters could not legally donate to his campaign

[newbitech]

bad faith has nothing to do with how much money they asked for when approached by the campaign. Bad faith has nothing to do with how they responded to the pressure of the grassroots after Ron Paul made it known that he wanted the site on Alex Jones.

The site was certainly NOT registered in bad faith, since it was obvious Ron Paul was not willing to part with any amount of money to acquire the domain from the other Ron Paul who did in fact have the name trademarked. If Dr. Ron Paul was not willing to separate himself from his money to acquire this domain at a time when donation were pouring in, then the motive for the people to BUY the domain for $25k was not to later sell the domain at a profit.

People forget that it was pretty obvious at the time that Ron Paul and LOTS of the grassroots were actively dismissing the importance of this domain. To somehow insinuate that the people bought this domain in order to sell it back to Ron Paul is to deny the circumstances at the time the domain was transferred. They didn't purchase the domain in bad faith with the intentions of selling it back later. They certainly didn't run the domain in bad faith for 5 years while in control of the domain.

Yes they ran a store selling campaign gear that helped spread Ron Paul's message, just like many others with Ron Paul themed sites did and still do. As supporters of Ron Paul, if we make the claim that selling Ron Paul gear is evidence of bad faith, then the entire premise of this "movement" needs to be questioned. Especially in light of the evidence that Ron Paul bought some of this gear and encouraged others to make profit off of selling the message of liberty with his name attached.

The only claim that Ron Paul can legitimately make is that the site uses his name, which is the trademark claim. He has several hurdles to overcome in that claim as well. The fair use and bad faith claims must be framed in such a way to make what otherwise would have been considered die hard supporters look like scapegoats for the failure of his campaign and his advisers to secure something as simple as a domain name bearing the man's name.

[newbitech]

and where is any evidence that these people did not donate to the campaign? First how many college kids with no job and no money donated their time rather than lunch money? Oh must not be supporters, Lew Rockwell couldn't find their name on the money list (really, its come to that?). Second, how many people donated with a fake name? I did a couple times for the fun of it (remember the ticker?) Third, anyone else drop $25,000 and redirect search traffic to Ron Paul for 3 months from the #1 related Ron Paul search term "Ron Paul"? Didn't think so. That action alone was worth more than what Ron Paul's alleged "independent appraisal" of the domain is worth. And speaking of that appraisal, where is any evidence that is was a non bias third party appraisal? There is none.

Honestly, it disgusts me the amount of filling in the blanks that has gone on by people trying to support Ron Paul's claim at all cost. You must know that the panel will make no such assumptions and bridge no such gaps in their review of the claims! Yet, here you are trying so hard to paint these people as CRIMINALS even! Stop faking the facts! Please! If there is a piece of information left out of Ron Paul's claim it's because either they don't have the information or because they are unwilling to supply it because it will hurt their claim!

The Lew Rockwell side bar in this case should also be dismissed as well as the claims from his attorneys due to the fact that they are asking you to completely ignore the other options that Ron Paul had in this claim! Starting off a claim by asking for (and receiving I might add) ignorance is not going to endear me to taking up the cause of that claim!

Fortunately, I am not like many Ron Paul supporters who see 5 years worth of RonPaul.com and pick out 1 or 2 articles or actions and decide that the people are EVIL! No I see Ron Paul's body of work, and while this issue that he has brought has been disgusting to me in more than a couple of ways, I am not gonna turn my back on the man! It will take more than a couple of mistakes for me to judge Ron Paul like that given the totality of the evidence.