Yet Another Bad UDRP Decision 29
A user writes "According to a NewsBytes article, a Florida man named Peter Frampton had his domain, PeterFrampton.com, taken away thru the quasi-juduicial process established by ICANN for domain name disputes because he shares his name with a washed up rock star from the 70s. A copy of the WIPO decision can be found here."
He's already got frampton.com (Score:2)
Why does he need PeterFrampton.com as well?
Slashdot FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
It was an intentional effort to cash in on the musician's name.
Re:Slashdot FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Here we have an unfortunate (however justified) precedent: Lyle Peter Frampton does have a (quasi-)legitimate claim to using the name he is commonly known by as an Internet address or even to engage in business.
What he does not have is the right to capitalize on the fame of the original Frampton. However, I don't believe taking the domain away from him was necessarily the best way to resolve this dispute.
Re:Slashdot FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot FUD (Score:2)
There is a rather nasty precedent set here that a person does not have an intrinsic right to use their own name if:
a) someone else has it also
b) that person is more famous than they are
c) they are both in similar businesses.
By this reasoning, If you are named William Gates, and are not the famous one, you better not start a website called billgates.com that has to do with software.
There is a fair indication that the unfamous frampton was trying to cash in on the famous one's name, and this may indicate a certain amount of bad faith. The remedy was wrong, however. At worst, the site might have been required to say, "We are not associated with the untalented former guitarist of the Eagles, Peter Frampton".
A person should always have a right to their own name. You'll also note that the respondent was 61 years old. He has a claim of prior usage!
On the other hand, in reading the complaint, it does seem that the respondent was a bit of a loon.
Re: Misunderstanding The Opinion (Score:3, Informative)
- someone else has it also
- that person is more famous than they are
- they are both in similar businesses.
Sorry, wrong on two counts:- The first registrant was Lyle Frampton, not another Peter Frampton, and did not even identify himself as Peter Frampton when seeking business partners to exploit the PeterFrampton.com web site
- Fame is certainly an aspect of the law and this ruling, though a huge disparity is required
- This is not a case of two people in similar businesses. The first registrant (Lyle) was not in any music-related business, other than promoting sales (though links to commercial web sites) of items associated with the famous musical artist Peter Framption.
Absolutely correct: if the Microsoft founder registered his name as a trademark used in association with the sale of computer software, then "other" Bill Gates would likely lose, but the first Bill couldn't get the registration if the other Bill had earlier been actively selling software under that name. I think the "bad faith" is pretty severe, in this case, but I also agree that there are some troubling aspects to the law and some of the analysis in the published opinion. Yes, never under-estimate the "loon effect" in litigation. Loons usually lose, often simply because they are too loony to argue their case effectively.I found it troubling (but the court apparently did not) that Lyle Frampton failed to present any evidence that he has ever been known as "Peter Frampton" or that Peter is his middle name. No driver's license? No birth certificate? No deed to property? Nothing at all?
I simply don't view this as a bad decision, but I certainly will defend to the death (okay, maybe not quite that far) my right to control and maintain my domain name at MarkWelch.com -- it is my name, and indeed I am pretty famous online under this name.
If some 17-year-old named Mark Welch burns some rap CDs, even if his album becomes the best-selling live album of all time, and then if in 2003 the punk registers his name as a trademark for music sales, and then sued to take over my domain name, I would be quite annoyed at having to fight, but the law is pretty clear that I would win and I would get to keep my domain name -- unless I decided to flush all my current content and create a page that just promotes the rap music and profit from the other fellow's reputation.
There are other Mark Welches out there, hundreds of them. At one time, I even created a domain at MarkWelch.net to help people find the "right" Mark Welch they were looking for (then my ISP went belly-up and I lost access, and didn't want to jump through Verisign's hoops to regain control).
Read the law, read the opinions in these cases.
Peter Frampton, the guitarist, may own domain (Score:1)
1. Peter Frampton has a lot of fans (and is still a celebrity). I, among many others, appreciates his work, especially his groundbreaking stuff like Do You Feel Like We Do (the guitar sounds so cool).
2. Frampton Comes Alive! is one the better selling albums of the mid-1970s era. Many songs from this CD are *STILL* played on classic rock stations and soft rock stations, namely Baby I Love Your Way (later remade by the crappy Will To Power and Big Mountain), Show Me The Way, and Do You Feel Like We Do.
3. So he still gets exposure. And he is still touring. Thus, if someone types in peterframpton.com or whatever, they expect to see HIS website, with tour dates, etc. Not some washed-up schmuck who just learned what HTML stands for.
Bottom line, is the fact that I am a PF fan aside, I think he has the rightful ownership of the domain name. People expect to see the guitarist Peter Frampton's webpage, not Mr. Frampton the jackass from Boise Idaho.
Re:Peter Frampton, the guitarist, may own domain (Score:1)
You have more balls than I, dear friend. You have admitted to being a Peter Frampton fan!
To the stake with you! :o)
Re:Peter Frampton, the guitarist, may own domain (Score:2)
I'd argue that his name recognition is still pretty high. I wouldn't consider myself a Frampton fan per se, although I respect his playing ability, but we have at least one fan [slashdot.org] among us.
Re:Peter Frampton, the guitarist, may own domain (Score:1)
Re:Peter Frampton, the guitarist, may own domain (Score:1)
A guy named "Peter Frampton" who set up the site for himself would not have had the domain taken from him.
This decision sounds right to me (Score:5, Informative)
Though I don't agree with some of the statements in the opinion, I found it completely persuasive on the relevant points:
- The first registrant's real name was "Lyle Frampton" and not "Peter Frampton" (the court seems to accept that the registrant's full name is "Lyle Peter Frampton" but notes that no proof was actually given)
- The web site showed logos copied from the web site of the music artist Peter Frampton
- The web site contains commercial links to resellers of music and music equipment associated with the "famous music artist" and not the original registrant
- Although the web site does not offer the domain for sale, the web site's text (as quoted in the opinion) reads like a classic "join with me to exploit this famous domain" instead of being a page about the registrant (Mr. Frampton):
The first-registrant is not some kid named Peter Frampton who posted a home page about his hobbies, nor a guy named Peter Frampton who engages in some business under that name. Instead, it is someone who doesn't normally answer to the name "Peter Frampton," and whose sole use of the domain is to exploit and profit from the professional fame of the washed-up music artist named Peter Frampton.This doesn't sound like a close case to me, unless you hide or distort some of the facts as stated in the published opinion [wipo.int].
Re:This decision sounds right to me (Score:2)
Re: First Come, First Served? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ultimately, what is "supposed to be" is settled by custom and law, and in this case a procedure was established, and in the USA a law was created especially to deal with this issue, and so "first come, first served" is NOT how our system has decided things are "supposed to be."
Would I have designed a different system? Yeah, if I were emperor of the internet, I would have a different set of rules, which would make it a little bit harder for someone to win a case like this -- but if we did things the way I think they should be, the outcome in this case would not change.
At one time, everyone was free to hunt animals and catch fish on public lands, without limitation. But then some people began hunting and fishing too much, depleting stocks and threatening species, and now things are different. Some fishermen and hunters claim that they are "supposed to be" able to hunt and fish until nothing is left, but our society has decided on a different set of rules.
How are things "supposed to be"? It all depends on who does the supposing.
Re: First Come, First Served? (Score:2)
If things were done the right way, then former rock star Frampton would have simply sued Mr. Nobody Frampton for trademark or copyright violation, and would not have received the domain except as part of a court ruling or settlement.