Comments on: Bill Clinton Loses Domain Name Challenge

By: Luz Helena Villamil

Luz Helena Villamil — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:07:08 +0000

As a domain name panelist, I totally disagree with the decision taken in the present case. I would see prima facie bad faith in anyone who seeks registration of a the domain name presidentbillclinton.com since ¿what kind of clean interest could anyone claim in such domain name? ¿What legitimate interest could anyone have in using President’s Clinton name? No doubt the registrant will use President’s Clinton notoriety in its own benefit. what a shame!

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:45:52 +0000

Enrico – regardless of whether or not the decision was right, I could see this going differently with another panelist. That’s why this is so frustrating — inconsistency.

By: Enrico S.

Enrico S. — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:55:18 +0000

I did a complete analysis of this decision here.

http://tinyurl.com/quabm9

It was wrongly decided, in my estimation. How would you like it if someone registered your name and pointed it to an abortion, or anti-abortion, web site seeking to raise money? Would people think you were endorsing the site to which you were re-directing? Of course. Is the RNC web site commercial? Of course it is. Was the registrant trying to leverage Clinton’s fame for his own purposes and to cause confusion? Of course.

DS: You are right that advertisements on the site would have been a clincher. But the RNC web site ids designed to raise money. It is really the same thing.

I think this one is out of bounds, a bad decision and simply causes confusion among domainers about what business models are risky, or not.

By: the.LIFE Files - “Welcome To Exclusiveness” : Bill Clinton Loses His Bid To Get Presidentbillclinton.com, Williamjclinton.com And Pretty Much Anything Else He Would Want….

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:41:36 +0000

[...] the Republican National Committee site. Long story short, Bill took them to court they told him some legal mumbo jumbo and he [...]

By: DS

DS — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:37:23 +0000

If the domain had been showing ads containing Republican party links the case would be bad faith. But since the defendant is only forwarding to the republican party page it is legitamate use.

What I think happened was one of the idea balls from the “idea tank” made the UDRP manatees stop working. see: http://www.lemonzoo.com/funny_videos/15684/South_Park___How_Family_Guy_is_made.html

By: Barefoot

Barefoot — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:57:43 +0000

Why is forwarding not considered a bona fide use? For that matter, why is parking a domain not consistently considered a bona fide use?

The use of a domain – whether forwarded, parked, modestly built (e.g. “Hello World”), “Under Construction”, or any level of development – should be left up to the registrant. A registrant shouldn’t have to worry about possibly losing his domain simply for not putting it to use to the satisfaction of everyone else.

Even if you aren’t using the domain at all (e.g. 404 error) you shouldn’t have to worry about the possibility of losing it. You’ve paid the registration fee, so why can’t you enjoy the freedom of doing what you want with the domain for the duration of your registration term?

By: Tim Davids

Tim Davids — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:11:51 +0000

If you “put” an identical site up instead of forwarding is it then use?

These things should be used as aptitude tests