Late singer’s estate files complaint over domain name JamesBrown.com.
The estate of the late “Godfather of Soul” James Brown has filed an arbitration case with National Arbitration Forum over the domain name JamesBrown.com.
The domain name is registered to Lac Management, Inc., which manages “RJ & The James Brown Band”, the group that performed with Brown until his death in 2006.
When contacted for comment about the case, Lac Management said it was contacted by the estate of James Brown and Lac offered to sell the domain name to the estate. The estate decided instead to file the arbitration request under the uniform domain name dispute resolution policy (UDRP).
Anony house says
I fill suite tu du du du, so good … 😉
Rosy Sandana says
I worked at a venue where the owner of LAC Management, Jack Bart, booked James Brown to play when he was alive. Jack Bart who hadn’t formed LAC Management yet, and was James Browns booker-agent, as was his father for thirty or forty years before Jack took over. I know Jack Bart is a great agent and now manager. James Brown loved him like family. The Estate, which is kind of clouded by legal fights by people James Brown probably did not even like, might be out of line. Jack Bart used JamesBrown.Com to book James Brown when he was alive and would have wanted Jack to book his band to keep them working after his death. That’s just my humble opinion my encounters with James Brown when he was alive and Jack Bart and the James Brown band mates.
rs says
I see a big problem with the way this decision was rendered. Once they identify that there are legitimate issues surrounding litigation the arbitration must stop right there because it is outside the scope of UDRP. Instead they “ignored” the arguments and went ahead anyway. Also, the arbitration is a contract to review all arguments and render a decision. If they ignore arguments then refunds are due.
“Complainant has argued various legal points pursuant to agency law as they may apply to Respondent’s status as the agent for Mr. James Brown and estate law as it applies to the evidence presented by Respondent. The Panel holds that the instant dispute is governed by the UDRP and not any agency, estate or evidence laws, and as such, the Panel has disregarded these arguments. While Policy ¶ 4(k) allows the parties to litigate these points in court, the Panel finds that, even though these types of arguments may be suitable in a court litigation context, they are not applicable to this arbitration proceeding which is limited to the scope of the UDRP and its elements.”