maybe, maybe not. I don't know if Brown would prevail on those theories -
just that those would be plausible thoeries for his lawyer to consider. As
previously stated, my speculation was based on one news article that
doesn't give all the facts necessary to properly evaluate Mayor Brown's
theoretical claims. there isn't a lot of caselaw yet on the applicability
of rights of publicity/privacy to domain names and whether Mayor Brown's
name would function as a common law trademark is also not hornbook law (btw
the WIPO Report specifically choose not to include rights of publicity in
its discussion of abusive registration). and then there's the whole
warehousing vs. actual use question which can't be addressed based on the
article.
I only attempted to rebut a single assertion - the assertion that it was
"impossible" to cybersquat a common name. If we utilize a temporary
definition of cybersquat here - "the commission of a tort aimed at an
identifiable entity through the registration of a domain name" - then I
believe that it is possible to "cybersquat" a common name such as willie
brown.
It's been too long a day for me here on the East Coast to get into arguing
the merits of the anti-cybersquatting act just now.
>
>> Willie Brown possibly has superior rights to williebrown.com,
>> williebrownjr.com and damayor.com vis a vis Andy Hasse because Mr. Hasse
>> appears to have obtained domain names likely to be associated with Willie
>> Brown, the mayor of San Francisco, possibly in a way calculated to harm
>> Mayor Brown (Mr Hasse's employment by Mayor Brown's rival is relevant to
>> this analysis). Possible theories include rights of publicity, common law
>> trademark, false advertising, interference with prospective advantage, and
>> unfair competition
>
>In other words, Mayor Brown has lots of rights under existing law to go
>after the other person. He needs no assistance from anything new in the
>domain name space, existing law provides more than adequate protection.
>
>So if Willy can demonstrate under existing laws that there is a violation
>to his right of publicity, common law trademark, that the other use is
>false advertising or interferes with a prospective advantage, or is unfair
>competion, then fine.
>
>It appears that we need not add any special new rules in the domain name
>arena to deal with this situation.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
