Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
from the this-would-appear-to-be-a-mistake dept
A year ago, we pointed out how hypocritical it was for Ron Paul (at the time still a Congressional Representative and a candidate for President) to file a ridiculous lawsuit, clearly abusing trademark law, in an effort to unmask some anonymous internet users who had made a video that attacked another candidate, John Huntsman, and closed with a claim that the video was from Ron Paul supporters. Many of Pauls' supporters actually believed the video was a fake, from Huntsman supporters, seeking to discredit Ron Paul. Even if that was true, there was simply no excuse to then abuse trademark law to try to take away someone's anonymity. And, yes, it was an abuse of trademark law -- as he both claimed trademark on his name and claimed that the video was a "use in commerce" (it was not). Even if you believe the videomakers should have been exposed, I would hope you'd agree that abusing a totally unrelated law to do so would be a mistake, and (to us) seemed to go 100% against the things Ron Paul claimed to stand for. Thankfully, a judge quickly agreed and killed the lawsuit.In writing about this, many of Paul's more ardent supporters trashed us both in our comments, and on various Ron Paul websites. I'm a little curious how they feel now, in a similar situation, where Ron Paul has turned his legal sights on them. As a whole bunch of folks have sent in, Ron Paul has filed a UDRP complaint against the site RonPaul.com, seeking to have WIPO turn over the domain to him. RonPaul.com has basically been the central source for the massive grassroots effort that supported Ron Paul in his last two Presidential campaigns -- leading many other candidates to envy Paul's ability to connect with the internet generation. The reality, of course, was much of that actually had to do with a few of his most dedicated fans, and their ability to spread his message via a series of grassroots websites, including RonPaul.com. To have Paul turn around and seek to have WIPO turn over the domain is incredible on so many different levels, once again suggesting that many of the things Ron Paul claims to have believed in go completely out the window at times -- even when it involves turning on the very people who built up his reputation.
Even more bizarre is that not only is he turning on his most ardent supporters and effectively taking them to court, but he's using WIPO, a part of the United Nations, to do so. Ron Paul hates the UN and would like the US to leave the UN. As he once said:
The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.And yet, here he is, running to the UN, and trying to forcefully take away a super successful site from his biggest fans supporting him, using the force of that same United Nations? Incredible.
Reading through the background and history, and then digging into the claims Paul's lawyer makes, suggests that Paul has made a huge mistake here. The backstory is that in a recent interview Paul expressed some minor regret that he did not hold the domain:
In response, some of his fans told the site's operators they should look to hand over the site. The operators noted that over the past 4.5 years, and through two high profile Presidential campaigns, they were at the center of building up massive grassroots support for Paul, and they had not had any request for the domain, but they were happy to talk it over:Alex Jones: Well, God bless you, sir, I hope we can get you back again in a month. What are any other websites that are important, just www.CampaignForLiberty.org?
Ron Paul: There’s that, and we’ll be listing some new things there because we’re making some other WebPages. I’m going to have a home page. Unfortunately, I didn’t have RonPaul.com, so I’m going to have to have RonPaulsHomepage.com. That will be coming up, but it’s not ready yet.
On May 1st, 2008 we launched a grassroots website at RonPaul.com that became one of the most popular resources dedicated exclusively to Ron Paul and his ideas. We put our lives on hold and invested 4.5 years of hard work into Ron Paul, RonPaul.com and Ron Paul 2012. Looking back, we are very happy with what we were able to achieve with unlimited enthusiasm and limited financial resources.Eventually, they did get in touch with the campaign, and realizing that taking down everything that had already been on RonPaul.com would represent the dismantling of a very vital community, they hoped that he would accept RonPaul.org as an alternative for free. However, if he really wanted RonPaul.com, they were willing to give that up as well, including their massive mailing list of Paul fans, for $250,000 -- not an unreasonable sum for all the content and community they had built up over the years. You can see their full letter here or embedded below. It's very cordial, makes a strong argument for why disrupting the existing RonPaul.com would be a mistake that harms Paul's supporters and message, and makes those two offers. Perfectly reasonable.
As we haven’t heard from Ron Paul or his staff for several years we do not know if there is any tangible interest in utilizing RonPaul.com for Ron Paul’s new projects. We have prepared a cordial message for Ron Paul that we will gladly forward to him or to any person who credibly identifies himself as part of his current staff.
In response, Paul and his lawyers didn't just reject the request, they actually use it against them, misrepresenting the offer, the site and the entire history, in a ridiculously misleading attempt to show malicious intent on behalf of the folks who run the site -- who most people would consider some of Ron Paul's most important supporters. The WIPO filing is really a guffaw-inducing piece of work. It doesn't just present one side of the story, it goes out of its way to imply things that are clearly untrue about those who run RonPaul.com -- suggesting that the whole effort was some sort of scam to extort money from Paul. A few quotes:
Respondents can demonstrate no legitimate purpose for registering domain names identical to Complainant's RON PAUL mark.Other than, you know, building up a massive and widely envied internet grassroots support campaign for two high profile Presidential campaigns, as well as many of the key issues that Ron Paul (supposedly) believes in. Somehow, Paul's lawyers forget to mention that part.
There is no evidence that Respondents have usedApparently trying to get Ron Paul elected is not something that Ron Paul considers a "bona fide" service.or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
They even imply that these guys only registered the domains to try to get Ron Paul to give them money for the domains. Apparently those 4.5 years of building up a massive and vocal grassroots online community supporting Ron Paul campaigns was just a ruse or something:
Under the UDRP, bad faith can be shown where the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the trademark owner or to a competitor of that complainant, for consideration in excess of respondent's out-of-pocket costs.This claim is clearly hogwash. Considering everything that's been done on the site, to argue that the "primary" reason to was to get Paul to pay up is laughable. It's made even more laughable by reading the actual offer to Ron Paul from the domain holders, in which they make it clear they'd rather not sell the domain at all, and offer him a free alternative. It is abundantly obvious that selling the domain was not the "primary" reason for registering the domain, and it was so far down the list that they asked him not to buy the damn thing at all.
Further evidence of bad faith comes from Respondents' registration and use of the domain names to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's RON PAUL mark... In this case, Respondents must have known of Complainant's famous mark prior to registering the domain names. Respondents registered the domain name, utilizing the Complainant's mark, in order to suggest to internet users a connection between the domain names and Complainant. This is misleading and supports a finding of bad faith registration.This claim of trying to create a likelihood of confusion might sound reasonable at a first glance... except that the handy dandy Internet Archive shows that, from way back when these supporters first launched the grassroots site, the site had a prominent disclaimer that noted they were not directly associated with Ron Paul. That link above shows you what the site looked like less than 3 weeks after the domain was registered. It has the following prominently marked:
[....]
There is a high likelihood that users will be confused and believe that Complainant is the website's source, sponsor, or is some way affiliated with or endorses the website. If not for this likelihood of confusion, the rental value of the domain names would be significantly decreased.
DisclaimerThat's in the sidebar. At the bottom there's the following disclaimer:
The RonPaul.com website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his Campaign. For Ron Paul's official website, go to RonPaul2008.com
The RonPaul.com website is maintained by grassroots supporters. It is not paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul & Campaign.In other words, from the very beginning, they were explicit that they were grassroots supporters, and not the campaign or the candidate. For Paul and his lawyers to argue otherwise is simply ridiculous.
Respondents later offered to sell <ronpaul .com> to Complainant for $250,000 and to provide <ronpaul .org> as a "free gift" with the purchase of <ronpaul .com>.This reaches a level that one might call "lying." The original letter is quite explicit. They would prefer not to sell RonPaul.com at all, and the offer of RonPaul.org for free was not "with the purchase of <ronpaul .com>" but a no-strings-attached offer to Ron Paul if he wanted to use RonPaul.org as his future domain (since it would be less disruptive to his grassroots supporters).
When you read through all of this, it's really quite incredible. Not once does the filing even hint at what the domain has been used for over the past 4.5 years. If you read the filing without context, you'd think that it was solely devoted to a commercial site pretending to be Ron Paul's real site, and the entire effort was built up just to try to sell it to Paul. For a politician who built up his grassroots supporters in large part because of his authenticity and his willingness to speak honestly and truthfully about issues, to turn on his biggest supporters with a pile of hogwash, while clearly abusing a process he doesn't even believe in, to try to forceably take away the site from his fans... is incredible.
As the operators of the site themselves note:
Back in 2007 we put our lives on hold for you, Ron, and we invested close to 10,000 hours of tears, sweat and hard work into this site at great personal sacrifice. We helped raise millions of dollars for you, we spread your message of liberty as far and wide as we possibly could, and we went out of our way to defend you against the unjustified attacks by your opponents. Now that your campaigns are over and you no longer need us, you want to take it all away – and send us off to a UN tribunal?Who knows who is advising Paul on this move, but this seems like a massive miscalculation. Maybe he doesn't care any more, now that he's out of Congress. Maybe he's decided that all those years of standing up as a principled politician can be thrown out the window because he really wants RonPaul.com. Either way, this seems destined to be a stain on his legacy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bad faith, domain name, ron paul, ronpaul.com, ronpaul.org, trademark, trademark abuse, udrp, united nations, wipo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess we should all be glad he wasn't elected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then again, she hasn't been a politician since before the turn of the millennium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh on the UN Stuff
That's the meatspace equivalent to chastising Ron Paul for using the UDRP to seek control of the domain. Is there some other adjudication body he could use? No.
Whatever the merits on the rest of the dispute, about which I truly have no opinion, the UN-hypocrisy point is unfair, I think.
Thanks, though, for all you do, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
Here, Paul believes he has a case against the holders of the domain based on trademark (in that the holders of the RonPaul.com domain are taking advantage of confusion about the source of goods). He does not have to buy the domain, but can use the procedures in place to resolve the dispute without being hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
1) The domain was not stolen.
2) The domain holders are not taking advantage of confusion and are taking affirmative steps to prevent confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
2) Whether the holders of the domain are or are not taking advantage of consumer confusion is a factual issue that Paul obviously would dispute. And that's the point: There is a dispute, and it is consistent with libertarian principle to dispute what one views as a violation of one's rights, including trademark rights as they exist in the UDRP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
That's the meatspace equivalent to chastising Ron Paul for using the UDRP to seek control of the domain. Is there some other adjudication body he could use? No.]
You say this like it matters or negates the issue. It is hypocritical, in both roads and websites.
The free market allowed someone else to register ronpaul.com. Ronny should be glad, its all working as it should. No need for some big government agency handing out websites like some type of entitlement based on a name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
It is not hypocritical to live under the current regime while advocating for another. That goes for roads, taxes, schooling, and every other thing, including domain-name-allocation rules.
The best legal explanation for domain names is that they are licenses-to-use, not the outright property of the domain name holder. The terms of the license bar fraudulent use and trademark violation. Paul believes that his trademark is being violated by the owners of the RonPaul.com domain and he is using the channels available to him to bring his case.
It might be preferable for domain names (more accurately, the right to associate a string in a given top-level domain with a given IP address) to be a piece of property, in which case Paul would bring a trademark action, or a common law fraud or trade disparagement action, against the holders of the domain. It's very much an open question whether the holders of the domain can be brought into a court that offers Paul the remedies he believes he's due. The current law allows him to move against the domain, and this is what he's doing.
Paul is not obligated to forgo the benefits of the law in this area just because he might structure the law differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
It seems incredible to take the trademark claim at face value.
But also...yes it is completely hypocritical to use the tools of the state to expropriate someone else's property (which, let's be real here, is the goal of messr. Paul) in order to avoid having to buy said property in the free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
Good point. It would seem like there's a serious laches issue here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
It's a scam site setup to milk Paul's supporters for money by selling merchandise (T-shirts, mugs, etc.) while implying to the casual surfer who doesn't read the site carefully that profits go to Paul's campaign.
Someone in my family got suckered by them & bought two "$100 Grassoots Mugs" from them (two $100 coffee mugs), thinking that it was a way of donating $200 to Paul's campaign. But the campaign didn't get a penny.
I pointed it out and they quickly refunded the money - they walk the fine line between deception and legal fraud.
They're scammers who have no interest in Paul or his ideas other than to divert donations to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
However, in this case it appears that Ron Paul & company is saying to hell with the non-aggression principle and instead has decided to employ State force/aggression in an attempt to take the justly acquired property of the RonPaul.com domain name holders.
Shame on Ron Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
I agree. I object to them selling merchandise by use of deception - tricking buyers into thinking they're supporting Paul's campaign when they're actually buying from a for-profit firm. If they made that clear instead of hiding it in the fine print I'd cheer them on.
However, I agree that pursing the case thru WIPO is ill-advised. It would be better to pursue a claim of fraud.
That said, Paul has every right to use the existing legal mechanisms to pursue his case, even though he advocates different mechanisms. After all he, pays his taxes even tho he's against them - until and unless the system changes, he has the same right as anyone else to use it.
Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy. Paul supports the rule of law and the principles of common law. Opposition to economic regulation (before the fact) is not the same as opposition to legal means for obtaining compensation for damages, after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
I disagree with this statement as no fraud has taken place.
An individual does not own their reputation or name. I highly recommend reading Murray Rothbard's overview of defamation explaining this (I would hope Ron Paul would read or re-read this as well, especially since Rothbard was an intellectual mentor to Ron Paul).
As for your statement:
"Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy."
You are correct. Libertarianism is the acceptance and adherence to the non-aggression principle as well as respect for self-ownership derived property rights. While anarchy is "no rulers".
Sure, Ron Paul may "have every right to use the existing legal mechanisms to pursue his case". However, doing so is completely antithetical to the principles he has advocated for over 30+ years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
Could be. The problem for Ron Paul is that under libertarian free market principles what they are doing is 100% legit. Caveat Emptor and all. So Ron Paul has no basis consistent with his espoused politics to object, or to demand the "property" of someone else just because he doesn't like the free market price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
Ummmm, I think not. We still have the mugs. Here's a picture of them I took just now:
http://mugwumpery.com/pix/IMG_5994.JPG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The part I don't get
For what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Ron Paul is interested in the domain name, only, and not the list of "supporters", who are, in fact, the t-shirt and bumper sticker purchasers. If Ron Paul was going into the T-shirt business, then the list of "supporters" would have some value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even a casual glance at that site shows this isn't true.
Whether they sell paraphernalia or not, they have a TON of info up there: articles on the issues, links to Ron Paul's books on Amazon, embedded YouTube video endorsements (and original music) from supporters, straw poll results, a petition to get Paul to run for President in 2016, and so forth. All with comments, Facebook integration, etc.
Whether they make money or not, it's pretty clear that the site is populated with grassroots supporters, and run by advocates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
General: but, sir....
RP: I said, NUKE EM!!!
General: ...very well, sir.
BOOM
General: Now about that POW ...
RP: Easy, we demand their return.
General: But, sir, we just nuke them.
RP: So? If they're not returned, or harmed in any way, we just nuke 'em.
General: ??? (muttering-under-breath) ...and we just nuke their prison camp... (facepalm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is actually a way, albeit that's Mr. Paul's lawyer's job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "free market" at work.
Mr. Paul didn't bother to file impeachment for Bush the 2nd. I'm sure somewhere out there the case for impeachment of Bush VS previous Dr. Paul statements exists. Perhaps someone will post the link.
Plenty of commentary exists about the way Mr. Paul ran his campaigns for President in the 21st century about how he built a war chest and didn't spend it - thus that money ended up in his pocket tax free. Most of them are about Jesse Benton selling out Dr. Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets see if Anonymous gets involved in the ronpaul.com fight.
Anonymous now has a leak that exposes Jesse Benton, Ron Paul's campaign manager, about his sabotage of the Ron Paul's campaign during the Republican National Convention (RNC). Speculation Suggest that Jesse Benton was paid off handsomely for his services to sabotage the Ron Paul movement. While more evidence on this is to be determined there is no doubt that Jesse Benton's political career will be well rewarded for his services of betrayal, corruption and sabotage. For those who have supported Ron Paul's campaign and liberty movement we urge you to continue to fight and seek justice. This shame that has been brought to Anonymous' attention will not go un noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets see if Anonymous gets involved in the ronpaul.com fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets see if Anonymous gets involved in the ronpaul.com fight.
Ya got proof - or just your opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lets see if Anonymous gets involved in the ronpaul.com fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets see if Anonymous gets involved in the ronpaul.com fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Paul filing lawsuit with UN over RonPaul.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul filing lawsuit with UN over RonPaul.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What else?
We'll he could sleep in the bed Libertarian principles made. He could do nothing and live with the problem, or he could pony up the cash the way a free market dictates. Tough free market titties if he doesn't like the price.
A Libertarian free market is a caveat emptor--let the buyer beware--market. If people get ripped off it is their fault and it isn't the government's responsibility to do their due diligence for them. If people are mislead by the ronpaul.com site and didn't read the disclaimer its their fault under libertarian principles. Now that Ron Paul has discovered that is a problem he should change his politics to reflect the problems that the libertarian free market causes. Instead turns to hypocrisy to solve the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Merch money
I almost feel like giving my money to a for-profit site and donning a t-shirt and bumper sticker may have been a more effective use of my money. Now, at the very least, the campaign should accept the deal from a company that was at least as effective in promoting Ron Paul as the official channel. Hell, if I could direct where my donation to the Campaign for Liberty or Ron Pual 2012 ended up, I would volunteer my dozens of dollars be directed at toward the purchase or RonPaul.com. $250k is a smoking deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The UN part is not really an issue... IMO
Under the UDRP, R.Paul only has two qualified ICANN arbitration bodies in US to chose from: the WIPO, and the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). For UDRP purposes, both simply function as providers of arbitration services. http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers
Had Paul simply chosen the NAF, would this whole UN angle have worked? Not really. And which arbitrating body to use was surely the decision of the attorneys, who probably only chose WIPO because they had the templates from the last time. (NAF appears to be the bigger player in UDRP in recent years, but the choice between the two remains.)
So, yes, I agree there is hypocrisy at play here, and some at the least *odd* and destructive decision making. But I do not see that choosing one arbitration forum over another as meaning R.Paul is running to the UN he hates for help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UN part is not really an issue... IMO
Of course it is. Ron Paul only sticks to free market conditions when they are in his favor. When they aren't, he turns to the government or the UN for help--and this isn't some sort of truly voluntary arbitration because the current owners of ronpaul.com weren't asked if they wanted to arbitrate, instead Ron Paul is forcing them to and demanding their "property", which they have invested substantial capital into, be turned over to him for free based on a government granted monopoly, a trademark, which he thinks he, and he alone, deserves.
RP is a hypocrite running to a UN org for help taking someone's "property" without recompense. Here's what some Libertarian has to say about that kind of thing:
--from the Ron Paul for Congress site.
http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/propertyrights.html
via Slashdot poster eldavojohn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The UN part is not really an issue... IMO
From Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN
ICANN's "about" page: http://www.icann.org/en/about/welcome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The UN part is not really an issue... IMO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ronpaul.com vs. ronpaul.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
A quick whois lookup provides:
Domain ronpaul.com:
JNR Corp
Apartado 29832, ElDorado
Ciudad de Panama, PA 00000 PA
A lookup on the records of the company provides:
J N R CORP.
Directors
YAZMILDA ALMANZA MUöOZ
RANCES DAYAN ROSADO VERGARA
GUILLERMO SANTOS MARFRET
The truth is lots of people thought the .COM was his official site because it had his name and HIS FACE plastered all over it (read the angry people on the Facebook page). Not only that it was selling merchandise with his name and face all over it and taking donations (from many thousands of people apparently). This is a for profit business that is making a profit a profit from his name, likeness, trademark, and supporters. They contacted the trademark holder to sell the domain to him for a substantial profit (over $800,000) which is very much against the rules for trademarked .COM domains. There is plenty of case law to support this see: http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Trademark:_Domain_Names
He has every right to protect his trademark and avoid confusion by removing an "impostor" site. The most important reason for a trademark is to prevent "Likelihood of confusion" which certainly applies here. A big indicator of fraudulent registration is "not opportunistically trying to get value by using a well-known mark" which any site selling merchandise, advertising, and trying to contact the trademark owner to sell is certainly violating. No one can sell a website to a trademark owner for it's "value" as they do not own the trademark. The best they can hope for is to make a reasonable request to recover expenses. Even the $250,000 request is well beyond expenses.
Ron Paul owns the trademark on his name. So if the domain owner's name is Ron Paul then they have a strong case for fair use of the domain (the original owner had this). If it was a grass roots organization that did no for profit work then it too would have a fair use argument (it is a for profit business though). A trademark in the US is defined in the Lanham Act 1984 as "any word name, symbol, or device or any combination used or intended to be used to indicate the source of the goods". The touchstone of liability under this Act is that of confusion. Liability for infringement of a trade mark is strict. In other words, there is no need for intent or negligence. Liability arises when the infringer uses a mark which may be confused with the trade mark of the infringed party, when used in conjunction with similar goods or services. Their goods and services (shirts, bumper stickers, etc.) are nearly the same as what Ron Paul offers. It is direct competition.
If these were "grassroots" supporters then why the initial offer of over $800,000? Why the followup of $250,000? True grassroots supporters would have handed it over for free or for cost. They DO have a right to profit on their own efforts for their own brand, but their brand is in fact his brand. They DO NOT have the right to profit from his brand no matter how much work they put in to promoting it. A real "grassroots" supporter does these things out of love not profit.
I expect better research of a subject than this from Techdirt. Ron Paul has spent his career promoting freedom and protecting civil liberties. When a web site masquerades as "supporting" him, but is only using his name, likeness, and his good reputation to milk his supporters then I would expect people here to have the journalistic "cojones" to actually research the truth and not jump on the "bash the freedom guy" bandwagon. Anyone who votes no to SOPA and the NDAA deserves to have more research done than that. Please do so and post a correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Silly me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
And why would that be? He isn't the only Ron Paul in the world or the US. And why would a libertarian try to claim a **government granted monopoly**--the opposite of the free market--on a name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Think about it. Have you ever purchased something and had a great experience with the brand? Did you ever want to support that brand because of your positive experience? Do you want everyone else to copy that brand and make it difficult to determine what is real and what is a competitor's knock off? Trademark laws protect people by preventing confusion, and they help keep knock offs from ruining the reputation of a brand. People were confused by this domain and the numerous posts on their Facebook page by people who where confused and felt tricked proves that.
He got the trademark because he's had decades to establish his name as a brand and he filed the proper paper work. There were no other Ron Paul's out there offering similar products and services, so the trademark for these items is his. Trademark doesn't stop every Ron Paul from doing business, it just stops people who aren't Ron Paul from doing the same business that he does using his name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Except if you're doing a better job promoting someone else's agenda and that someone else wants your stuff, it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
In a free market - one unhindered by government regulation - then you certainly are.
The libertarian solution to consumer protection is not government regulation, but an unregulated market. At least, that what libertarian Ron Paul thinks:
So, if there is "consumer confusion," Ron Paul's solution would not be trademark law, but holding the company using the mark responsible for the damage caused by that confusion.
So, if using someone else's brand actually did result in consumer confusion, then the consumer should be able to sue the brand user for fraud. The brand originator would have no say in the matter whatsoever.
Instead, we have a government-granted monopoly on a "mark used in trade." Exactly what Ron Paul is arguing against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
This is the part of libertarianism that intrigues me. If the system is based on damages, that brings in lots of lawyers. So it becomes a litigation system and all that entails. And then you need a system to hear the lawyers, collect money, and perhaps punish violators. So over time you may end up with a very complicated governing system in some form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Abraham Lincoln prepared for his law career by reading Blackstone's Commentaries, then simply taking an oath. Around the year 1900 most states did not require a university education to become a lawyer. It could usually be done with an apprenticeship, and most practitioners had not attended any law school or college. Wouldn't it be nice if we could go back to making things simple again rather than making everything more complex?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
I can certainly get behind that.
But let me toss out an example that I wonder about. I am very concerned about environmental protection. Fracking, for example, is moving into suburban neighborhoods which will impact the people living in those neighborhoods. So the homeowners could possibly assert damages in many ways: damage to the environment, to their property values, to the water, to the air, and so on.
But to win those cases, presumably they would have to gather the evidence to prove damages. Gathering that evidence can be expensive and not everyone who is damaged will have that kind of money. But even with evidence, we have people who won't accept it (e.g., climate change debates). So what will it take to prove damages and collect?
Still, I suppose, if you throw out agencies and let everyone sue to settle stuff, then perhaps more environmental issues will actually get a hearing. I think environmentalists have some pretty strong cases concerning damages and if that's the way to make progress against polluters (both local and global) so be it. Speaking of which, how do you sue a company polluting in another country but the pollution migrates into your air space or into your ocean water?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Class action allows people to pool resources, so it makes options like this much easier. Remember that local governments can also take up the case for their citizens as well. If a town's drinking water were polluted it may be possible for the entire town to group together to sue.
The second, charitable subsidies, is using non-profit action groups (like the EFF) that help people litigate on certain types of cases. I donate money regularly to the EFF, and I would probably do the same to it's environmental equivalent if one were to exist. Right now the system is stacked so that often the little guy can get crushed by regulation, but the big polluters often get away with paying relatively minor fines. Those fines are probably much less than they would face in a jury trial.
To your next question, in the case of international pollution we would use existing international law to sue. As it's effects cross borders there may be a place for the federal government here, but I doubt it would take an entire government agency to do so and more likely a team of lawyers working on a per case basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Actually you don't.
But having Judges on the bench who start off the case with an ex-parte decision because you are pro-se - THAT causes problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Probably not a popular idea with lawyers though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
The next question to a Libertarian is - what are you doing to clean up the Courts?
Where is the Libertarian Court Watching program?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Another part of that is to make the courts less busy with old and useless legal code. It's easier to spot and prevent bad judgments when working with 1,000 lines of legal code than when working with 100,000. Laws should be repealed as often as they are passed. Instead we constantly pass laws and build a mind boggling complex system that may even be too complex for any one person to fully understand.
Bad decisions should be cleaned up by higher courts using the standard appeals process. Our legal system is setup in a way that this shouldn't be a problem. What is a problem is the difficulty and speed of the appeals process due to the amount of law that needs to be reviewed. Again simplifying legal codes would greatly improve this system as well.
Finally it comes down to individual people. American citizens must make an effort, even if it's only for a week or two before elections, to investigate their government. We must stop voting for a party or a pretty face and take an honest look at what each individual person stands for. There is no easy way to do this right now, but I hope to change that one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Don't think that libertarians are free everything and nobody sues anybody. That's hippies. Most libertarians believe in the right to one's own property, and that using the court to protect your property (including your good name) is perfectly acceptable. Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are acceptable parts of that, but I believe libertarians (along with most Americans) would like to see all of these areas modernized and made less damaging.
As far as the method he used it was the proper channel for the type of dispute. The contract says all disputes must be handled this way, so that is the way it is being handled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
I've never heard anyone say that an open market means that companies have a right to control their "reputation."
The thing that comes closest to that would be libel or slander laws. Do you think that Ron Paul could sue the owners of that site, and win? I certainly don't.
As an aside, many libertarians don't believe there should be laws against libel or slander at all. For example, Murray Rothbard:
Now, that doesn't apply to Ron Paul - he certainly thinks people should be able to sue for libel - but it's something to think about, at the very least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
The difference between something like slander and trademark is when someone says something bad about someone else, we all understand that this is the opinion or experience of another person. I would not mistake words spoken by another person as my own experience. When someone misrepresents themselves as someone else and delivers that bad experience they are creating firsthand experience. If I believed a knock off product to be genuine, then that can certainly give me a bad firsthand impression of the brand. Firsthand bad impressions are far more damaging than secondhand.
What needs to be protected is a business’s right to earn that reputation, good or bad, on their own. Trademarks help reduce confusion and impersonation that can lead to someone getting a bad rap for another's products or statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Ron Paul is a public figure.
Anyone can sell merchandise with his name or face on it if they want to and there is nothing he can do about it.
Free market!
Deal with it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Again, free as long as you use your own brand. Throwing .com on the end of a trademarked brand does not make it a different brand. This has been established in case law (see my EFF link above).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To paraphrase Shakespeare...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Property rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Property rights?
My guess is Mr. Paul's lawyer thinks they'll get a better shot through WIPO rather than NAF, while Mr. Paul said to his attorney, "I don't know anything about this stuff, but you guys are the experts. Take care of it." Something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Property rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elsewhere - the meltdown of the UN's ITU power grab to try and seize net control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarianism
I'm interested in localization/self-reliance/sustainability, but I find myself more aligned with the left side of that equation rather than the libertarian side. I am wary of are two things with libertarianism: not sufficient attention to global environmental issues and the possibility that the status quo will be preserved (i.e., those who have property and wealth will maintain it and those without it will be stripped of any ways to obtain it).
I have intentionally tried to offer differing perspectives on Techdirt so that people will know that there are alternatives to libertarianism when it comes to copyright and IP issues. If the goal is to get rid of those primarily to reinforce the companies currently in power (e.g, big tech), then I don't think we've fundamentally changed society. We've just facilitated transfer of power from industries like big media, big pharma, and big ag, to big tech.
I just saw this today and it comes with a very cool graphic which might help to visualize what "emerging economies" and how they could differ from libertarian economics.
Emerging economy Wiki
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libertarianism
What makes you think we're libertarian?
You make an *awful* lot of wrong assumptions around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libertarianism
Where would you put Techdirt politically/economically?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
And others have called me a socialist. Others have called me a hater of big companies, while some (including you) regularly accuse me of being a shill for big companies.
Do you always define people based on what others call them?
If so, you should stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
Okay. So you're not a libertarian. But I like to envision what happens next -- beyond the copyright days. I've already assumed copyright will become less relevant as the old power goes away and the new power takes over. I have said that I think everything is going to get shared online and trying to sort out who gets credit for what is going to be harder and, if economics change, less of a concern.
I have been suggesting a post-IP world based on concepts in the shareable/P2P/commons/alternative economics discussions.
Since Techdirt is a forum to discuss IP issues, I have intentionally been bringing a different, non-libertarian, perspective into the mix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
I had just gotten done in the article talking about various types of libertarians (including Austrians and anarchists) who were increasingly against IP, and then I mentioned "a growing number of IP critics who are artists, philosophers, techies, or journalists" -- why? because most of the IP-critical ones I have seen do seem to be at least somewhat pro-free market, etc. David Koepsell is more or less an avowed libertarian but maybe not orthodox, Nina Paley is a lefty but anti-state and not opposed to profit and the free market.
I probably should have written the sentence a bit more clearly. That said, Masnick seems to be pro free market and pro-civil liberties, which is libertarian leaning, it seems to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
Data-driven/realist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
That's fine, but libertarian Kinsella views you to be at least "libertarian leaning."
Whatever you want to call it, I like to share a different perspective to get people thinking about alternative economies. The shareable/P2P/commons folks also want to get rid of IP laws, but to accomplish different ends than many libertarians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
Again, others have said we're the opposite.
Why are you so focused on what one person called us?
Whatever you want to call it, I like to share a different perspective to get people thinking about alternative economies. The shareable/P2P/commons folks also want to get rid of IP laws, but to accomplish different ends than many libertarians.
There aren't "alternative economies." There is just a single economy, and lots of different ways in which economic transactions take place. Thinking of them as different is a weird and incorrect way of looking at things.
The "shareable/P2P/commons" folks are a part of the wider economy, and one that I support too. We write about them frequently. Apparently you haven't noticed that. Odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
Not everyone agrees on property concepts. Economies can be set up any way people want to set them up. Gift economies are as legitimate as free market economies. There isn't a set of economic principles that everyone agrees upon. I think that's where you and I differ. You think there are universal economic principles, and I think they are constructs. Economics isn't a hard science where inputs always result in the same outcomes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
Of course. Because gift economies are a part of a free market economy. Not sure your point.
There isn't a set of economic principles that everyone agrees upon.
What people agree upon matters little compared to what is happening.
I think that's where you and I differ. You think there are universal economic principles, and I think they are constructs. Economics isn't a hard science where inputs always result in the same outcomes.
I don't know how to respond to this.
You keep making really weird assumptions about what I believe. It's why I always find it impossible to have a normal discussion with you. You assume all sorts of things, almost none of which are true. It is quite incredible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
Although you may assume all economies are free market economies, not everyone holds that view. So I try to point that out because we can determine who owns what, who governs what, how resources will be distributed, etc.
If the Internet allows for full democratization of everyone in the world, I expect a lot will change. I like to get people thinking about that because what we do now will likely shape the future of the world economy. If we want to give every person in the world a middle class life, we have to figure out how to share resources. How do we do that? Are we going to charge for clean water and those who can't pay don't get it? How are will going to deal with air pollution? And so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
P2P Foundation -- David Graeber on Giving It Away, an introduction to the gift economy:
"Mauss’ conclusions were startling. First of all, almost everything that 'economic science' had to say on the subject of economic history turned out to be entirely untrue. The universal assumption of free market enthusiasts, then as now, was that what essentially drives human beings is a desire to maximize their pleasures, comforts and material possessions (their 'utility'), and that all significant human interactions can thus be analyzed in market terms. In the beginning, goes the official version, there was barter. People were forced to get what they wanted by directly trading one thing for another. Since this was inconvenient, they eventually invented money as a universal medium of exchange. The invention of further technologies of exchange (credit, banking, stock exchanges) was simply a logical extension.
"The problem was, as Mauss was quick to note, there is no reason to believe a society based on barter has ever existed. Instead, what anthropologists were discovering were societies where economic life was based on utterly different principles, and most objects moved back and forth as gifts – and almost everything we would call 'economic' behavior was based on a pretense of pure generosity and a refusal to calculate exactly who had given what to whom. Such 'gift economies' could on occasion become highly competitive, but when they did it was in exactly the opposite way from our own: Instead of vying to see who could accumulate the most, the winners were the ones who managed to give the most away. In some notorious cases, such as the Kwakiutl of British Columbia, this could lead to dramatic contests of liberality, where ambitious chiefs would try to outdo one another by distributing thousands of silver bracelets, Hudson Bay blankets or Singer sewing machines, and even by destroying wealth – sinking famous heirlooms in the ocean, or setting huge piles of wealth on fire and daring their rivals to do the same."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
Stop doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
So why do I keep bringing this up? To get people thinking about what a post-IP culture could look like. Once everything is freely shared with everyone else, you can facilitate a radical transformation of world economics if allowed to do so. But that transformation is going to upend many of the current power/wealth holders and I am not sure they plan to give up without a fight. As Techdirt points out, companies are trying to protect their territories by strengthening IP laws. But I anticipate that once new power players benefit from the lack of IP laws, they will look to protect THEIR territories and the cycle begins again. In order to break the cycle, the whole concept of property and ownership needs to be re-examined. And people are doing that for several reasons: (1) the shared/networked culture of the Internet, (2) environmental protection, and (3) world recession and growing income inequality.
Here's just one more thing to toss out about gift economies.
Economic Systems: Non-market Economies: "As a result, standard economic analysis is inadequate in explaining how and why these non-market economies functioned."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
Data-driven/realist.
We really need to start a political platform with that as the foundation.
Not sure it would get very far because that's not how business is done inside the Beltway these days, but it certainly would be a refreshing change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
udrp is not "running to the un"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: udrp is not "running to the un"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: udrp is not "running to the un"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bunches of lies by a profiteer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bunches of lies by a profiteer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm one of the Paulbots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He ain't no Working Class Hero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Paul lost
http://domainnamewire.com/2013/05/23/breaking-ron-paul-found-guilty-of-reverse-domain-name- hijacking/
He was also found guilty of "reverse domain name hijacking" in one of the cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of bad behavior by RP.com
Plus, who takes someone else's name and develops a site without the person's consent to use their name?
You're trying to make the selfish, unprofessional little brats sound as if they're innocent little babes. NOT!!! They took a chance when they decided to take from others without asking, without their consent. If they get popped, they have no one to blame but themselves for being inconsiderate, selfish, unprofessional, thieving little as-h---s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]