Ron Paul Doesn't Win RonPaul.com And Is Guilty Of Reverse Domain Hijacking
from the total-failure dept
We found it odd back in February to see Ron Paul try to use the domain dispute process to take over RonPaul.com, a domain that was held by some of his biggest supporters. The folks who had the domain had even offered Paul the RonPaul.org domain for free, since they didn't want to disrupt their existing community, and Ron Paul (or his lawyers) tried to spin that into something to use against them, pretending that it showed malicious intent.It appears that the whole thing has backfired badly on Ron Paul. He failed in his attempt to seize both domain names and was also found guilty of reverse domain hijacking on the .org account, for filing the demand for it after it had already been offered to him for free.
On the use of the .com, the panel found the following:
As Respondent puts it, expressing support and devotion to Ron Paul’s political ideals is a legitimate interest that does not require Complainant’s authorization or approval. Moreover, Respondent’s legitimate interest in the Domain Name is strong because the site provides a place for political speech, which is at the heart of what the United States Constitution’s First Amendment is designed to protect. In this way, the Panel is persuaded by Respondent’s arguments and evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish any trademark at issue. Moreover, Respondent has submitted evidence that there are multiple, very clear disclaimers on the website to which the Domain Name links, indicating that the site is not Complainant’s official site. In regards to Complainant’s arguments that the website is actually a “pretext for commercial advantage”, the Panel finds the website linked to the Domain Name is primarily a noncommercial service, while the products advertised and sold are ancillary to the site’s primary purpose as a source of news and information about Ron Paul, and serving as political forum. Moreover, Respondent’s use meets the criteria for a nominative fair use, as stated in a number of UDRP cases.Yeah. Ron Paul loses out because the First Amendment is even stronger than he believes it to be. How about that?
The fact that the owners offered the .org for free plays heavily into the decision:
Finally, related to Respondent’s second main point, there is no evidence that Respondent has attempted to corner the market of domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting his alleged RON PAUL mark in a domain name. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that in 2013 Respondent offered to give Complainant theAnd it's this point that leads to the panel saying that Paul was engaged in reverse domain hijacking.Domain Name for free.
Respondent has requested, based on the evidence presented, that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In view of the unique facts of this case, in which the evidence demonstrates that Respondent offered to give the Domain NameWhile this may just make Ron Paul hate the UN even more, perhaps it'll drive home the point that his initial attack on the fan site was ridiculous.to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached, the Panel is inclined to agree. Instead of accepting the Domain Name, Complainant brought this proceeding. A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking seems to this Panel to be appropriate in the circumstances.
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: domain dispute, reverse domain hijacking, ron paul, trademark, udrp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just another politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another politician.
(A) Is for lower taxes for everyone, not just the rich. In fact, he believes the income tax rate should be 0%.
(B) Believes the federal government should be shrunk down to it's original size and enumerated powers (which would fix the debt problem).
(C) Is the person speaking out the most about the fact that a private cartel of banks manipulates our currency for the benefit of the wealthy, politically-connected class.
You might still disagree with the above (and I'm sure you do), but at least be honest about the positions he holds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another politician.
I really don't see how A) will lead to B(ii) - in fact I don't see how B(i) would lead to B(ii). Cutting spending and/or increasing tax, and reducing waste (including insane military spending and corporate boondoggles) would be much simpler.
If C) is true (I'm British so can't tell so well) then kudos to him - but one 'sane' idea in many 'insane' ones does not a desirable make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just another politician.
Which is, despite his ideas at times, the biggest draw to him.
There's some hypocrisy, but we're human, we're all hypocrites, but at the same time, he was always against wars like Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, the bombings that Clinton did in in the late 90s, he was against the sanctions of Iraq, stating that something bad would happen to the US (back in 1998 he called that). He warned against the Housing Bubble Collapse in 2003/2004, he wanted to get rid of paper money and replace it with coined money (as it's harder to manipulate), even if I disagree with his position on it needing to be gold or silver, at least he's always been consistent about it.
Paul wanted to pull troops home from around the world and turn the money that the US was spending on foreign entanglements towards our infrastructure...
So, yeah, his ideas might not always be the best ones, but looking at his record, he was the best candidate that never became President.
Also, he never voted for raising pay for members of Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just another politician.
"I really don't see how A) will lead to B(ii)
The income tax wasn't created until 1913, and even then it only applied to "the rich". The federal government received revenue through other means prior to that.
reducing waste (including insane military spending and corporate boondoggles) would be much simpler
That's included in "original size and enumerated powers". (And I actually disagree with him on that point; one has to eradicate a cancer to save the host, not simply shrink it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just another politician.
In order to fix the debt problem, the banks can't be allowed to do FRL anymore and the government has to set how much money gets made every year with strict guidelines.
Of course, there's more to it, but that's the basic gist of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another politician.
There is very little good in that Party and a World of Badness for the Common Man and most of all for the Nation as a whole.
Ron Paul is a sham.So is his son Rand Paul who Supports those Tax Loopholes like that ole Double Irish stuff, ETC.
Ron Paul even screws his own fans over.............LOL
At one time he wrote Bigot Anti-Semitic Stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another politician.
This is one of those times. Ron Paul is an idiot. Oh, every now and then he stumbles over something that accidentally happens to be a good idea, but that's not a reflection of his innate intelligence: it's just plain dumb luck. And yet there are zillions of other idiots out there -- people with inferior minds and subpar educations -- who actually think this clown is onto something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another politician.
I think it's not quite that simple. He really has done an admirable job of bringing some very real, very serious problems to people's attention. The problem is that he then goes and proposes a bunch of horrible, insane "solutions" that would make things worse... and people listen. A lot of people don't seem to understand that being able to correctly diagnose a problem is much, much easier than being able to correctly figure out what to do about it.
Before going into politics, Ron Paul used to be a doctor, but apparently he was in the wrong sub-field of medicine. If he'd been an oncologist, he would understand this principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a for profit site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a for profit site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a for profit site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a for profit site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a for profit site
And just because his name, doesn't make it his.
What about all the other people named Ron Paul? DO they get a piece of the pie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruh Roh
Listen, I like Ron Paul a lot (I voted for him twice!), but really, this was a completely ridiculous lawsuit, and I'm glad to see it got slapped down like it deserved. What was he thinking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Paul - I hope it was a stupid lawyer mistake
If this was a case of over enthusiastic lawyers then this is a tiny bit better, but still disappointing.
Glad this stupidity got slapped down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Paul - I hope it was a stupid lawyer mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh just another political creep
Ricky D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh just another political creep
I have to say that yes, they have both made some mistakes, but they are one of the few in politics that have a decent track record of actually representing the interests of the PEOPLE instead of special interest groups.
To characterize them as lazy men of leisure is a gross mischaracterization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is similar to the situation of a soldier, who knows that he must do evil to do his job, and that the evil is not fully cancelled by the higher purpose of the war, even though that purpose greatly outweighs the evil that he does. He takes the guilt on himself and this is his service.
I don't think Ron Paul meant it this way, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm either over or under thinking this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm either over or under thinking this.
A normal domain hijacking takes place before a legitimate owner can take control of a domain.
Here, the domain was being used legitimately, & they even offered up one they had, but didn't need, for free. But Ron was trying to hijack both anyway.
The problem comes in that we normally think of hijacking the way Reverse Domain Hijacking appears to work: taking from a legitimate owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real truth on what happened in domain name dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]