I agree with the Roberts assertion that peoples’ names are common law
trademarks and that cybersquatting is a form trademark infringement. I
don’t believe that their can be a legitimate or good faith reason to
register a celebrity’s name as your own domain name unless you happen to
have the same name. Celebrities’ names have value and celebrities alone
should be permitted to exploit that value.
The courts have found that a cyber squatter’s attempt to profit from the use
of a celebrity’s name in a domain name is bad faith. Bruce Springsteen was
unable to prove bad faith against a notorious Internet cyber squatter
because the cyber squatter does not have any advertising on his
“unauthorized Bruce Springsteen website” at http://www.brucespringsteen.com
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/09/bruce_springsteen_loses_cybersquatti
ng_dispute/
I’m not sure that bad faith should be the determining factor in deciding
whether someone should be allowed to register another’s name as a domain
name. One can limit or adversely affect another’s presence on the internet
by registering their name and registering a domain name is inexpensive and,
as long as the individual does not attempt to profit from the site,
completely legal.
Domain names that use copyrighted names like WalmartSucks.org are not, in my
opinion, cybersquatting. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
wallmartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J. Harvey
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1104.html the
WIPO court found that the suffix sucks added to Wal-Mart would not make the
domain name “confusingly similar” to Wal-Mart’s own and that there exists a
privilege for parody and criticism. I myself have just registered
ChristopherKeegan.com. If someone, say my ex-wife, should register
IHateChristopherKeegan.com she would be protected by the Wal-Mart decision.
