Ron Paul Wants UN To Take RonPaul.Com Away

[Hasina]

Ron Paul Wants UN To Take RonPaul.Com Away From Site Owners

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.

Source: http://www.opposingv...est-supporters#

Edited February 11, 2013 by Hasina

[aztek]

lol, 2 election loses, the old man's loosing his marbles.

[Yamato]

Ron Paul couldn't be critical of the Congress because *gasp!* he was IN the Congress! LOL OMG WTF!!

I think Fabulous dot com should change their URL and release the one they have now which is identical to Ron Paul's name ("Ron Paul dot com"), or face the music. If we don't even have rights to our own name, we're going to be subjected to whatever someone else does with it, and just because they happen to be political supporters it's okay? Bologna that. If we truly respect private property we will respect this decision in kind. I can't think of anyone that deserves the rights to his own name more than Ron Paul.

[aztek]

to be a devil advocate, there are hundreds of ron pauls in usa, which one should have that domain?

[Yamato]

to be a devil advocate, there are hundreds of ron pauls in usa, which one should have that domain?

That doesn't speak to the point of the lawsuit that only speaks to the gentleness of the solution. Everyone should be in control of their own property, even if that property is intellectual. How'd you like me speaking for you on the internet? Figure it out.

[aztek]

well I can't say i'd be happy if you talk for me on the net, I give you that much.

however, unless you go into identity theft, there is nothing legally I could do about it.

the name alone isn't your property, since there are many others with same name.

Edited February 12, 2013 by aztek

[Yamato]

well I can't say i'd be happy if you talk for me on the net, I give you that much.

however, unless you go into identity theft, there is nothing legally I could do about it.

the name alone isn't your property, since there are many others with same name.

You're not knowledgeable enough to tell me there's nothing legally you could do about it. Obviously there is once we read the OP.

If someone named Ron Paul owned these websites, your point would have relevance to the legality of the lawsuit and I wouldn't support Ron Paul in the suit. But that's not the case here.

[Yamato]

For more information about the legality of this, please read the following:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another

Facebook was worried enough about the legal risks of having user names, likenesses and content on their servers to include this in their terms of service:

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

I've never questioned why this company is better named Facepalm or Spybook. I think people are absolutely out of their minds to surrender their identities to a self-interested corporation so naively.

[acidhead]

Allow me...

Ron Paul trade marked his name within the USA years ago. He owns the title to that name. It's called property rights. The owners of ronpaul.com voluntarily registered his name knowing full well the extent of the contract they signed. These people bought the domain probably in good faith in an attempt to spread RP's campaign message and to raise money for his 2012 campaign(which they admit to raising a $1 000 000) but now that he isn't running and there's really no reason for a third party to profit from his intellectual and legal property(his name) there is no in-good-faith-reason to keep it. The only reason they would want to keep the domain now that he's no longer a politician is to profit off his legally copy righted name. Hence why they asked him for $850, 000 for it then dropped the offer to $250, 000. RP's camp has offered them $50, 000. A reasonable sum granted they cannot legally use the domain to profit off his registered trade marked name. Is this sinking in yet?

Now the part about him 'going to the United Nations' is sensationalized media reporting. Ron Paul has not 'gone' to the UN for help. He went to ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) which appears to work closely with WIPO(World Intellectual Property Organization) which is a branch of the United Nations. The internet is NOT just in the USA.... duh.... Because of the global state of the internet and differing laws regarding intellectual property rights, the UN was used in conjunction with ICANN in handling domain/IP dispute issues. It appears that this is standard procedure when contesting ownership domains. In the event that the dispute fails, they can still file a lawsuit within their local Federal GOV(in this case the USA) to attempt to over rule the decision.

The current owners of ronpaul.com have already lost this case. If I were them I'd take the $50, 000 RP has already voluntarily offered them or they aren't going to get anything.

[aztek]

ok, if he trademarked his name than it is different, however,

[acidhead]

BTW, the authors of the OP's link obviously are trying to hatchet Ron Paul's reputation.... nice try losers.... it won't work. The truth always prevails.

campaignforliberty.org has ALWAYS been RP's OFFICIAL presidential website. He never used his name for the reason that the past two presidential runs weren't about him - they were for the message of liberty. It always has been and always will be.

What the owners of ronpaul.com realize but won't fully admit, just like the authors of the oP's link, is that THEY all know full well that to continue to profit off of RP's trade marked name AFTER his political career is now over is against the law of private ownership of a protected trademark. They offered him $850 000 and then quickly dropped it to $250 000... why? Because they know full well that they have no leg to stand on. They were hoping that by offering nicely(the power of suggestion) that RP just might fork over money that legally is isn't entitled to do so. RP's gift of $50 000 sounds more than reasonable.

[Yamato]

ok, if he trademarked his name than it is different, however,

What you said still doesn't matter. If someone else named Ron Paul bought Ron Paul Dot Com however many years ago, they still couldn't use Congressman Ron Paul's image, likeness, intellectual property, et al without his permission. Get it?

[Hasina]

I will say this, I did try my best to find a non-biased sourced around this article but just couldn't. This is one reason I love this site. We can post links without being assailed for it's content, because we got people like Yamato and Acidhead who will smack it in the face with facts.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Hasina

[questionmark]

Allow me...

Ron Paul trade marked his name within the USA years ago. He owns the title to that name. It's called property rights. The owners of ronpaul.com voluntarily registered his name knowing full well the extent of the contract they signed. These people bought the domain probably in good faith in an attempt to spread RP's campaign message and to raise money for his 2012 campaign(which they admit to raising a $1 000 000) but now that he isn't running and there's really no reason for a third party to profit from his intellectual and legal property(his name) there is no in-good-faith-reason to keep it. The only reason they would want to keep the domain now that he's no longer a politician is to profit off his legally copy righted name. Hence why they asked him for $850, 000 for it then dropped the offer to $250, 000. RP's camp has offered them $50, 000. A reasonable sum granted they cannot legally use the domain to profit off his registered trade marked name. Is this sinking in yet?

Now the part about him 'going to the United Nations' is sensationalized media reporting. Ron Paul has not 'gone' to the UN for help. He went to ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) which appears to work closely with WIPO(World Intellectual Property Organization) which is a branch of the United Nations. The internet is NOT just in the USA.... duh.... Because of the global state of the internet and differing laws regarding intellectual property rights, the UN was used in conjunction with ICANN in handling domain/IP dispute issues. It appears that this is standard procedure when contesting ownership domains. In the event that the dispute fails, they can still file a lawsuit within their local Federal GOV(in this case the USA) to attempt to over rule the decision.

The current owners of ronpaul.com have already lost this case. If I were them I'd take the $50, 000 RP has already voluntarily offered them or they aren't going to get anything.

Property rights don't apply to to internet names. So far almost everybody had to buy their names out (except real big ones like GM or Coca-Cola). In fact, when I tried to register my-name.com I got a friendly letter from the "owner" of it offering it to me for several thousand dollars. Well I sent him a finger in replay and registered my-name-initial.com. And no, as long as the owner's name is Ron Paul, or he uses it for Ron Paul herbs or Ron Paul jokes (not to be confused with Ron Paul politics) he can keep the name... no matter how many people sue.

And funny that Mr. Paul would offer them anything if he is going to get it for free...