Ron Paul gets slapped down over RonPaul.com attempted hijacking

[Phokus]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...lcom-is-guilty-reverse-domain-hijacking.shtml

Wow, there's hypocrisy and then there's Ron Paul levels of hypocrisy. Going to the ***UN*** (he brought his complaint to the WIPO, which is under the UN, LMAO) to try to hijack someone else's domain name that they've legitimately acquired and are legitimately using is despicable. WTF, they even offered him RonPaul.org as a peace offering. I would have told him to go pound sand. Even for a non-libertarian, that's a pretty disgusting thing to try to do. Ron Paul is becoming more and more unlikeable, the more i get to know him (especially after it turns out he did, in fact, edit his own racist newsletters).

They even handed his ass to him on first amendment grounds, hilarious!

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 the Domain Name for free.
And it's this point that leads to the panel saying that Paul was engaged in reverse domain hijacking.
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 Name 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.
While 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.

Since this has just degenerated into namecalling on everybody's part, I'm locking it.
admin allisolm

 

[JEDIYoda]

yawn

 

[Oldgamer]

I think most American's know he is a nut case, right up there with Ted Cruz. But I do find it amusing that he attacked his very own supporters! Now that is some funny shit right there. People who were supporting him..lol

Way to go douchebag..

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Partisan OP.

Oh yes Ron is so bad because trying stop people from using a commercial website that uses his personal name to sell products with his name on it is oh so wrong.

 

[Abraxas]

Partisan OP.

Oh yes Ron is so bad because trying stop people from using a commercial website that uses his personal name to sell products with his name on it is oh so wrong.

Welcome to the free market.

 

[Matt1970]

After the disaster that your last thread turned out to be I am surprised you have the balls to start another one so soon.

 

[lagokc]

Shocking news: 77 year old man doesn't have a good understanding of how the internet works

Oh noes!

 

[Phokus]

After the disaster that your last thread turned out to be I am surprised you have the balls to start another one so soon.

The only disaster was you, genx, and the rest of the retarded right sticking your collective dicks in the hornet's nest yet again when a person of even slightly below average intelligence would be smart enough not to do so. I added something to my sig btw. See the last line of it. It really explains you, genx, spidey et Al.

 

[Phokus]

Partisan OP.

Oh yes Ron is so bad because trying stop people from using a commercial website that uses his personal name to sell products with his name on it is oh so wrong.

Most libertarians are against intellectual property and even the few that are for it would be against letting the United nations be the arbiter of it, you intellectual lightweight.

 

[Phokus]

Hey anyone else see a bunch of <br> tags in my posts? Tapatalk 4 beta looks like it has a lot of bugs

Edit: ah, looks like it displays properly on my windows box, huh.

 

[xj0hnx]

Wasn't this news months ago? Must be a slow outrage day.

 

[Phokus]

Wasn't this news months ago? Must be a slow outrage day.

Him LOSING his complaint is new. It's delicious too because i get to rub it in

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Welcome to the free market.

This has nothing to do with the free markets but nice try. This has everything to do with who exactly owns a persons name and likeness. Hence libertarian and classical philosophy side with the view of the individual having first and foremost a monopoly of ownership of themselves.

 

[LegendKiller]

Welcome to the free market.

This.

Like most of the right and super right they only want a "Free market" when it makes money for them. Once a less than free market can make more money for them they want that too.

What a fucking racist hypocrite.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Most libertarians are against intellectual property and even the few that are for it would be against letting the United nations be the arbiter of it, you intellectual lightweight.

Yet that has very little to do with this issue as most libertarians are also against others being able to own other people's likeness or name without their consent. Furthermore the United nation is the arbiter because it was given that right by over reaching governments who allowed it that power to be able to act in that manner.

 

[Incorruptible]

The only one who got slapped down was the OP in his last thread. I am surprised he made another one just ranting about nothing.

These people are using his name to make money off him

 

[Fern]

This has nothing to do with the free markets but nice try. This has everything to do with who exactly owns a persons name and likeness. Hence libertarian and classical philosophy side with the view of the individual having first and foremost a monopoly of ownership of themselves.

Yeah, I personally disagree with somebody else (or an org) being able to have a website with somebody else's name on it. It's not Ron Paul's website, but I suspect many think it is. I would hate to see a website using my name. Everyone will attribute their remarks/positions to me, and that's not true.

Unless it's actually the person themselves, such websites should have to use a name like 'supporters of Ron Paul' etc to make clear the relationship between the site and person whose name is used.

Fern

 

[nextJin]

What a racist.

Hey there we go! I was waiting for it. Thanks guy!

 

[xj0hnx]

Him LOSING his complaint is new. It's delicious too because i get to rub it in

It's so sad how petty, and pathetic you are that this is some sort of entertainment for you. You really are a sorry excuse for a human.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's been standard practice for many years for the owners of trademarks and well-known personal names to take back corresponding domain names. As I recall, one of the landmark cases was in the 1990s when Wendy's sued or otherwise force a woman to give up wendys.com. I think she was in fact named Wendy and "Wendy's" was the name of her store or something. That I believe is what prompted ICANN to set up a policy on this.

So, the behavior is routine. In fact, I'm surprised he hasn't been able to get it. Maybe they changed the rules, or there's something different when it comes to personal names.

I think there is some basis for criticism of Ron Paul here, if only because of the message he preaches. He's using the power of government to take a website from someone else, something that's really not consistent with his stated values.

 

[LegendKiller]

Hey there we go! I was waiting for it. Thanks guy!

He edited the newsletter. It is simple. I guess as long as he is the champion of libertopianism it doesn't matter what he is.

As far as people making money off of his name - so what? He can either pay the "free market" price or allow it to continue. What else would the "Free market" do?

 

[Matt1970]

The only disaster was you, genx, and the rest of the retarded right sticking your collective dicks in the hornet's nest yet again when a person of even slightly below average intelligence would be smart enough not to do so. I added something to my sig btw. See the last line of it. It really explains you, genx, spidey et Al.

Your ass was so sore the admins had to close the thread out of mercy. There is only so many lies and diversions one thread can handle. And your link is to a pay for download site. Good job dumbass.

 

[Phokus]

Your ass was so sore the admins had to close the thread out of mercy. There is only so many lies and diversions one thread can handle. And your link is to a pay for download site. Good job dumbass.

Dumbass? Oh my god, there's a free download link you stupid fuck. No wonder you get fooled by Onion style articles thinking they're real.

And LMAO @ you thinking i, in any way, was losing. It was so bad for you idiots, Genx was making fun of me for KNOWING MORE SHIT THAN HE DOES.

And you still got your ass handed to you by my NYT article, and it got so bad you live in an alternate reality. Get real.

 

[Phokus]

Yet that has very little to do with this issue as most libertarians are also against others being able to own other people's likeness or name without their consent. Furthermore the United nation is the arbiter because it was given that right by over reaching governments who allowed it that power to be able to act in that manner.

There's probably hundreds of 'ron pauls'. Why would this Ron Paul have claim? Just because he's famous? Again, most libertarians are against intellectual property.

WHO the fuck do you propose handle domain name disputes? Seems like 'first one to register' is the best, if imperfect, system too.

 

[Abraxas]

This has nothing to do with the free markets but nice try. This has everything to do with who exactly owns a persons name and likeness. Hence libertarian and classical philosophy side with the view of the individual having first and foremost a monopoly of ownership of themselves.

Funny, I was under the impression they were in favor of allowing anyone to sell anything so long as it did not infringe on the freedom of another. A domain name is not the person and so your verbal acrobatics only serve to show that libertarians are largely just another party first group, putting identity before ideology. The domain was lawfully acquired, the site is lawfully operated, no force nor fraud is taking place, but you still support a government mechanism by which one person can seize property from another. How very libertarian of you.