Here’s the problems with that statement:

1. Define “relevant segment of the public”
2. The whole 2nd half of that statement is just bizarre. Arguably then, politicians in general wouldn’t have rights to their name except in extremely rare cases on the basis that there’s hundreds of them on the state and higher level and they’re largely indistinguishable from each other to anyone outside their constituencies.

So in the end it still goes back to popularity/publicity despite the panel’s claims that it doesn’t. Just a really flawed system.

This is actually a really tough case. I personally think it’s clear or at least should have been clear to the panel that the names were registered in bad faith. The question is really whether Meg Whitman is a mark since the fundamental ability to claim names through UDRP is based on your right to those names based on whether you have a trademark (common law or filed) or not…and this is the whole problem with celebrities/politicians/etc. names being recognized as marks: There is an indeterminant line drawn where someone is either popular/public enough to establish their name as a mark or they aren’t. Meg Whitman is NOT a current politician though clearly she’s set on becoming one. She is a FORMER CEO of a really large company. So this would raise a couple questions:

1. Is being an ASPIRING politician i.e. someone with a clear publicized intent to run for public office in the future enough to receive a mark on your name? If so, is it across the board or does the constituency have to be a certain size? (obviously California should be sufficient constituency but what if it’s someone running for mayor in a town of 100,000 people?)

2. Once you have been in a notable position of power in a public company of sufficient size, is the mark on your name sustained even when you no longer have that position? What IS sufficient enough size of company to establish a mark for being in such a position? Is it only applicable for CEOs/owners or could it be applicable to notable people such as COOs or presidents of companies of a sufficient size? How long after the person has left the position do they become irrelevant enough to lose their mark?

See where I’m going with this? How in the world do you determine where to draw the line on what is deemed famous/public enough? It’s impossible, which is why I feel sorry for Meg in this case because bad faith and the clear purpose of the registrant of the domain names, to cash in on what would be FUTURE fame/limelight, should have been enough especially considering the respondent didn’t file any response. It’s not like she’s never BEEN a public figure and that these registrations could have been happenstance.

It’s amazing I’m actually disagreeing with a UDRP decision against the claimant but I just think this was wrong and sets a really bad precedent, just like the decisions against domainers on generic names. It’s unfortunate that they make wrong decisions both ways.

-Steve

- Zander

That is a lot of BS!

So if something happens and I manage to Google.com – I have the right to own this name – Dont be so stupid!

Just because someone is rich you shouldnt exploit them for there wealth – If half of the cybersquatters put as much effort into buying great names they could make money that way instead of trying to bribe the wealthy.

Regards,

Robbie

***UPDATED BY ELLIOT***

IMO, the guy registered the names to try and capitalize on her potential run for governor. If he owned MegWhitman.com, it could be any “Meg Whitman” and your argument would be more valid. These are clearly specific towards this person, not just any random Jane Doe.

I disagree with your comment, “If you buy a domain name its YOURS and the courts should not be able to take it away from you“, as this would imply that you should be able to buy Microsoft, Diageo or other clear cut trademark typos, which is a violation of the Lanham Act if you monetize them.