Comments on: Rihanna.com Offered for Sale on DNForum; UDRP Filed Months Later

By: Jones

Jones — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:17:44 +0000

This is a legit first name, just like Bob.com how many famous Bob’s are there etc, it is not even her first name, if she wants it, she should pay for it, best thing to do is get a dog and name it Rhiwhatever and make it a fan page for your dog lol,

By: Brian Stevens

Brian Stevens — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:10:49 +0000

lets be honest the name was meant to trade off the singers fame period there is no other reason to own the name one could argue they have legit rights
‘ to it is the owners name rhianna ? does he know another rhianna? doubtful anyone that goes there is looking for the singer so you either wants to profit from the traffic or hope she is willing to cut a check google rhianna and pick a page they are all about the same person from 1 – 55 the case is stacked against him and the correct spelling thing is anoter nail in the coffin .

my guess it will just look like another cyberquatter. IMO only legit use would be a fan site but then a fan would give her the name if she wanted it lol

By: Jorge

Jorge — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:36:02 +0000

Famous people names are so risky even beyond UDRP. Anti-cybersquatting laws apply to domain names that match the names of famous people.

This is worth reading: http://tcattorney.typepad.com/domainnamedispute/2008/01/personal-and-pr.html

By: Aron

Aron — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:18:58 +0000

Yep.

In many cases, the best thing to do is to not list the name at all… and certainly don’t contact potential buyers (who hold a TM for the term).

If you have a risky name, try to use it in good faith, don’t put anything on the site associated with a TM holder, and certainly don’t contact those TM holders trying to solicit a sale.

- Aron