Singer Jennifer Lopez has filed papers against the owner of jenniferlopez.org and jenniferlopez.net, accusing him of cybersquatting.
The two sites are owned by one Jeremiah Tieman who lives in Arizona and uses the sites to display news, pictures and videos of and about the singer and includes a disclaimer at the bottom stating that the sites are fan sites and are not endorsed by Lopez. However, both sites also include prominent ads and links through to affiliate sites.
Case D2009-0057 was filed last week with the World Intellectual Property by Lopez’s charitable foundation – which support women and children on low incomes – rather than the hard-hitting IP lawyers Fross, Zelnick, Lehrman and Zissu that are the registered owners of Lopez’s dotcom website.
Tom Cruise has won his domain namesake, TomCruise.com, from notorious cybersquatter Jeff Burgar.
Burgar contested the complaint and paid for a three-person panel at domain name arbirtrator WIPO to decide the issue. In the end though, they decided for the movie star and against Burgar – who is a regular at WIPO judgments, having registered hundreds of famous peoples’ name which he redirects to his Celebrity1000.com website.
The decision comes as no surprise to anyone who follows the uniform domain resolution policy (UDRP). But Burgar, – indisputably the most infamous domain name registrant – once again highlights flaws and inconsistencies in the UDRP model.
Movie actor Kevin Spacey has lost a landmark court battle over ownership of www.kevinspacey.com.
Judge Gary A Feess, of the United States District Court of the Central District of California, ruled on 14 November that if Mr Spacey wished to take ownership of the domain to court he would have to file in a Canadian court, where its current owner – the notorious “cybersquatter” Jeffrey Burgar resides.
The decision, in which Mr Burgar and his lawyer Mr EC Grimm “raise a novel threshold question regarding the exercise of personal jurisdiction where the Defendants’ ‘contact’ with the forum have taken place in cyberspace”, should at least allow a more level playing field in relation to future domain disputes. From now, complainants are unlikely to be able to chose where a case is heard, removing any incentive for law courts in certain areas to advertise their stronger approach to large companies and rich individuals.
This decision (case CV-3848) effectively ruins any hopes Mr Spacey had of taking over the domain, without buying it.
