I'm glad there's nobody famous named Jeffrey Quick
Keith Urban (the artist) is being sued by Keith Urban (Mr. Nicole Kidman) because he called his domain Keithurban.com. Don't we normal people have a right to our own name anymore? I'd like to see a judge tell Mr. NK where he can stick his suit, and his guitar.
Comments
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: February 12, 2007 11:04 PM
I suspect the singer will have a hard time proving this one. According to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine the artist's site was created in 1999/2000. About the same time as the singer started to perform under his own name. Also, how would confess a bunch of oil painting as the singer's worker. There is nothing there that suggest it.
Posted by: Tom Hayes
Posted on: February 13, 2007 08:49 PM
It would be unlikely that anything will come of this. ICANN is the agency in charge of all domain name disputes. They would have to find that Mr. Kidman's right to the domain is greater than that of Mr. Urban (the artist). As they both have legitimate rights and, as Brian has pointed out, there is a long track record of ownership and use for the artist, and the reason for the site is not specifically to make money off Mr. Kidman...
I was responsible for the domain mlano.org, the Medical Library Association of Northeast Ohio. When I left my position at Rainbow and soon after the organization, I relinquished my duties as web master. Soon after, the domain registration expired and some yahoo purchased it. Needless to say, the organization was shocked by the change. However, in reading the ICANN information, it is likely that MLANO could win the challenge if they chose to pursue it, primarily for these reasons: MLANO operates with a clear beneficial purpose (contrary to the current owner); there are articles of incorporation for the organization in the State of Ohio and MLANO is a 501(c)(3), this confers legal status (whereas the person with the domain now is clearly not an organization); the organization owned the domain for many years prior to losing it and used it for legitimate organizational purposes (again, contrary to the current owner). The catch? MLANO would have to shell out at least $1,000 for consideration by judges and more if the current owner filed a counter challenge.
Shelling out cash for a judgement is not a problem for people with $$$ like Mr. Kidman; but I think the factor mentioned by Brian alone should establish a legitimacy.
http://www.icann.org/udrp/
Posted by: melodee
Posted on: August 28, 2007 11:04 AM
This is what I love about this site. I am learning new things, new topics for discussion at a very satisfying rate. I landed here by happenstance. I'm staying by choice.
Perhaps Keith Urban was coked out of his shag hair do when he filed that lawsuit.