![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Sen. Clinton Wins Rights to HillaryClinton.com 47
SteveBlink writes "The National Arbitration Forum announced today that a ruling has been issued in favor of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding rights to the Internet domain name hillaryclinton.com. A quick search of the Yahoo! phone book reveals at least 3 other people sharing the name Hillary Clinton living Ohio, California, and Delaware, respectively. It's curious to note that Sen. Clinton's full legal name isn't "Hillary Clinton," and the website itself is a generic link farm that makes no overt reference to the senator."
Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:5, Informative)
Good riddance to a bit more sleezy domain profiteering. I don't even like Clinton, but I'm glad she won.
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:1)
You geeks may be able to set up a prototype database for the purposes of resume tracking for your employer in no time flat and yet you completely miss out on simple facts like what I typed above.
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:2)
Are you sure? I didn't see anything pointing to the fact that any of the other 'Hillary Clintons' tried to get this domain name. I think it's a perfectly reasonable for any one of them to get their hands on it on a first come first serve basis. If it's their name, and someone is using
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:2)
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:2)
Same type of thing, he was playing off of their name. I'm sure if the domain in question was mikerowe.com he would have had no problems what-so-ever.
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:2)
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:2)
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:2)
If we go by the traditional rules, though, she should be required to have a
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:1)
Yet you post on Slashdot.org.
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, if another Hilary Clinton wanted the domain, they should have just as much right to it as the Senator (after all, she already has a
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:3, Interesting)
It means that Senator Hillary Clinton has no exclusive claim on the name hillaryclinton.
The one who HAD and was USING the domain WAS NOT a "Hillary Clinton", it was a "Michele Dinoia" who was using it to redirect traffic to search (*cough*)SPAM(*cough) engines.
So, is there somewhere I can download the list of Officially Approved Website Uses? Better yet, is there somewhere I can vote to have entries added to or removed from that list?
Goo
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:2)
Right here:
Any use of a website for non-douchebag purposes is okay.
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:1)
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:2)
Re:Not quite as the submitter suggests (Score:1)
Doesn't matter that it doesn't reference her (Score:4, Insightful)
easy victory, not much of a story (Score:4, Insightful)
Im sick fed up of these domain farmers , They obviously just bought up this domain in hopes of making a bit of cash off the name , which is in clearly wrong
Re:easy victory, not much of a story (Score:2)
Re:easy victory, not much of a story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:easy victory, not much of a story (Score:1)
www.hillaryclintoninside.com
sponsored by Intel.
Laugh, it's funny.
Re:easy victory, not much of a story (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:easy victory, not much of a story (Score:2)
Resection to politics (Score:2, Troll)
now... did you have a point, or do you just like to ramble on about nit-picky partisan bullshit that's entirely unrelated to cybersquatting regulations?
Re:Resection to politics (Score:2)
And a quick check over at Open Secrets shows that the NAF lawyers are Republicans - makes sense as they're the guys who stand to gain from Tort Reform. No bias here.
What is interesting is that the ruling is based on Common Law Trademark usage, which I like. Yet, during the Clinton Administration media types were chastised for using "Hillary Clinton" wh
Re:Resection to politics (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Resection to politics (Score:2)
and anyone is suprised because? (Score:1, Insightful)
She's a good negotiator (Score:1)
Once she threatened to crush her opposition under the weight of her massive ego, they caved in seconds.
Re:She's a good negotiator (Score:1, Funny)
Ugh, now I have an image in my mind of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich wearing sumo outfits and double-teaming unsuspecting passers-by in the Washington Mall.
Re:She's a good negotiator (Score:1, Funny)
Generic link farm? (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets hear it for Linkfarms! (Score:1)
Is it?
Re:Lets hear it for Linkfarms! (Score:2)
It depends upon how you do it. (Score:1, Interesting)
* If you point the thing to any content that makes reference to this famous entity, and it's not parody or some other protected form of copyright referencing, you can basically forget about being able to claim you're an innocent party.
I had a friend who had americaonline.com. He probably could have kept the domain or legitimately sold it to AOL had he not made the foolish mistake of
This was a correct decision (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone need a lawyer?
Not domain squatting (Score:2)
What about cases where someone uses the name of a person who's political or religious stance angers them, in order to publish information which may be damaging to that person?
The site is www.kipmckean.com isn't run by the Kip McKean who's featured on the site, but is actually a thinly veiled rebuttal of the church/alleged "cult" he used to head.
Wonder if he'd win if he sued for ownership of the domain
Re:Not domain squatting (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting that you would bring up an obscure religious figure such as Kip. Have you been a member current or past? Not only did he used to head this cult, he currently still leads a church and has plans to run the whole thing again.
I was in his church/cult for 14 years and I am the owner of kipmck
Re:Not domain squatting (Score:2)
If you're new to
Re:Not domain squatting (Score:1)
When I purchased the Mckean domain, I did wonder how long I might own it. I have no desires in making money from selling the domain back to McKean, nor do I wish any lawsuits. So who knows how long this will last for me.
It is an interesting topic to keep my eye on.
This should pay for the legal bills (Score:3, Insightful)