Today when i want to park thehillaryclinton2008.com to sedo they give this message it means it is trademark name , now i have decided to make a site on Hillary clinton and add adsense to it so can it cause legal problem or ban from adsense.
Well, There are a lot of hillary 08 and hillary 2008 trademarks. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfiel...h&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
Wow, way to post 3 times in a row. Might want to delete that before you get infracted. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=75smsj.1.1 Search there.
All pending. Back to the personality act. It is in violation. And Hillary isnt just a somebody or celebrity but a politician, civil servant, US Senator and 1st Lady to a former US President. So there really is no arguement. And the fact you think he should have a right to park the domain to make profit is wrong kind of mentallity. Yes I know that. It appears that I did take care of it.
I'm not so sure they'd do much about it, as long as you're giving good comments about her. But still, not the point in terms of the legal position.
There is no such thing as the US PERSONALITY ACT OF 1985 There is a California Law from 1985, which applies only in California. That law is California Civil Code section 3344 More importantly, I don't see how you think it related to a website about Hillary Clinton. The Act deals with using someone's picture or name or likeness as an endorsement to sell a product. It has nothing to do with having a news or informational website about that person, even one that has adsense or makes money. Putting Hilary's picture on a mug might be a closer issue depending on the actual use. Have you seen the Hilary Nutcracker for sale everywhere - somehow I don't think they secured her permission. It is probably a parody in any event. ______________________ 3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs. (b) As used in this section, "photograph" means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission, of any person, such that the person is readily identifiable. (1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use. (2) If the photograph includes more than one person so identifiable, then the person or persons complaining of the use shall be represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a definable group represented in the photograph. A definable group includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a baseball team. (3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as members of a definable group if they are represented in the photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in any manner. (c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain the consent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee's photograph or likeness. (d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a). (e) The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not the use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a). (f) Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees of any medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations, cable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is published or disseminated, unless it is established that such owners or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this section. (g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and shall be in addition to any others provided for by law. The law is to protect people from using a celebrity picture or faking a celebrity endorsement. I have no doubt in my mind that this section does not apply to a Hillary Clinton website.
And a book author: http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/414641.htm Here's a fun question: does Mrs. Clinton have a trademark for her name given the US' definition of such and that bit above?
Here is an ICANN case regarding Hillary Clinton. And she won. http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/414641.htm Same case just a news release http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_March_21/ai_n13455273
Next fun question especially to the OP: unless your name is also Hillary Clinton, what are the chances of Mrs. Clinton not having an issue with what you want to do as stated here?
You will see at the bottom of the first link that one of the reasons that the domain was given to Hillary Clinton was that the domain was pointing to a search engine, not something that actually had something to do with clinton. What about all those celebrity fan sites on the web?
I would guess that she is not trying to shut down every site relating to her now, even on a domain with her name in it. There are simply too many sites about her, it is really sort of silly to think she is going to attempt, in an election year, to shut down every site about her. Not only that, I don't think she has a history of going after domain names, the obvious exception was her own exact name .com, which is clearly a different situation than other domain names. My personal opinion is that you would have no issues by creating an information website about Hillary Clinton on that domain. That is true even with adsense or other ad networks on the site. While the 'personality' act mentioned above has nothing do with this, I do think if she tried to take the name, she has a greater than 50% chance of prevailing. That being said, I simply don't think she would try.
Yes it pointed to a search engine that also had a PPC program. Its underlined and bolded. From the ICANN suit: And here is 1 of the 3 things that Hillary had to prove to win the case: In reference to Hillarys name being trademarked or not. It doesnt really matter to ICANN. Here is there reasoning. In addition to what ICANN feels about anyone in general regardless of Celibrity status So it doesnt matter if the Personality Act is applied is applied. Many people in various parts of the US can still win a domain that is registered without their knowledge and win it if they can prove that their name is marked regardless of tradmarked or not. And I would have to agree with Dan Zen. I am sure she will not chase down every domainer with her name in any form in the domain name. Your right. I just brought up the point of the Personality Act and Hillarys ICANN case to answer his question if her name was trademarked. So the OP. Have fun and register the domain. Do you want. C'est La Vie.
Sedo has taken the position that all candidate political names are to be removed from their parking service. They call it a TM problem but it's not. I spoke with their legal counsel once about this.