Ron Paul Doesn't Win RonPaul.com And Is Guilty Of Reverse Domain Hijacking

[Chippiewill]

We found it odd back in February to see Ron Paul try to use the domain dispute process to take over RonPaul.com, a domain that was held by some of his biggest supporters. The folks who had the domain had even offered Paul the RonPaul.org domain for free, since they didn't want to disrupt their existing community, and Ron Paul (or his lawyers) tried to spin that into something to use against them, pretending that it showed malicious intent.

It appears that the whole thing has backfired badly on Ron Paul. He failed in his attempt to seize both domain names and was also found guilty of reverse domain hijacking on the .org account, for filing the demand for it after it had already been offered to him for free.

On the use of the .com, the panel found the following:

As Respondent puts it, expressing support and devotion to Ron Paul’s political ideals is a legitimate interest that does not require Complainant’s authorization or approval. Moreover, Respondent’s legitimate interest in the Domain Name is strong because the site provides a place for political speech, which is at the heart of what the United States Constitution’s First Amendment is designed to protect. In this way, the Panel is persuaded by Respondent’s arguments and evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish any trademark at issue. Moreover, Respondent has submitted evidence that there are multiple, very clear disclaimers on the website to which the Domain Name links, indicating that the site is not Complainant’s official site. In regards to Complainant’s arguments that the website is actually a “pretext for commercial advantage”, the Panel finds the website linked to the Domain Name is primarily a noncommercial service, while the products advertised and sold are ancillary to the site’s primary purpose as a source of news and information about Ron Paul, and serving as political forum. Moreover, Respondent’s use meets the criteria for a nominative fair use, as stated in a number of UDRP cases.

Yeah. Ron Paul loses out because the First Amendment is even stronger than he believes it to be. How about that?

The fact that the owners offered the .org for free plays heavily into the decision:

Finally, related to Respondent’s second main point, there is no evidence that Respondent has attempted to corner the market of domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting his alleged RON PAUL mark in a domain name. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that in 2013 Respondent offered to give Complainant the Domain Name for free.

And it's this point that leads to the panel saying that Paul was engaged in reverse domain hijacking.

Respondent has requested, based on the evidence presented, that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In view of the unique facts of this case, in which the evidence demonstrates that Respondent offered to give the Domain Name to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached, the Panel is inclined to agree. Instead of accepting the Domain Name, Complainant brought this proceeding. A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking seems to this Panel to be appropriate in the circumstances.

While this may just make Ron Paul hate the UN even more, perhaps it'll drive home the point that his initial attack on the fan site was ridiculous.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ijacking.shtml

Champion of the free market. Or so they say.

[-:Undertaker:-]

To be fair to Ron Paul, there is a debate in libertarian circles over this sort of thing and property rights in regards to internet ownership. One side of the argument (the side I have always tended to side with) is that pretty much anything on the internet ought to be free and exempt from copyright laws/ownership laws that things in real life face. On the other side you have those who say that private property does exist on the internet and thus internet 'property' ought to be protected by law - ie, would it really be fair if I basically copied the HabboxForum website, named the new forum HabboxForums.co.uk and then profited from it? it's a grey area, and even i'm not totally decided on it.

Either way, its still split the grassroots... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ulDOTorg/page2