Skip to comments.UN agency gives 20th Century Fox web address to 'The Simpsons Movie'
Posted on 07/25/2007 8:30:15 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Woo-hoo! "The Simpsons Movie" has won its name back on the Internet.
A UN agency has ruled that ownership of the domain name thesimpsonsmovie.com must be handed to News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox, which owns the rights to the film and the popular TV series.
Twentieth Century Fox complained to the World Intellectual Property Organization over the use of the film's name in the Internet address of a site registered by Keith Malley of New York.
Fox lawyers claimed Malley was using the address to divert Internet users to a website that included sexually explicit depictions of several characters from "The Simpsons" and, later, to his "Keith and the Girl" website. He was demanding a $50,000 fee from Twentieth Century Fox for the domain name, according to the July 22 ruling of the WIPO arbitration panel.
It found that Malley "has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name" and ordered its immediate return.
In an interview, Malley said that Fox lawyers never contacted him and that he learned about the case after the deadline had passed. He said his contact information was available on his website and through his lawyer, although he hadn't updated the official registration records for the domain name, which he bought in 1999.
"I found it bullying," Malley said, adding that he would speak with his lawyer about challenging the decision. Malley could appeal by filing a lawsuit in a court.
The arbitration system, which was set up in 1999, allows those who think they have the right to a domain to gain control of it without having to fight a costly legal battle or pay large sums of money. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and Madonna are among the Hollywood stars who have previously won rulings against so-called "cybersquatters."
"The animated television series 'The Simpsons' debuted in 1989, and has become one of the longest-running network series in television history," the ruling said, noting that Friday's release of the film has generated huge public interest on the Internet.
WIPO said Malley's "aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit" Twentieth Century Fox's trademark to promote and sell his own products and merchandise.
Malley, 33, who produces an Internet radio show, said he obtained the domain name with intentions of creating a parody of "The Simpsons." He said the amount Fox offered for the domain name, $300, wouldn't cover time spent developing ideas for the site; he would not elaborate on those ideas.
Yep those "free traders" were right. It's just a 'trade' agreement and those international 'institutions' have no authority, nope none at all....
You might be interested in this.
While one can debate the merits of the Simpsons, there is simply no debating the attack on US sovereignty by the UN.
if the UN tried to pass such rulings on me I’d tell them to send the blue helmet boys down to enforce it, if they tried I’d use any force necessary to defend myself from hostile invaders on american soil.
They already have already invaded. Their headquarters is on US soil, and our president, in his infinite wisdom, gave them offices in Georgia and Texas so that they could monitor our human rights abuses after hurrican Katrina.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. KeithMalley.com
Case No. D2007-0760
Based upon what clause in the constitution? And if in recent legislation, what and where?
I do not recognize that authority.
They said: “Some panels have held that a respondents lack of response can be construed as an admission that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.”.
I guess you can’t ignore the ‘panel’ of an international institution. They are full of themselves.
Another example of an international institution exerting authority over a United States citizen.
Your friends are busy interfering in the lives of Americans.
Please explain. This is a cyber-squatting case with copyright/intellectual property implications.
The UN doesn't have to send the blue helmets. You'd be firing on your own Sheriff's Department . . . and I think you know where that would lead.
They are right. Silence implies consent.
The respondent can send the panel a letter responding to their decision and tell them to do something anatomically impossible with it.
THAT will hold up in a court of US law, and the respondent can go on about his business.
Cyber-squatting is soooo 90’s.
On what legal grounds would it "hold up?" I'm afraid that, at best, you are uninformed on this subject.
When the UN cracks down on Human Rights abuses in Saudi Arabia (including religious freedoms), I will consider paying attention to any rebuke from the UN against the US.
assume that you have a daughter named Svetlana and your last name is X. Someone (let's call him Larry F.) comes along and registers a domain named SvetlanaX-is-a-slattern.com, and Photoshops your daughter's head on a bunch of female porn stars engaged in what porn stars do for a living.
You take Larry F. to (U.S.) court and legally (and justifiably) win a judgment compelling him to cease and desist. Larry F. closes his website and moves his operation to Belarus (or finds a registered agent to do so--no need to complicate the hypothetical), creating a website named SvetlanaX-is-a-slattern.by. How do you propose enforcing your (U.S.) cease and desist order?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.