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.
No, it certainly can’t! If only we had such statesmen alive today to stir the masses!
That seems to happen periodically....I end up seeing it AFTER I “double post.” Oh well.....some things are just better twice. : )
My...and it looks like “our” pleasure!
Note how not one person has answered my hypothetical in #20. I even asked for a better alternative to the system in place (which worked, in case you didn't notice). One, in fact, ran away from it in terror.
Yet no one dares to answer. Why? Because it would expose them to be frauds.
I answered your question -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1871707/posts?page=25#25
You have not answered any of mine. Nor have you responded to my post here -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1871707/posts?page=50#50
Will you answer my questions?
Or are you supposed to be one of those who are “more equal than others?”
When give an answer, and he doesn’t like the answer, does saying you didn’t answer make it true?
indeed!
You’re going to smuggle a weapon into Belarus, or buy one on the black market there. Quit the BS.
I could always wave your magic wand, and call the answer “irrelevant,” what do you think? Even easier?
over two U.S. citizens. That's the point, not what the subject matter of litigation concerned.
By what authority does the U.N. have subject matter jurisdiction over any U.S. citizen, entity, enterprise, or company?
“Subject matter jurisdiction” is a legal term of art. In this case, “subject matter jurisdiction” is held (probably) by the Federal District Court in the district where Twentieth Century Fox has its corporate headquarters. A ruling by an arbitration panel does not change that. One would think a conservative would know.
Wrong.
Subject matter jurisdiction must first be decided in any U.S. court of law. Otherwise, the Judge has no control over, no jurisdiction over, any party, regardless of their claims, regardless of the subject matter.
This is and was a matter for the U.S. Courts, not the U.N.
We citizens are not “subject” to a United Nations entity, of any form. Anything agreed to by any individual or group of people which goes against the Constitution is, by definition, un-Constitutional. This country cannot legally waive U.S. Constitutional authority over its citizens, its enterprises, its intellectual property, its anything, over to the U.N.
You never stated a location. I assumed by your lack of info that it would be somewhere local. Then again since I don’t surf kiddy porn I would never know the pictures existed unless my child’s info was released with these hypothetical pictures and I was informed of it.
So if a group of UN thugs raped your child what would you do? The pickles incident really happened, MANY TIMES!
Do you need links to websites that describe your beloved UN’s actions, victimizing helpless children they’re supposed to protect?
Since you’re so fond of assuming facts not in evidence, assume the contrary. Pretend you’re taking a law school exam . . . that’s what this thread is about, isn’t it?
No kidding. I've worked in a lawfirm for years. I know exactly what that is.
A U.N. entity issued a ruling, that means, it claims to have authority over a U.S. citizen and a U.S. company.
By what authority does the U.N. have subject matter jurisdiction over U.S. citizens?
And I'll bet a nickel that the law firm where you work does not do IP/copyright.
Hint: Reposting the question, that you refuse to answer, does not make the reposting of same “arguing in circles.”
The U.N. does not own or control the internet or copyrights.
Therefore, it does not have automatic authority over U.S. citizens who use same.
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? Yes, I made an assumption because YOU FAILED to give the location as Belarus. Are you able to go to your professor during a law school exam and ask for more info? I really doubt it.
I answered your questions but you completely avoided mine. What are you afraid of?
About assumptions, in reality you must take actions based on the information present and live with the consequences of your actions. Often that means you must make certain assumptions. Reality is not a college campus where you get spoon fed a blame the U.S. agenda 24/7.
Incidentally; you must live a very sheltered life. You can buy anything anywhere if you find the right connections and you are willing to pay the price.
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.