• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Singer Sues Man With Same Name Over Website

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Country singer Keith Urban has filed a lawsuit against some guy name Keith Urban for trademark infringement. Huh?!? The guy has a website selling paintings and makes no mention of the fact that he is not the “other” Keith Urban so the country singer is suing.

He accuses the painter of federal trademark infringement, dilution of a federally registered trademark, federal unfair competition and violation of the anti-cybersquatting consumer protection act and the Tennessee consumer protection act.
Click to expand...
 
I hope it goes to trial and gets a decision. On one hand, its the guy's name... on the other hand, people can change their name creating a loophole... I could re-name myself Michael Jackson and legally claim www.michaeljackson.com?
 
i love this country, now you can sue people for having the same name as you! goodie!!!

too bad there is nobody with my name :(
 
From the article it doesn't so much sound as if he cares that the guy is named Keith Urban and has the www.keithurban.com domain, it sounds as he feels that the painter is trying to make people think he is the singer and doing painting on the side. Thus trying to make money by tricking people. Maybe something as simple as a "I'm not the country singer Keith Urban." being put up would have solved the problem.
 
I rarely suggest that laws are the solution to anything, but it seems that it is time for us to have a federal law governing website registration.

“First come, first serve” seems like a good policy. Initially we had a lot of problems with squatters claiming stuff like ford.com while executives at Ford hadn’t even heard of the internet yet.

However, most new companies consider their website just as important as an office building and I think that will reduce the problem of squatting (founders register the domain name as they are creating the company). However, a piece of the law should dictate that the domain must be used by that person (advertisements don’t count as being used). This might cut back on some of the for profit squatting.

Ya.. I know… there are a lot of holes. However, this problem will only continue to get worse. We can’t have every famous person sue when someone else takes a website with their name. What, does it go to the most famous person? LOL, we could all have our domains taken from us if someone else with the same name becomes famous. I doubt the country singer will win the suite. However, that poor guy selling art on his website might not be able to afford the insane court costs for defending himself. Especially if the evil RIAA gets behind this singer.

Finally, I will submit this as another piece of evidence that country music is EVIL!!! LOL
 
It's a win win for Keith Urban. If he wins the lawsuit then he gets the domain name. If he loses he gets something new to write a song about losing. Just don't mention the web site in the song!

Ever wondered why you don't hear country music while gambling?
 
In there interests of privacy, I won't give it, but I thought I had a unique name. During my brief stint at FedEx I searched my name in the employee lookup and found four other guys with the exact same name. Then I internet searched and found a few more.

Your name (well, first and last) isn't as unique as you might think. Just because you're a singer doesn't make you exempt. Besides that, get creative and come up with a different name to trade by. Oh, wait, you sing country. There goes creativity... :(
 
I hope the singer loses and gets stuck for several million $$$. Totally ridiculous.
 
Let me add this too: I think copyrighting, trademarking, etc has gotten WAY out of hand. No, you shouldn't be allowed to be the sole owner of a word or series of words. Completely wrong.
 
Come on, what about fair use? Seriously?! Keith, you are a star, you are in the public eye, you have no privacy. You should know this you n00b :p ;)
 
in all fairness, it definitely looks like the guy is abusing the fact that someone actually made a name for themselves...and he was lucky enough to have the same name and the domain name to sell ad space or affiliate networks on or whatever.

I think its a stupid lawsuit, and pretty funny....Wonder if the country singer guy made an offer on the site and the guy asked for way more so he sued:p
 
Having gone to the site you would have to be an idiot to believe that it was THE Keith Urban's official website its utter crap.
 
So is it OK for me to go out and copyright all the Chromosome in my body and then sue the world for copyright infringment?. Or maybe get a pattent on 1s and 0s
 
I agree with Thanatos - there's no way in hell any sane person would come to the conclusion that keithurban.com is in any way related to the singer. I say if the domain keithurban.com really belongs to a man with the legal name of Keith Urban (as a DNS lookup suggests, the singer Keith Urban is SOL. You snooze you lose jackass. :mad:

Besides, the singer Keith Urban's birth name, according to imdb.com is get this -- Richard "Keith Urbanski". Just because he's a pussy and decided to shorten it to make his stage name look better to sell records shouldn't shaft a guy who may very well be named Keith Urban legitimately. :mad: x2.



 
oops, Forgot to mention, DNS registration dates for each:

"Painter" guy: May '99
"Singer" guy: Sept '99. Richard Urbanski is SOL.
 
The painter will win this one. He got his site months before the hack singer and has nothing even remotely similiar to what the singer does on his website. I would countersue for millions and stick it to him.
 
Michael....Bolton?

My thoughts exactly.
Click to expand...

I can't help but think of Office Space when I see that name.


Samir: No one in this country can ever pronounce my name right. It's not that hard: Samir Na-gheen-an-a-jar. Nagheenanajar.
Michael Bolton: Yeah, well at least your name isn't Michael Bolton.
Samir: You know there's nothing wrong with that name.
Michael Bolton: There was nothing wrong with it... until I was about 12 years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
Samir: Hmm... well why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael?
Michael Bolton: No way. Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
 
What K.U. (the painter) should do is put a disclaimer saying his site is not affiliated with K.U. the singer. That would be fair for both. In the meantime, we don't know all the inner dealings, so I won't pick sides.
 
I don't think the painter should have to put up a disclaimer; should Keith Urban (the singer) have to put up a disclaimer saying that he's not a painter? Man, I would love if the courts decided that!

Really, this is a ridiculous lawsuit, and hopefully the painter will have enough spare cash lying around to defend himself. Hopefully he's not a stereotypical "starving artist".

I wonder what the traffic at www.keithurban.com will be like for today? ;)
 
Keith Urban (country singer) is just a complete prick. He obviously doesn't understand that just because he thinks the sun shines out his ass means that he can just sue someone over a site of their parent name and their God given right to use their name. I hope the singer loses horribly.
What if some old lady has a website up for like a blog for her kittens, and some pop star girl comes along with the same name as the old lady and says "I'm suing you because you are using my name on a website, $1million lawsuit granny." I would seriously be pissed the hell off.
Seriously, to go and attack an innocent someone using their own name just for a painting website is wrong. Its his name too. He can do whatever the hell he wants with it.

The singer instead of trying to sue the painter, should rather buy it from him (because I'm sure he is some cocky rich ass anyway) for any price if he wants it that bad. How many people here are named Josh? You guys going to attack each other because you're using your own names?

GG internetz.
 
This is bullcrap. I have never heard of Keith Urban before. So if my name was Keith Urban and
I have never heard of the famous Keith Urban, it is wrong for me to have a website with my
name as the URL? Yeah I don't think so.
 
I've just been ripped off. I bought a CD that I thought was from a cool painter, and it turns out it was from some dumb drug addled poseur cowboy. No where on the CD did it say it was from that other Kieth Urban.
 
Kevlarman said:
Lol, remember "Mike Rowe Soft?"
Click to expand...

LMAO.... I knew that guy, and his name really WAS Michael Rowe........... petty BS on MS's part, if you ask me............ good thing Mike Rowe from "Dirty Jobs" isn't a computer programmer, he'd be outta luck too!
 
meant to be an edit for my above post....... I guess the Mike Rowe you guys are talking about is a different one than the one I knew, as he was a few years back, but the same thing had happened to him, so it seems no one can win against the mighty MS.......
 
Keith Urban (the country singer) is just being a cyber bully.

I think it would be funny if some jerky went and registered all the remaining variants of keithurban.XXX and put up spoof sites. Then that idiot can go back to rehab after he falls off the wagon for the bad publicity.
 
markt435 said:
keith urban is a douche. i hope he loses
Click to expand...

Lol. Word for word, exactly what I was gonna say. I even went to the "singers" website to post such in his forums, but found out you have to pay $25 a year for the privilege of posting about how cool/hot/douche-like Mr. Urban is.
 
He's not the 1st to do it. Andy Griffith sued a person who had changed his name to Andrew Griffith. Heres the snippit from Wikipedia.
"William Harold Fenrick of Platteville, Wisconsin legally changed his name to Andrew Jackson Griffith and ran for sheriff of Grant County in November of 2006 (he lost). Subsequently, actor Griffith filed a lawsuit against Griffith (Fenrick), asserting that he violated trademark, copyright and privacy laws by changing his name for the "sole purpose of taking advantage of Griffith's notoriety in an attempt to gain votes."
 
he's just pissed because he just got out of rehab and he cant drink a beer because nicole "the green giant" kidman wont let him have one because scientology says beer is the urination of xenu and you have to be a theaten level 68 to do that.

So he figured he'd sue some artist over some piddly website.
 
Wow. If I didn't think it before, I do now. The entire country's going to hell with a first-class ticket on the handbasket express. I just love it when famous people decide that they're not notorious enough, and find a way to make the whole world hate them. Not like he cares, since he obviously loves himself enough to make up for everyone else.

And I quote... *ahem* 'His hits include "Stupid Boy," and "Who Wouldn't Want to Be Me."'

Need I say more? :rolleyes:
 
MONSOON said:
He's not the 1st to do it. Andy Griffith sued a person who had changed his name to Andrew Griffith. Heres the snippit from Wikipedia.
"William Harold Fenrick of Platteville, Wisconsin legally changed his name to Andrew Jackson Griffith and ran for sheriff of Grant County in November of 2006 (he lost).
Click to expand...

Not quite the same thing here, bro. The country singer changed HIS name, and is trying to sue the other guy, who'se had his name his whole life. If it was the other way around, I could understand.
 
Heh, I'm trying to get a domain back with my name on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top