Dramatic Olbermann v. Daily Caller

Regular readers will thrill once again to our 13-second masterpiece above. The news hook? The Daily Caller's purchase of the the URL keitholbermann.com:

Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, has responded to the news that The Daily Caller has acquired the domain, KeithOlbermann.com.

In a tweet posted at 10:46 AM, the aging cable anchor wrote, "Regarding @TheDailyCaller and Keitholbermann.com: I hope whoever sold it to them got CASH."

Several minutes later, an apparently still-reeling Olbermann clarified his meaning: "Also regarding @TheDailyCaller and KeithOlbermann.com – the law's pretty clear on this, so, nice waste of money, Tuckie. #p2 #tcot."

The implication is that MSNBC, or Keith Olbermann personally, will pursue legal action to stop the dissemination of news and information on The Daily Caller.

Not so fast, responded Tucker Carlson, editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller. "Some might step back and allow Mr. Olbermann to drain his bladder on the first amendment – indeed, on the Bill of Rights itself," said Carlson. "Not us. No, by God, not us."

Continue to check this space for updates on this developing story. And in the meantime, Tucker Carlson may be reached at his personal email address, [e-mail].

More.

Comments

[sage]

Some might step back and allow Mr. Olbermann to drain his bladder on the first amendment

Thanks for the visual.

[John]

I am not a trademark lawyer but I think Carlson will lose in court. Haven't they ruled that public figures have a right to their domains on the internet? Something involving Madonna if I am not mistaken.

Regardless, Carlson will have a great time tweaking the twit for the next few months until this thing is resolved.

[Citizen Nothing]

I would think "Madonna" would be particularly difficult test case.
Didn't Spike Lee claim the same in re Spike TV?

[Mary the Mother of Jesus]

Haven't they ruled that public figures have a right to their domains on the internet? Something involving Madonna if I am not mistaken.

Uh...

[Abdul]

It's cyber-squatting law that's implicated, and Olbie has pretty chances based on my (limited) understanding.

[ChicagoTom]

It's cyber-squatting law that's implicated, and Olbie has pretty chances based on my (limited) understanding.

Im not an expert, but i thought the cyber squatting laws were about people trrying to profit from the confusion or doing nothing with it and offering to sell it to the person whose name they are using for a hefty profit.

WHat the owner of keithOlbermann.com does with the site might determine if KO will win this fight.

If they use the site to criticize him, i don't think KO will win.

That's based on my very limited knowledge of the cybersquatting law

[ChicagoTom]

Here's a link to info about the law:

The factors that would count against Tucker would be:

1. Intent to divert to a site that could harm the trademark owner's goodwill - either for commercial gain or with intent to tarnish by creating likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship or affiliation, or endorsement of the site.

2. Offer to sell the domain name without having used, or having an intent to use, it in the bona fide offering of goods or services, or a prior pattern of such conduct.
Language in the legislative history specifically indicates that this section is not supposed to apply to a party who registers a name with the bona fide intent to launch a new product or company but then abandons that plan and sells the name to a trademark holder.

3. Intentional provision of misleading contact information in the domain name registration application or the history of such conduct.

4. Warehousing of multiple domain names known to be identical or confusingly similar to distinctive marks or dilutive of famous marks, without regard to the goods or services of the parties.
According to the legislative history, cybersquatters have been able to avoid liability by not being the one to initiate or offer to sell. Now, sitting on such marks is sufficient evidence of bad faith and an offer to sell is not required.

5. The extent to which a mark is distinctive or famous.
Under the legislative history, the more distinctive or famous a mark is, the more likely the Trademark owner will deserve relief

Like I said, depending on what they do with the site, I don't think it's as clear cut as KO thinks.

If DailyCaller uses it to criticize and mock and be a watchdog for KO, they might keep the site

[?]

Olbermann's fans can't spell his name, so the URL is worthless. But that's a great punchline. I blame Treacher.

[?]

I thought his name was Kei Tholbermann.

[Thanzor]

Carlson will 100% lose the domain. It will not go to court however, there is an organization called ICANN that has responsibility over domain name disputes. Carlson has absolutely no chance of keeping the domain.

[Dan]

If Carlson uses the URL for an overtly anti-Olbermann site then he has an excellent chance of keeping it.

Consider whitehouse.org, which was registered as an anti-Bush parody site.

[Bee Tagger]

I agree with Tuckie on how the 1st amendment should apply in a perfecter world.

That said, this can still be ruled dick-ish by the court of public opinion and I don't know that I can stomach an Olbermunk with an even greater sense of martyrdom.

[R C Dean]

Whether Carlson keeps the domain or not, its mission accomplished for him already.

Making Olbie look like a fool? Check.

Picking up some buzz in the mediasphere? Check.

What, BTW, are the rules under which the owner of a domain name can be stripped of their rights because someone else has the same name and couldn't be bothered to acquire it?

[Pip]

I don't know what the rules are, but years ago Honeywell (now Honeywell International) had to buy the domain name honeywell.com from some small business (like a mom & pop florist or something also named Honeywell), because it was ruled that they had it first.

[Tulpa]

If Tucker Carlson changes his name to Keith Olbermann, then he might have a case.

[JD]

AFAICT, there aren't really any rules now. It was, long ago, the case that if you wanted to register "giantpurplesmokingcatfish.com", you had to actually show that you did business as Giant Purple Smoking Catfish. This did not preclude conflicts between Giant Purple Smoking Catfish, Inc., the air-conditioning manufacturers, and Giant Purple Smoking Catfish, the florists' shop in Duluth, but it was something. Then the registrars realized they could make lots more money if they just let anybody register anything, so it all went to hell.

[WTF]

There is a federal anti-cybersquatting statute, with a few pretty well-known cases on it, that make it pretty clear Carlson will lose. On this one very narrow point, Olbermann actually is right: the law is clear.

[prolefeed]

Link to the actual legislative language? Because buying an existing website from the current owner doesn't meet any common sense definition of cybersquatting.

Granted, "common sense" and "legislation" are generally oxymorons when used together.

[Tony]

Yes, DC will lose the URL. But my question is...how has Olbermann's HUGE ego not already purchased the URL?

[John]

That is a good question Tony.

[juris imprudent]

Because he is as cheap as he is over melodramatic?

[The Libertarian Guy]

+1, Tony.

[Citizen Nothing]

What if some other Keith Olbermann had done the same? Some dude's had my actual name.com tied up for years.
(However, citizennothing.com is all mine, baby.)

[ChicagoTom]

What if some other Keith Olbermann had done the same? Some dude's had my actual name.com tied up for years.

The law says that that is a point in some dudes favor.

It also depends on what he does with the site. And I think you have to be a somewhat public figure or at least have a trademark on your name for it to even be an issue.

[Tulpa]

I had no idea The Jacket was actually a photographer in his spare time. I guess it helps to have a trade as a backup.

[MWG]

If this were the real Nick, there'd be pics of naked chicks smoking weed.

[Almanian]

"If this were the real Nick, there'd be pics of naked chicks smoking weed blowing milk out their asses."

FIFY

[Spur]

I hate squatters - even if its legal and against a douche - seems like a douche response by a rather boring DailyCaller - I was hoping for a bit more from them...

[Esoteric]

Oh come on, it's fucking hilarious. The big headline in 40-pt font saying "WE OWN YOU"? You're telling me that's not comedy gold right there?

[LeSigh]

Comedy silver, maybe, and tarnished from over-handling.

[Dan]

I dunno, the line "Tucker Carlson can be reached at his personal email address,

[Death Panelist]

We're all Keith Olbermann now.

[John Malkovich]

Wouldn't you rather be me?

[Tim]

If the law really is clear, that's a rare thing.

[Maverick]

Cry Baby

[TallDave]

This is beyond hilarious. Comic genius.

I smell Treacher's gin-soaked fingerprints all over this.

[TallDave]

And yes, they will lose -- but I'm sure they know that. They're just doing it for the lawls.

[swillfredo pareto]

#p2 #tcot

Could someone who speaks loser tell me what these hash tags mean?

[prolefeed]

"Some might step back and allow Mr. Olbermann to drain his bladder on the first amendment ? indeed, on the Bill of Rights itself," said Carlson. "Not us. No, by God, not us."

That was funnier than Tucker Carlson's usually is.

[Van Heusen, c. 1952]

We've com a long way, baby!

http://208.106.250.72/_media/i.....4-of-5.jpg

[prolefeed]

And in the meantime, Tucker Carlson may be reached at his personal email address, [e-mail].

+1

[Esoteric]

Missed this the first time.

Since when did Tucker Carlson get so funny? Is it Treacher's influence or something?

[Sidd Finch]

He's too uppity to be very funny on TV, but if you don't think he's funny you haven't read his Esquire piece on going to Liberia with Sharpton.

[FakeName]

+1

[Fatty Bolger]

Awesome.

[Sidd Finch]

"We plan to make The Daily Caller the one-stop online shop for Keith Olbermann commentary," said Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson. "We will be THE Keith Olbermann superstore."

"This is part of our long-term growth strategy," added Publisher and CEO Neil Patel. "Our future acquisition targets include several other annoying cable news commentators."

Olbermann, the host of a low-rated nightly show on MSNBC, attacked The Daily Caller last week on Twitter. "Daily Caller has never known what Daily Caller is talking about," he wrote.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07.....z0tmmc00nq

This could be epic ...

[Sidd Finch]

To celebrate KeithOlbermann.com's recent change in management, we'd like to give a little something back to you, our readers, and our community at large.

Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa, is one of our nation's finest institutions of higher learning. A leading liberal arts school whose 1,200 students live and learn at a bucolic 129-acre campus about 20 minutes from downtown Cedar Rapids, Cornell offers about 40 areas of study miles from the soul-crushing gorges of upstate New York.

In honor of Cornell alumnus Keith Olbermann, KeithOlbermann.com would like to offer a $100 scholarship to the reader with the most compelling answers to the problems facing Americans today.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07.....z0tmoP2DaP

[Keith Olbermann]

Carlson's unauthorized use of my name will not stand.

Also, I eat balls.

[Warren]

Tucker Carlson may be reached at his personal email address, [e-mail].

I am of the opinion that civilization is justified if merely because it can produce sentences like the above.

[Jim Treacher]

I appreciate the kind words, but I am a mere spectator to this event. I'm proud to bear witness to it. Truly, this is the Golden Age.

[Almanian]

All your Keith Olbermann are belong to us.

[Almanian]

And thanks for another posting of dramatic Olbermann/Chipmunk - that just never gets old

[Maurice]

Ummm.....

Celebrity wins decision for TuckerCarlson.com.
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008
Conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson has won rights to the domain name TuckerCarlson.com.
The decision handed down through World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under UDRP on June 2. In Carlson's complaint, he claimed common law rights to the name "Tucker Carlson":

Complainant states that he is "an internationally famous television news anchor and author, most famous for his role as anchor of the eponymous televised newsmagazines Tucker (MSNBC) and Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered (PBS), as well as for his role as co-host of Crossfire (CNN)." Complainant states that his television debut came in 2000 as co-host of The Spin Room (PBS) and that he has also appeared on television as a contestant on Dancing With the Stars (ABC), the Tonight Show With Jay Leno and Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Complainant states that his writings "are regularly featured" in Esquire, The Weekly Standard, The New Republic and The New York Times Magazine. And, Complainant states that he has appeared as an actor in various television shows and movies.

TuckerCarlson.com was registered in 2003. The domain points to a DomainSponsor parking page including links to "The Tucker Carlson Show" and "Tucker MSNBC". The owner of the domain name used privacy protection to mask his identity.
In general, celebrities can win UDRP decisions if they are reasonably well known and if the corresponding domain name is being used for profit (ala Jerry Seinfeld). If it is being used for criticism, such as in the case of Jerry Falwell and typo Fallwell.com, domain owners have prevailed in disputes. Also, politician's domain names are usually fair game if it is being used in a non-commercial manner.

So, I'm going to guess Tucker knows how this is going to play out...

Also, apparently Salon.com has Olbey's back.

[Jim Treacher]

If it is being used for criticism

Weird!