Keith Urban v. Keith Urban- trademark infringement
The Smoking Gun has an interesting article today, regarding litigation by Keith Urban. The two litigants are both named Keith Urban. The plaintiff, Keith Lionel Urban, is a country musician from Nashville, Tennessee. He is the husband of Nicole Kidman who spent three well publicized months in rehab. The defendant is Keith D. Urban, of Wayne, New Jersey. He is a painter.
Keith L. Urban is unhappy that Keith D. Urban runs the website keithurban.com. He wants Keith D. Urban to stop selling his paintings on the website. Keith L. Urban was slow in registering domain names, and he uses the website keithurban.net. I did a quick search through Google for "Keith Urban," and the all of the first few pages of search results all point to the country singer, and identify his .net website.
When I first read about this website, I figured
that Keith L. Urban must be back on the bottle- the other guy is actually named Keith Urban, registered the domain name first, so one could logically conclude that the painting Urban has the right to use the domain name comprising his actual name.Then I took a look at the keithurban.com website, and I immediately knew that Keith L. Urban had a very strong case, and will likely win against Keith D. Urban. The country singer alleges that the painter is using the website of keithurban.com in bad faith, and confusing people into believing that he is the painter in addition to being the singer.
Of particular note, keithurban.com leads you to believe that it is actually the singer who does the paintings. The website prominently proclaims:
You have reached the site of Keith Urban
To Those Who Don't Know, Oil Painting
Is One Of My Hobbies.
The website later continues with:
For production reasons the print will not be the exact size as the painting, however it will be as close to the original size of the painting as possible.
The print will be autographed and numbered on the back and also comes with
a certificate of authenticity that is also autographed and numbered.
At no point does the website indicate that the individual is someone other than Keith Urban, country music star. Indeed, it leads one to believe that this may even be the Keith Urban, musician. By not clarifying this important fact, the painter Keith Urban is likely attempting to profit from the well known musician. Many people (myself included) will often go directly to a name and add ".com" when attempting to visit a website. I imagine the painter is receiving a good bump in website traffic by these accidental visits. As I noted earlier, the .com website does not show up within the first few pages of Google search results.
I have saved copies of the main page of keithurban.com, in the likely event that the website is shut down or ordered to change (and likely enter a disclaimer). Click the thumbnail image above to view the main page.
Labels: cybersquatting, domain names, trademark infringement
posted by Owen @ 8:05 PM
5 comments
View Owen Smigelski's LinkedIn profile
5 Comments:
The singer has no case. The domain name was registered in May of 1999 by the painter, well before Keith Urban the singer was well-known, or selling thousands of records, or winning prestigious awards. He was an unknown talent, just barely emerging into the mainstream scene nearly a decade after his debut album. He was not a celebrity, or even close to being one. If the painter even knew of his existence, which there is no proof he did, he would have had absolutely no reason to believe registering that domain would result in any profitable success. If the painter's name was different, I might agree with you. But the timeframe of when the domain was registered, when compared to the timeline of Urban the singer's career, and the fact that the painter has the exact same name and also happens to make a living off of his artwork, suggests to me that he had no intention whatsoever of trying to profit off of the so-called career of a singer, who at the time did not have a mainstream career to speak of! There is simply no logic in that argument I'm sorry.
Whether he likes it or not, Keith Urban the singer does not "own" any and all rights or claims to the name "Keith Urban".
There is nothing on the website whatsoever to suggest any affiliation with the singer. Not a single thing. And while you may be correct that the painter doesn't specifically note that he is not the singer, that does not constitute evidence that he intends to mislead people. Anyone familiar with the Internet and with a little common sense would be reasonably capable of concluding that keithurban.com is not a website for the singer. It mentions nothing about the singer, nothing about his career or his albums, contains no articles or links or images of the singer, etc. And to top it off, it's a poor design, and assuming Urban the singer is making money (we all know he is) it's very obvious he would be more than capable of affording a professionally designed website.
Urban the singer and his lawyers are clearly confused as to the function and purpose of the advertisements on the page. They are clearly "per click" ads that operate from a code pasted into the page. The website owner has absolutely no control over what ads are shown. If they happen to show something relating to Keith Urban the singer, it is most likely due to the fact that the painter shares that name and it is included in the site. That's an issue of necessity, not greed. He is a painter and it is HIS NAME. Is he forbidden from stating his own name, who he is, on a website he legally registered to promote his own personal artistic works? The answer is no, and it's ludicrous to even suggest such.
Keith Urban the singer needs to climb on down off of his high horse and wake up to the cold hard reality that he is not that big a celebrity and that he really needs to get over himself. Hey man... I never even heard of you before you married Nicole Kidman and starting talking to the media about having a drug problem. Maybe you're hot stuff in Tennessee, but that doesn't mean you rule the world. Get a life.
I certainly understand your position, however I have to disagree. Trademark laws are generally written to ensure that older/stronger/well-known marks (called "superior trademarks") are protected against "junior trademarks." These are lesser known marks, or ones used less, etc.
The singer's name is known around the world, and the painter's is not. Simply put, the singer's name is stronger than the painter's- even though they are the same name. I'm not saying that the painter should stop using the name, I'm saying that he should put a little disclaimer on the website to show that he is not the singer- and thus avoid any appearance of attempting to profit over the similar names.
Own up to the fact that the painter is a different person, put some info about that on the website were it can be seen, and I do not think that the singer has any case against the painter. Up to that point, where the painter does nothing to explain the difference, then yes- I think he is wrong and the painter should lose. If the website prominently states "I am not Keith Urban the singer," then I do not think the singer has any case whatsoever. Up until the point that there is indeed confusion between the two, and the junior mark (less known) does nothing to distinguish the two, then yes, the singer should prevail.
This could be easily changed by adding a simple disclaimer, and then the singer would not have much of a case.
Like any litigation it is going to turn on facts. Seems to me that it will be fairly easy to show that the intent here was to trade on the singers name, regardless of when the registration was done. The language seems purposfully vauge and hints at at celebrity (I don't know to many artists who "autograph" their work.) Also, I find it odd that this painter is selling prints of works he did in the early '90s. My guess is that in discovery more will come out.
All that said, if you check the meta tags, he makes it fairly clear that he is an artist, not a musician.
meta name="keywords" content="Disney, Disney World, keith, keith urban, keithurban.com, www.keithurban.com, keithurban.org, www.keithurban.org, The Real Keith Urban, Adobe Flash Artist, graphics, design, orlando, Keith Urban the Artist, Keith Urban the designer, Keith Urban the programmer, Fine Art, Computer Art, Computer Graphics"
meta name="description" content="This is a website that contains all kinds of info about Keith Urban the American Artist. He has been an inpiration to thousands. An incredible artist, designer, inventor and more. He has studied with world reknowned artist Peter Caras and has taken these techniques to the next level."
Disney on the otherhand might have a legitimate beef (first keywords).
So what happened?
Looks to me like a case could be made that the painter is, to some extent, profiting from any visitor confusion - but I see no evidence that the musician actually loses - as suggested by the painter, he may well sell more tickets or albums arising from the Google Adsense links.
But what did the court decide?
Well, it's more than two years later, and Keith D. Urban still owns keithurban.com. And there is still no disclaimer I can find on keithurban.com stating "I am not the singer guy". The argument that Keith D. is at a disadvantage by NOT mentioning Keith L. never made sense to me. After all, I don't go around introducing myself as "NOT the German Luxury Car."
Post a Comment
<< Home