Keith Urban Sues Keith Urban
@sunnypub (2128)
United States
February 6, 2007 6:25pm CST
Okay I just read a news story about Keith Urban the country singer suing a painter named Keith Urban.
The suit claims that the painter is violating trademark laws and using his keithurban.com name in a deceptive manner and for commercial purposes.
From the research I have done Keith Urban the painter has had the keithurban.com domain name for longer than Keith Urban the singer has been around, in the music world , and popularity wise.
If the singer wins the suit, the painter will lose ownership of the domain name.
This is where I get a little miffed. I mean , it is the painters name, he even has his name incorporated. It is his business to paint and sell his paintings. He has been doing this for years.
So why, now that there is a really popular country singer with the same name, is the painter not allowed to sell his paintings on his website, that bears his name.
I know that there are a lot of people going to that domain expecting to see the website for the singer, but that isn't the painters fault, is it? He cannot help that he was given the name he was given.
I just think it is rediculous that we average citizens have to worry about getting a domain with our name as the url. I mean how are we supposed to know that somewhere down the road some person who has the same name isn't going to become famous and then sue us.
I just think this is rediculous. I mean I could understand the lawsuit stating that there has to be a disclaimer stating that you are not at the sight of the Country Singer Keith Urban, but taking away this guys domain, to me is just wrong.
What are your thoughts?
2 people like this
3 responses
@awonderfullife (2893)
• United States
20 Feb 07
Hmm....I just checked out the website. Any fan of the singer Urban should be able to tell that it's not his site. But the painter Urban writes "to those who don't know, oil painting is one of my hobbies". That wording is kind of shady, as if we should "know" him-- it kind of incinuates that he is the singer Urban. I'm surprised they haven't worked out an agreement-- everyone has their price and I'm sure the dommain name could just be sold to the singer for the right price. But you're right it shouldn't be taken, a disclaiemr should just be added.
1 person likes this
@sunnypub (2128)
• United States
20 Feb 07
I think the wording is one of the big problems here, but he could have had that wording up before the singer came along, and he could actaully be addressing that statement to people who know him for his other things. I still think it is petty, and the singer I am sure gets plenty of hits to his website and makes plenty of money so I just don't get what the big deal is. I know that I would expect to immediately see a picture of the singer when going to his website, so I would never mistake the artist's site for the singers. I would know that long before I got to the part about him oil painting. Thanks for responding.
@lauriefnp (5109)
• United States
20 Feb 07
This is ridiculous. This is yet another example of a spoiled celebrity thinking that they can walk all over anyone because of their fame. The fact is that the painter is using his own legal name, and he had the domain name registered first. That should speak for itself. I thought that was the purpose of researching and registering a domain name? I was also under the impression that once you registered the domain, it was yours. I know that domains can be hacked and stolen, but this clearly is not the case here. I hope the painter gets a good lawyer and wins this one. Keith Urban the singer could still use his name, he would just have to change the name a bit, or use .org instead of .com
What's the big deal?
1 person likes this
@sunnypub (2128)
• United States
20 Feb 07
I know. the thing is that the singer already has a domain at keithurban.net. He is just pissed becasue the artist is probably getting traffic just by people assuming the singer is at the .com address. But it doens't matter, in my opinion, because the artist had the domain first. Thanks for responding.
@shywolf (4514)
• United States
7 Feb 07
Oh, this is just sad. :( I could understand, maybe, if this guy had registered the domain after the singer Keith Urban became famous, in order to try to profit off of the domain. But even so, I think that it is fair for whoever thought to buy the domain first, to have it! My goodness. I don't even understand how the singer Keith Urban thinks that he _can_ sue this guy for using his own legal name, on a domain that he bought before Keith Urban the singer was even famous. That is so sad. I hope that the artist Keith Urban makes a lot of extra sales and money off of having that domain, and that the singer doesn't take it from him!! Gah. We really do live in far too litigious of a society.
@sunnypub (2128)
• United States
16 Feb 07
I agree that it is rediculous, and that we live in far too litigious of a society. The singer knew this guy had the domain, and that it was his real name, and that he had the domain before the singer went to put up a website. The singer is just mad because the artist is making money. Come on, singer, you make more than enough money, leave this poor artist alone. Thanks for responding.
1 person likes this
