It Doesn’t Get Much Lower Than This – “Susan Boyle Does a Porno?”

Representing adult entertainment industry clients makes my cocktail party discussions somewhat interesting (to say the least). Often, I get asked “okay, but where do you personally draw the line?” I have always said that I’ll know it when I see it.

I have now seen it.

An adult entertainment company has registered susanboylexxx.com and has placed an offer on that site to pay Susan Boyle $1 million if she will lose her virginity on camera. Aside from the fact that this has to be one of the most douchebaggy things I’ve ever seen, the company that registered that website is certainly violating 15 U.S.C. § 1129 and probably violating 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

If Susan Boyle wants to simply collect $100,000 plus attorneys fees, she ought to sue them instead of taking them up on her offer.

Email this postBookmark and Share

Short Url: http://bit.ly/CWKgS


Technorati :  , , ,

8 Responses to It Doesn’t Get Much Lower Than This – “Susan Boyle Does a Porno?”

  1. KWW says:

    I wouldn’t be so quick to pull the trigger on the 1125(d) claim, Professor.

  2. Acro says:

    Marc, I registered KissSusanBoyle dot com
    Am I still a douchebag? :D

  3. I think that is a little different. You still might be violating the law though, but not every law violator is a douchebag. Just like not every douchebag is a law breaker.

  4. Acro says:

    Interesting. I was not aware of this http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001129—-000-.html and I will definitely keep it in mind.

  5. Here is a good case to illustrate how it could be employed. Salle v. Meadows.

    In that case (which is the one that KWW is obliquely referencing above), the plaintiff wasn’t really famous, therefore the court held that his name did not “function as a trademark.” Susan Boyle might have a little more luck on that front than the relatively obscure Mr. Salle.

    Nevertheless, you can see that the defendant in that case got hit with a pretty large attorneys’ fees award on the 1129 portion of the claim.

    The other thing that makes owning celebrity names as domains a little tricky is that the panelists are really unpredictable on when personal name domains are a violation of the UDRP. Accordingly, I think that if Susan Boyle cared about your domain, (which she may not) and she hired counsel, that counsel might advise her that she has a clearer path to victory under 1129 than under the UDRP — thus raising the stakes.

  6. KWW says:

    I definitely agree about 1129. I think 1125(d) might be a stretch without any trademark use/association in her name.

    Like you said, losing an 1129 claim might not be as bad as losing an 1125(d) claim, but it doesn’t put a big smile on a client’s face either.

  7. But don’t you think that she has that — even if a local businessman might not?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,710 other followers

%d bloggers like this: