What do you guys think about the Ed Stelmach VS Blogger situation?

Question

Ed Stelmach recently confronted a blogger who legally bought the rights to Ed Stelmach.ca citing that he is misappropriating his person among other things. He plans to take the University student to court If he doesn't sign over the site to him and give him any profits he has earned from it as well.
The blogger is a friend of a friend of mine and I am just curious whether or not other people think Stelmach went as overboard as I do??

Additional Details

Its completely legal. Whether you agree with him "cybersquatting" or not, he bought the rights and Stelmach is just pissed that he got to it first. There is no real slanderizing of his name so Stelmach is really just being a bully because he's bitter that he didn't get to it first. Several people can have the name Ed Stelmach so first come, first serve. He didn't buy it just so he could get money out of Stelmach, thats ridiculous.

Nice try.

He bought it completely legal and has full control of the site. He had it forwarding to his blog but changed that when the dispute ensued so it forwards to the Wikipedia site.

You have no idea what this issue is about. I respect your opinion but you don't seem to know enough about the ENTIRE issue to really judge.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The article in the link below explains why the blogger will likely prevail.
http://www.domainnews.com/litigation/200…

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

Glad to know someone agrees.

Thanks. :D

Answer 2

No, your friend is a cybersquatter. They are vermin who seek to profit from nothing more than the names of others. It used to be common for people and companies to pay them out. Now, most of them sue, and they win. Your friend can no longer legally buy the rights to somebody else's name. He is playing a dangerous game, and I hope he loses big, as a lesson to others who have been contemplating the same crap.

Okay, you don't like my answer, go to edstelmach.ca and see what you get. Unless you friend is deceased former premier Harry Strom, he doesn't have control over the site you claim he bought legally.

On May 29, 2000, Julia Roberts prevented a cyber-squatter from using http://www.juliaroberts.com, with a ruling from a World Intellectual Property Organization arbitration panel that found bad-faith intent. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is thus showing a willingness to extend
protection to famous individuals, even though they have not formally registered their names as trademarks.

You seem to think this is somehow a unique situation, but, in reality this kind of crap has been around for many years, and it is lately that world bodies have been treating it seriously. Large companies like Pepsi and GM have had the same kind of problem, and people fight back. Steal my name and I will fight back too. Alberta is not a special area with special laws applicable to the internet.

Answer 3

I'd guess it is more complex then that article posted above makes out, although it was an interesting read to me.

Not sure the Canadian Internet Registration Authority is the right venue for the dispute -its dispute resolution page says it only applies to some types of disputes, not all. Not obvious to me that this one applies.

In any case, CIDA decisions are not binding and I am guessing either side would appeal a decision to court.

I haven't visited the site in question, but if in fact the blogger is running a business - no matter how small, such as a few google ads, that has been shown as intent to profit off of someone else's name in the past, and Rights of Publicity laws have been the hinge on which the cases were decided.

I am not familiar with the details of such laws in Canada, but I am guessing as this case moves forward, I will be learning about them :)

Source(s):

I am a digital media industry analyst.