STORM2K

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Country singer Keith Urban has filed a lawsuit against a painter of the same name, claiming that the lesser known Keith Urban's Web site infringes trademark and cyber-squatting laws.

Singer Urban filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Nashville, Tennessee, Friday against the New Jersey painter who uses the Web site address http://www.keithurban.com to advertise oil paintings for sale.

The entertainer, who married Nicole Kidman last year and who recently ended a stint in rehab for alcohol abuse, says in the lawsuit that the Web site is being used "in a manner likely to deceive the public into believing that the website has a connection to Plaintiff that does not exist."

Full Story Here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good idea, creating a website to sell oil paintings. Bad Idea, creating a website to sell oil paintings under a famous celebrity's name.

I like the paintings.

ok...so if you happen to have the same name as a celebrity (i'm guessing this is his birth name???) you can't have a website with your name on it??? Looks like a case of first come/first serve to me. Too bad keith urban, celebrity.

There's absolutely no case for cybersquatting. The "other" Keith urban has a valid reason to keep the website. I don't think there's a trademark case either, since it's the guy's legal name.

the famous Keith Urban just needs to get up off his wallet and make an offer.

this lawsuit is a waste of the court's time

Keith Urban is the defendants name. Of course he has the right to use HIS OWN NAME on HIS OWN WEBSITE

Keith Urban is suing himself.

Ptarmigan wrote:Keith Urban is suing himself.

!!!!!!!!!!

I dont see how there is a case here. Waste of time and court resources IMO

Keith Urban the painter is a very good painter. Kieth Urban the celebrity has no case that I see. the only thing that could possibly weigh in his favor in a case like this is if the painter didn't put his site up until after KU the celebrity became a celebrity. KU the painter has been painting for almost 20 years it appears. I know KU the celebrity hasn't been famous that long.

Yeah, there's no case here. It doesn't matter how famous one is versus the other... both names are legal trademarks, since they're their respective names. The singer is going to have to get over it and/or chuck up some money for the URL rights.

I'm reminded of a case several years ago when McDonalds was suing a mechanic's shop under the same name. The specific issue was because the shop was using a large M for their symbol, although it wasn't the arch-like M the food chain used. Regardless, the case was thrown out since the shop was named after the owner's last name: McDonald.

This is likely a case of a Urban's "people" trying to scare the painter into turning over the domain.

Hopefully it doesn't happen. A countersuit might be justified here.

Wow,Keith Urban (the celebrity) has nothing better to do?What a jerk.

Those paintings are way better than his music anyway, in my opinion.lol

Copyright © 1998-2005 All Rights Reserved Keith Urban Inc.

That says enough for me. I don't think KU the celebraty has been famous since '98.

It is interesting that the website of the unceleb KU says "To Those Who Don't Know, Oil Painting Is One Of My Hobbies" as if to make those stumbling by the website looking for the real celebrity think "Wow. I didn't realize Keith Urban painted" and perhaps buy one of the unfamous painter's so-so paintings.

Another case of a "celebraty" thinking they are special just because they are a celebrity. Sounds like Nicole found another winner

is interesting that the website of the unceleb KU says "To Those Who Don't Know, Oil Painting Is One Of My Hobbies" as if to make those stumbling by the website looking for the real celebrity think "Wow. I didn't realize Keith Urban painted" and perhaps buy one of the unfamous painter's so-so paintings.

So painting was one of Keith Urban's hobbies? What is wrong with that? Someone has the right to use their real name online and state what their hobbies are

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Copyright © 1998-2005 All Rights Reserved Keith Urban Inc.

That says enough for me. I don't think KU the celebraty has been famous since '98.

Wouldn't that be a hoot if the oil painter sued the singer? I would enjoy that!

the first time I heard of Keith Uban was when they announced Nicole Kidman was marrying him

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Copyright © 1998-2005 All Rights Reserved Keith Urban Inc.

That says enough for me. I don't think KU the celebraty has been famous since '98.

He released his first album in Oct '99 according to Wikipedia.

Also, according to the Wikipedia article:

Urban released his self-titled American debut in 2000, which produced three top 5 hits and secured for him the Top New Male Vocalist Award at the 2001 Academy of Country Music Awards and the 2001 Country Music Association's Horizon Award .

So, depending on when Keith Urban (the painter) bought the domain http://www.keithurban.com, he (the painter) may win the against the cybersitting. As far as the trademark "Keith Urban": If trademark law is like patent law, in order to keep the trademark you must vigorously defend the trademark. So that is what Keith Urban's (the singer) people are doing.

Here is more on trademark lawusing Apple/Cisco iPhone fight as an example.

Keith Urban trademarked his name as lower cased first letters like this: keith urban. If he capitalizes them, then there is no legal ground. Go back and look at his first album and videos. They have the lower case version. Keith didn't capitalize his name until he became mainstream which is even later than the 1999 release. What a jerk!