What is Digg?169 Comments
- kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+200Keith Urban (the singer) was actually Keith Urbahn, so I think he should be sued for changing his name and infringing on the real Keith Urban's good name.
- Mewchu11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+168Personally I am betting that Keith Urban will win the website
- theblackgecko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+101Just be glad you don't share a name with that no talent ass-clown, Michael Bolton.
- sobriquet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+78And unlike the other Keith Urban, this art is actually admirable, if a bit kitsch.
- kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+67I'm sure GoDaddy is not involved at all w/ keithurban.com, or they would have already shut it down, given it to signer Keith Urban and billed painter Keith Urban $200 for violating the terms of service.
- giid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+65"Why should I change my name? He's the one that sucks."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+60Or Keith *****
- Cenobite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53"Well, why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael?"
"No way. Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."
Edit: Semi-beaten to the punch by theblackgecko. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+48Gee, it's hard to say who's in the right on this one. Keith Urban clearly has the moral victory here, but Keith Urban has a good point to make. On the other hand, I've never heard of Keith Urban before anyway. So, all things considered, I think Keith Urban should get the domain, while Keith Urban should just STFU and get over it.
- ohcoaster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42keith the country singer should change his name to keith rural.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36This is no different than the fight over http://www.nissan.com
- ophilye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29IANAL, but from what I remember of Business Law, I'm pretty sure that the cyber-squatting laws say "If you own it solely to misdirect people that come to the site"...
He is using it for legitimate purposes. That is really his name, and he got it first.
Keith Urban the painter will win. - coldfusion055, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Why am i not surprised that the "Married with Children" painting isn't sold out...
- Bokista, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Or Keith Bangingnicolekidman
- 13thfloor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25It's time for celebrities to learn that they are not 'better' than anyone else. He should make the guy an offer to purchase the name instead.
- aschocobo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25man, what a prick. is he boozing again?
- Clay3521, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22According to WHOIS, the domain www.keithurban.com was created back in May of 1999 before anyone even heard of the Aussie lush. This is as much of a pile of crap as the whole www.nissan.com ordeal. I hope that Keith "The Painter" Urban wins this hands down.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22There can be only one...
- talan64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20I hope some Judge out there laughs the case out of court right after slapping Urban with huge court costs for wasting their time. The guy had the web site first, get over it or buy him out!!
- themarq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19From the Country Singer's wiki page:
Birth name Keith Lionel Urbahn (per New Zealand public birth certificate)
douche - profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20*block*
*block*
*block*
*block*
*block* - TimmyGUNZ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Man, Keith Urban was so much less annoying when he was a lush.
- superbonbon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Other than a shared name there is nothing on the painter's site that even implies that he's trying to pass himself off as the singer.
- MemeWarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13What a douche bag. I hate famous people/organizations who think they have an inherent right to URLs with the same or similar names to their own. It's not like this guy is squatting the address for profit, he's had his artwork up on it for at least six years now.
- typo180, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18You couldn't tell from the music itself?
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Googling for Keith Urban gives the singer's website (keithurban.net) as the first result anyway. Not much chance of confusion for most people.
- tw0k1ngs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Could one ask for better publicity? ;) (for the unknown artist)
It is obvious that the Aussy Keith Urban is both an ass and ego-centric... so let's add some flame to the fire. Keith Urban pre-plastic surgery photos:
http://www.goodplasticsurgery.com/
Nose job, teeth caps, jaw filler, cheek implants... what a sad man. - sdoownek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12In 2005, Kens Foods, (maker of the salad dressing) lost a WIPO case against me over http://www.kens.com
They lost.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0721.html
"......Some nine years ago the Respondent registered a domain name reflecting his given name, which the record reflects he has used in connection with a personal website. While the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the circumstances of the Respondent’s registration of the domain name are not indicative of bad faith, nor does the record reflect the Respondent’s bad faith use of the domain name in an effort to profit from and exploit the Complainant’s mark. In short, the circumstances of this case do not demonstrate that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied......."
The interesting thing is that they spent more on the cost of the WIPO case than they would have spent to get it from me by just asking.
EDIT: And yes, I did send an email to keithurban.com to tell him to reference my decision in his defense. - StarCrusher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Unfortunately, the Keith Urban who's suing is trying to pass himself off as a singer.
- AwesomeMonster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11A real kiwi would never ever say hes Australian. Never.
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13His gallery:
http://www.keithurban.com/gallery/dog.htm - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@rholloway
Than maybe he should try to buy the site, rather than sue? - JordanM85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11They better not give the site to the singer.
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I just say we settle this ThunderDome style :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9http://www.keithurban.com/gallery/sneaker.htm
Check that one out, and tell me there's not something wrong with that... - deadlikeoscar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@shark72
Actually Sharky, there are these things called friends and I bet THEY know he does oil painting. Maybe where he lives people know he is an oil painter. Writing that on a website isn't suspicious. It's only suspicious because you want it to be. - Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It cant be trademark infringement, since its the artists actual name, and the country singer changed his to urban from urbahn, and its not cybersquatting since he is using it as a legit business to sell his art...
This guy is a tool. - civperc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11F*ck the loser-Urban. Painter-Urban FTW.
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"You obviously haven't seen him in concert."
HA, no I haven't, and you couldn't pay me. Even if he does put on a good show he's still a white trash douche-bag. But thanks for the laugh, I've never heard of any Toby Keith fan using words of snobbery like "You obviously..." - Diggnified, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8his music sucks ass anyway. if paint artist keith can holdout for a little longer coke head keith will be found dead in a Holiday Inn before to long, so be patient the lawsuit will work itself out.
- superbonbon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7eh. I think most people would know it's not the singer's site based on it's cheap layout?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You must be new to the US court system. Logic has little to do with it, esp when one side is loaded down with a burden of money.
- DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If I was married to Nicole, I would spend my time shagging instead of worrying about a domain name
- EatingPie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The problem is, the Singer Urban can sue the Artist Urban to the point that he (the latter) has to give up the domain. Legal fees would be too much of an expense, so it's cheaper to just give up the domain. I hope this doesn't happen, but that may be the strategy.
I don't agree with what Singer Urban is doing, but I also think it was disingenueous to start the subtext with "former alcoholic and cocaine addict..." That has absolutely no relevance and only serves as character assassination.
-Pie - modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is a slam dunk for the domain owner. Celebrities think they can walk all over people just because of their fame. This time it isn't going to work. I hope the country singer has to pay all the legal fees when it's all said and done.
- OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6He is only suing so that he can get more drugs... Kidding. I do not have a problem letting the current owner of the website keep it and sell his paintings. If it is true that Urban (the singer) changed his name to that spelling the - He is a jackass and he does not own that name nor does he have any rights to that name.
- zunigbab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6KeithUrban.com the site was registered on May 10, 1999. Keith the "singer" didn't debut an American album until sometime in 2000 and would not have been widely known until 2001, when he received Top New Male Vocalist Award at the 2001 Academy of Country Music Awards and the 2001 Country Music Association's Horizon Award.
IT IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL, that Keith the "Painter" knew anything of Keith the "Singer" when he reg'd the site.
Case Closed! (You've got to love WHOIS and Wikipedia!!!) - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Based solely on talent, I'd have to say give the URL to uh...charity.
- typo180, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I like the strawberry one
http://www.keithurban.com/gallery/strawbe.htm -
Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is