Don Henley domain dispute

[OutlawManNJ]

Anyone know how this ended?

Back in 99, a crippled man named Don Henley, owned the domain Don-Henley.com. Then Don Henley the singer sent his lawyers after the guy to make him stop using that domain name, even though the guys name is also Don Henley!

I lost track of the case and never knew how it ended but I know that Don-Henley.com is no longer up.

I remember visiting the site and it had nothing to do with the Eagles or the singer. Let's just say that this didn't help my image of Eagle Don Henley.

Here are some links I have found:

http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/netizen/tkname.html

http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/netizen/tkupdate1.html

[OutlawManNJ]

I did find this from 2004:

"Take the case of Don Henley. His name is exactly like that of the rock musician from The Eagles. Mr. Henley wanted a Web site and so he registered the domain name "don-henley.com" and set one up. He even stated on his Web site that he was not the other Don Henley. The other Don Henley, it seems, had problems with it. There is a "donhenley.com" registered to the Henley from the Eagles. According to the whois report, it was registered in 1999. It was previously owned by a "cybersquatter." The other domain, "don-henley.com," was registered in 1997. To the best of my knowledge this situation is still unresolved."

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I don't have time right now, but did you look through old Henley threads? The resolution may be on here already. I've been here a year and a half or so, so I don't know.

[Houston Debutante]

I did find this from 2004:

"Take the case of Don Henley. His name is exactly like that of the rock musician from The Eagles. Mr. Henley wanted a Web site and so he registered the domain name "don-henley.com" and set one up. He even stated on his Web site that he was not the other Don Henley. The other Don Henley, it seems, had problems with it. There is a "donhenley.com" registered to the Henley from the Eagles. According to the whois report, it was registered in 1999. It was previously owned by a "cybersquatter." The other domain, "don-henley.com," was registered in 1997. To the best of my knowledge this situation is still unresolved."

So the guy specifically stated he was not the famous Don Henley and yet he was still attacked?

That's pretty bad.

Well maybe Don just assumed he was a cybersquatter and didn't investigate before he had his lawyer threaten to sue.

[sodascouts]

The site hasn't been updated since 2008, but the domain don-henley.com is still possessed by the non-famous Donald Henley according to the WHOIS database of domain registrants.

The truth is that the law as it now stands does not allow Don Henley of the Eagles to force this man to surrender the domain. If he sued, he would lose. The threats Henley's lawyer put in his "Cease and Desist" letter to the non-famous Donald Henley are groundless because the statutes he cites do not pertain to this kind of scenario. The man was not attempting to impersonate Don Henley; the man is named Don Henley. Plus, his site is not a commercial one so it isn't subject to laws governing businesses.

The site was called "Don Henley's Home Page" and was of an evangelical nature. It included a disclaimer that he was not Don Henley the musician. You can view the old homepage via a web archive here. The site had a page set aside to detail what occurred with this dispute, including his correspondence with Don Henley's lawyer. Using the web archive, you can view that page here.

That's all I know about it.

[EaglesKiwi]

The truth is that the law as it now stands does not allow Don Henley of the Eagles to force this man to surrender the domain. If he sued, he would lose. The threats Henley's lawyer put in his "Cease and Desist" letter to the non-famous Donald Henley are groundless because the statutes he cites do not pertain to this kind of scenario. The man was not attempting to impersonate Don Henley; the man is named Don Henley. Plus, his site is not a commercial one so it isn't subject to laws governing businesses.

The site was called "Don Henley's Home Page" and was of an evangelical nature. It included a disclaimer that he was not Don Henley the musician. However, the site had a page set aside to detail what occurred with this dispute, including his correspondence with Don Henley's lawyer. Using a web archive, you can still view this page here.

That's all I know about it.

I had a quick look and a couple of things seemed a little strange to me:

1. The first letter from the lawyer - dated 1999 - refers to "a former member of the Eagles" - have I totally got my timeframes muddled or was Don a current member of the Eagles at the time - HFO was 1994??

2. I understand that this guy is named Don Henley, and of course has the right to use his own name... but according to the 4th letter from the lawyer, he's using the name constantly on the site - even in places where it would be normal to say "my thoughts" "my site" etc. Surely this would affect websearch functionality and be more likely to pull his site further up the list of results?

I don't think this is really such a clear-cut case of musician DH bullying the poor innocent disabled "little guy". His lawyer may have been acting on general instructions to follow up any potential problems and just run with it.

[sodascouts]

I had a quick look and a couple of things seemed a little strange to me:

1. The first letter from the lawyer - dated 1999 - refers to "a former member of the Eagles" - have I totally got my timeframes muddled or was Don a current member of the Eagles at the time - HFO was 1994??

That is strange, but the case was pretty publicized at the time. It's for real.

2. I understand that this guy is named Don Henley, and of course has the right to use his own name... but according to the 4th letter from the lawyer, he's using the name constantly on the site - even in places where it would be normal to say "my thoughts" "my site" etc. Surely this would affect websearch functionality and be more likely to pull his site further up the list of results?

The old keyword trick - use the keyword a lot and the site will get a higher profile on Google. In reality, the algorithm is more sophisticated than that and overdoing keywords can actually get your site downgraded as "spammy", but hey, it was the nineties and people were just figuring these things out. However, his name is only on his homepage eight times. That would not affect search engine results, and it's a far cry from "constantly" IMHO. If he were trying to do this as a way to raise his profile on search engines, why would he stop at eight? Plus, it's not unnatural to call one's website something other than the lamely generic "My Site."

That said, the non-famous Don Henley is probably not as pure as the driven snow. Perhaps he secretly did hope his name got him more hits, despite his protestations to the contrary. The sticking point is that despite what the lawyer's letters said, he wasn't doing anything illegal.

His lawyer may have been acting on general instructions to follow up any potential problems and just run with it.

I think this is very probable, at least in the beginning.

[Houston Debutante]

This happened a long time ago, Don probably didn't have a good understanding of the internet then. It's important to note that he didn't take any legal action after all. Maybe he regrets this whole thing ~ too bad once something is on the internet it never goes away.

I bet he wouldn't do something like this nowadays. If his lawyer had threatened other people in order to get their domains, wouldn't we have heard about it? I'm sure now, in 2013, he understands how bad he would look if he did that to anyone other than a real 'cybersquatter.'

People act like he's so unreasonable about the internet but he lets Nancy's site exist, he never demanded she surrender the domain to him because it had his name in it or threaten her, right Nancy? I think that proves he's a decent guy about such things and understands the difference between people with malicious intent and people who mean him no harm. Maybe once he realized this person was harmless he instructed his lawyer to back off.

You know, maybe this was never his fault. I bet his lawyer didn't let Don know he was going to try to trick this man into surrendering his domain by lying to him. I'm sure Don would never instruct his lawyer to lie.