Daily Caller Gets KeithOlbermann.com, But Will Olbermann Sue?

July 15th, 2010 11:56 AM
Daily Caller A1 7/14/10

Tucker Carlson is now the proud owner of a slightly used Keith Olbermann.

With a large-print headline announcing "We own you" and a picture of ol' Keith looking bemused whilst he adjusts he glasses, The Daily Caller promoted their newest acquisition: http://keitholbermann.com/.

It's just the latest shot across the bow in the escalating feud between Olbermann and Carlson, which will one day be featured on a Cracked.com list of the top eight inconsequential personal feuds the media chose to cover instead of events that were actually newsworthy.

The Daily Caller criticizes Olbermann at least once a week, with reporter Ruth Graham regularly writing sarcastic critiques of his shows, a feature called "We watch because we're paid to."

According to Don Irvine of Accuracy in Media, the spat betwixt Carlson and Olbermann began over the David Weigel scandal. Olbermann and The Daily Caller exchanged pithy insults on Twitter, each claiming that the other did not know what they were talking about with Olbermann additionally saying that Tucker Carlson's "bowtie contained [his] brain."

The must have been the straw that broke the camels back.

There is only one hope for the future of the nation and that is for President Obama to personally step in and mediate between the two media personalities by throwing a wild kegger at Joe Biden's place.

Alas, they will probably go to court, as Michael Calderone writes:

In a similar case, The World Intellectual Property Organization ruled in favor of actor Hill Harper when he sought to take back hillharper.com.

The WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organization] noted in the ruling that that a complainant—say, Keith Olbermann—could qualify to block the transfer of a domain name to the respondent—in this case, The Daily Caller—if the petitioner can prove that the name 'is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights,' that the respondent 'has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name' and if the name 'has been registered and is being used in bad faith.'


According to the US Copyright Office: "Copyright law does not protect domain names."