This time it's the advertising blogger who got caught - the father of the advertising goose (who married this pseudo-musician) warns him that he is advertising with the name of his daughter. Somehow it seems to be spreading - first the Bremen Social Court, now the Klums ...
Well, I think this will be a similar shot in the dark for the Klums as it was for the Bremen Social Court - from whom you can find almost only reports about their rather strange action on the first pages of Google. Very sensible, the action - anyone who wants to inform themselves about the Bremen Social Court now gets the right impression.
What the lawyers expect from such actions is clear: they are paid by their clients for this. However, to what extent such nonsensical actions against name mentions are really in the interest of clients - how does this actually fit with the self-image of lawyers? Shouldn't they advise and represent their clients to the best of their ability? And not mess with them?
However, it is worrying that lawyers now seem to be targeting URL components - it's no longer just the domain that seems to bother them, but also the URLs. Which naturally fits quite often with blogs and good CMS - because a good CMS packs the title into the URL so that it has a meaningful name. Could therefore become quite unpleasant if this plague spreads and possibly a court is found that supports this nonsense.
And the legal protection insurance mentioned several times in this context: I don't know if that's a solution - the insurers are currently regularly excluding these areas, for good reason. An insurance only insures something when the income exceeds the risks to such an extent that they play it safe with their profits - don't believe that insurances are fair insurances - even if some call themselves that.
A bit more about the risks can be found in the Weblawg by Sascha Kremer.