We have reported previously on what I would refer to as the mess regarding the use of politician’s names in domain names. A bad actor can benefit by aprropriating a politician’s name, either by diverting traffic through initial interest confusion, or by simply foreclosing the targeted politician from obtaining desirable names. However a politician tends not to have the rights and remedies accorded to a trademark, and thus cannot use the UDRP and ACPA (with exceptions). Complicating the analysis is the First Amendment issue relating to the use of, for example, JANEDOE.COM to provide critical speech about JANE DOE. Alas, the public doesn’t benefit from the status quo (such as the behavior illustrated here).
What is to be done?

Out-law.com: “Businessman loses battle for gripe site domain name.”:
“The figure behind controversial business schemes has failed in his bid to gain control of the .com internet address consisting of his name. A site that criticises his activities has been allowed to keep the name.”
The post doesn’t specify but I assume that the domain name in question is stephencleeve.com.

This CircleID post on a TRO entered against Dauben dba Texas International Property Associates, the registrant of the name MYLENNAR.COM, obtained by Lennar, spawned interesting comments. Registrant put up what seems to be a typical HitFarm page o’links. What is not fully explored in the article or thread is why would plaintiff go for a TRO, as opposed to, for example, a UDRP.