In case you didn't know, Urban vs. Urban was quietly settled in a court in Tennessee in mid-April. As of this writing the painter still has his web site and the singer doesn't have the .com after his name. So what was the purpose in this?
First, it produced a lot of headlines for both parties. The singer wanted to flex his muscle and use his "growing" fame to garner the corner on all things Keith Urban. The painter had more hits to his web site. More importantly for the painter, it got him a healthy heaping helping of public sympathy. Something that was probably very unexpected for the singer.
Second, this showed how using legal means to get ones point across does nothing more than cause bad feelings and wastes the court’s time. How much did both parties spend to settle without it going to court?
Third, we don't own our names. We shouldn't be so full of ourselves that we assume that no one else could be creative or want to use their name to foster their own career.
Keith Urban looked petty and vain in even attempting to do this. Sure the painter may have misled people to his site but it’s up to the people to decide if it’s that Keith Urban or the other one. I hope they both wised up, but given who the singer is married to, it probably won't be the last time we see his name in court. Come to think of it Urban vs. Kidman has a nice sound to it.