I don't know anything about the websites here, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that you have "stepped in it" by using his name.
Yes, using his name in any way that implies he endorsed your site or is somehow affiliated with it will get you in trouble because such use essentially would seek to capitalize on someone's reputation for your own commercial exploitation (with actors, etc., this is called a "right of publicity" and you get into big trouble if you run afoul of that particular doctrine).
That said, if your use of his name did not state or imply that he approved or endorsed your site, or imply affiliation between him and the site, you may not have quite the problem you assume you have from use of the name. Check with a good lawyer to discuss in detail.
Though the details you give are sketchy, what I read between the lines is this: this guy has a nice little cash stream going from this; you might threaten it with a superior offering; he can't possibly beat you competitively; ergo, he will try to position things to try force you to let him grab your superior site for his own benefit or else face the alternative of having to pay many thousands in legal fees to defend against his claims. That is what I mainly infer from the claim that you supposedly violated his rights by allegedly misappropriating his "idea" (this sounds frivolous on its face, as most ideas that are out in public are not protectable unless they are connected with an enforceable patent). Why do I infer this? Because, if he succeeds in causing you to cave, the normal remedy for resolving the theft of an idea is for you to assign over to him the fruit of your work embodying that idea (that is, your site).
I know this sounds awful and it may not be true (again, I don't know any details). But all the surface indicators would seem to point that way. If this is the true picture, then your strategy will likely be to figure out a way to persevere in spite of the legal harassment until you gain commercial viability as an enterprise. You need to explore such issues in detail with your lawyer. The good news is that there probably is a workable path for you on this if the claims lack merit - it is one thing to be hit with a legal claim that exposes you to true substantial liabilities but quite another to have to fend off one that is lacking in merit (usually much, much easier to deal with the latter because the big threat lies solely in its nuisance value).
I posted a comment at the OP's site: If you talk to a lawyer, ask him/her whether you might be able to assert "nominative fair use" in response (see generally the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use).
Comments
I don't know anything about the websites here, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that you have "stepped in it" by using his name.
Yes, using his name in any way that implies he endorsed your site or is somehow affiliated with it will get you in trouble because such use essentially would seek to capitalize on someone's reputation for your own commercial exploitation (with actors, etc., this is called a "right of publicity" and you get into big trouble if you run afoul of that particular doctrine).
That said, if your use of his name did not state or imply that he approved or endorsed your site, or imply affiliation between him and the site, you may not have quite the problem you assume you have from use of the name. Check with a good lawyer to discuss in detail.
Though the details you give are sketchy, what I read between the lines is this: this guy has a nice little cash stream going from this; you might threaten it with a superior offering; he can't possibly beat you competitively; ergo, he will try to position things to try force you to let him grab your superior site for his own benefit or else face the alternative of having to pay many thousands in legal fees to defend against his claims. That is what I mainly infer from the claim that you supposedly violated his rights by allegedly misappropriating his "idea" (this sounds frivolous on its face, as most ideas that are out in public are not protectable unless they are connected with an enforceable patent). Why do I infer this? Because, if he succeeds in causing you to cave, the normal remedy for resolving the theft of an idea is for you to assign over to him the fruit of your work embodying that idea (that is, your site).
I know this sounds awful and it may not be true (again, I don't know any details). But all the surface indicators would seem to point that way. If this is the true picture, then your strategy will likely be to figure out a way to persevere in spite of the legal harassment until you gain commercial viability as an enterprise. You need to explore such issues in detail with your lawyer. The good news is that there probably is a workable path for you on this if the claims lack merit - it is one thing to be hit with a legal claim that exposes you to true substantial liabilities but quite another to have to fend off one that is lacking in merit (usually much, much easier to deal with the latter because the big threat lies solely in its nuisance value).
I posted a comment at the OP's site: If you talk to a lawyer, ask him/her whether you might be able to assert "nominative fair use" in response (see generally the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use).