Slashdot Mirror

Yes, actually, and it happens a lot.

I fully agree with you.

A very good example of a legitimate company forced into submission is the Nissan.com case. I encourage you to read it and be outraged at the injustice.
http://www.ncchelp.org/
http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-141-nissan.ht m

One of Google's long-running beta services is the Google News site. It's been in Beta for years now, but there's a reason for it. Google can't switch to a subscription service, or even try to put advertisements up on the site. If they do, they face the legal hurdles that come from making money off other news organizations' work. There exist very few bugs still left in the service, but yet it still remains in beta. On a side note -- ironically, Google has been sending out cease-and-desist letters to people creating RSS feeds that scour and present the results of Google News.

In Germany, Google has already been found guilty of copyright infringement as a result of providing other websites' images in their Google image search. The potential legal obstacles could be multiplied exponentially if the American news services got a whiff of Google making money as a result of providing their hard work.

In other news, linksandlaw.com sued by the Clerk of the Norwegian Supreme Court for $1,337,455 dollars in translastion fees and $45,570,534 in court transcription fees following Slashdot effect.

I'd link to that other news, but I can't afford to.

Not as simple as you make it sound though. Nissan didn't go after this site until he started using a lot of auto-related advertising.

From http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-116.htm/
"Starting in August 1999, the defendant's nissan.com website primarily promoted automobile-related products and services, through third-party advertisements and web links, rather than the defendant's own computer products. More than 90% of the defendant's website advertising revenue is automobile-related. (Schindler Decl. re: Prelim. Inj. Ex. G.) Whether or not a visitor to the defendant's website ultimately makes an automobile purchase from an advertiser, the defendant profits from the visitor's initial interest confusion. By posting automobile-related links and advertisements, the defendant derives advertising revenue due to the diversion of a consumer's initial interest in Nissan vehicles. As in Brookfield, the defendant is improperly appropriating the plaintiffs' goodwill. Thus, in regards to its Internet-related activity, the defendant's "product" is the exploitation of customer confusion. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of the plaintiffs."

A summary of that decision is here. The basics of the case are that the defendant used the company name in conjunction with the term "sucks" and Bally sued because the site could "confuse" consumers. Of course, Bally thankfully lost.

Today, there are several sites that warn about Bally Total Fitness' fraudulent and misrepresentative activities.

I think this is because of patent issues. Did you know that BT has a patent on hyperlinks?

I saw the notice at Links&Law.com.