Slashdot Mirror
Court Orders Owner Of Peta.org To Give Up Domain
Kancer writes: "According to Boston.com a federal judge ordered PETA.org parody site to relinquish their Web address over to PETA.com. People just can't take a joke, People Eating Tasty Animals, now that is funny." It's actually a really crappy legal precedent. Using other people's trade names for parodies is not an illegitimate use of the name, and their site was not confusingly similar to PETA - there's no way you could mistake one for the other. The judge was ruling based on the name alone, with no consideration of the content.
- The first amendment always allows parody, even if someone has a trademark.
- Diluted the value of the trademark?!? He just gave a ton of press to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He should be charging them for advertising.
- Commercial benefit?!? How was this commercial at all? He put up a parody site.
As a vegetarian, I must say that I view PETA in an extremely bad light. All you have to do is take a look at some of the hate mail this guy has received from PETA advocates to realize what scumbags they really are.Besides that, I really think this sets a dangerous precedent. Trademarks are limited to specific things whereas domain names inevitably cross all boundaries. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PETA's trademark is for "educational services; namely, providing programs and seminars on the subject of animal rights and welfare" and "educational services; namely, providing programs and seminars on the subject of animal rights and welfare." (See also here and here or here for all trademarks with PETA in them.) This trademark classification has nothing to do with computers, so what right do they have to the domain name. If this is allowed to stand it will make taking away someone's domain name much easier.
... http://www.eatdifferent.com/
:)
Of course Apple isn't exactly in opposition to PETA's ideals...
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Parody is considered one of the fair use exemption to copyright law and I see no reason why trademark parodies should not be subject to the same protection.
Perhaps on principle, but in the real world, no. Trademark damages generally fall under the categories of infringement and dilution, and parody is NOT an affirmative defense for either. For example, the fellow up in Seattle who produced t-shirts that parodied the Starbucks logo as a "Corporate Whore" or something like that. Essentially, he was creating a whole new business based on public recognition of the other company's marks. Even though it was a funny parody, the fact that it was pursued in the realm of commerce of the original owner (who also sells T-shirts and coffee mugs with its mark) made it infringement and dilution.
Trademark laws are a LOT murkier than copyright laws. And unlike copyright laws, the owner is required to vigorously defend its mark, lest it go the way of "escalator" or "aspirin".
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
kinnunen wrote:
So being a vegetarian is Ok, but if a person is a vegan it makes makes him an asshole who should kill himself. I see. I am not a vegan, nor am I a vegetarian - I enjoy a good burger every now and then (in McDonalds). I may not agree with the PETA ideals (or methods), but I sure as hell don't condem a group of people for having a very high respect for life.
What was the point of the message that you replied to? Think really hard.
I think you missed a certain level of sarcasm in my post, along with a heathy dose of reductio ad absurdam argument. My point being, that if you think that your life is worth the same as any other living being on the planet, the only logical conclusion is to kill yourself. Why? Because it is simply not possible for a human to live their life without destroying millions if not billions of "innocent" lifeforms in the process. Is my life worth the same as another humans? Sure. Is my life worth the same as a cat or dog? Debatable. Is my life worth the same as a worm? No. Anybody who really believes so really has no logical option but to kill themselves.
This does not mean that I think that vegan's are necessarily assholes? (your word, not mine.) Nor does it mean that I condemn people for having a high respect for life. I condemn them for having a set of beliefs which is directly at odds with their own voluntary choice to continue their life at all. People whose beliefs don't take into account that their own life by necessity continues only at the cost of other beings lives are hypocrites whose beliefs are just so much touchy feely nonsense.
Take notice, none of the following is terribly ontopic, but it's interesting.
h _24sep96.html o ct96.html
And before i start, i would like to note that the name "MRJ" is already registered and MRJ-1s is going to have to surrender their mrjones.com domain.
I saw this thing on 60 minutes once.
Some tiny restaurant had opened up in the middle of scotland. LIke, one single building in the middle of a town that didn't look exactly overly urban.
They named themselves "McMunchies".
McDonalds sued the shit out of them. You can guess what for. This despite the fact that only an idiot would mistake the one for the other or think that the McMunchies resteraunt was in any way connected to McDonalds.
And that the prefix "Mc" or "Mac" is a very common traditional prefix to scottish surnames meaning "the son of" [i think].
[this post is, btw, being made by a McClure, so i have some amount of personal interest in this, seeing as it may end with my surname being owned by a corporation..]
Lord MacDonald of MacDonald, who if ANYONE can "own" the name MacDonald, "owns" it in the sense that he is the clan leader, it is his title and his family has owned it for, what, a thousand years? was rather upset by this [understandably.. McDonalds didn't feel like they had to ask _his_ permission to name their resteraunt, but then feel like the name..] and set up some sort of legal defense fund.
And then he decided to open a restaurant. He called it "MacDonalds."
So if you feel like it, you can go to Scotland and go to a McDonalds where they serve rather nice steak, pheasant, etc., in a rather old building surrounded by rolling green hills..
If anyone would like to fill in details, or if you'd like to look for yourself or something.
Or rather look at
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/telegrap
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/herald_7
"Mr Ronald McDonald, retired teacher, said the use of the name Ronald McDonald for the clown used by the company to entertain children was an insult to the Scottish clan system. "
Now if that isn't a good quote i don't know what is.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
In my opinion (IANAL), we have long since passed the time when that adage was true. There are so many laws in the US, and they are so complex, and written in such incredibly opaque legalese that ignorance of the law should really be a reasonable excuse in some cases. There are so many laws that seem contrary to common sense and so many laws on the books are so widely and openly ignored by people that I don't even think it is reasonable to put the burden of proof on the accused for them to prove their own ignorance. It should be up to the accusers to prove that the accused knew what they were doing was illegal, or at least prove that common sense and common action would dictate that they should have known it was illegal.
For that matter, as other people have said, even judges or lawyers can't know every law. Given that they have to spend significant time researching everything, why is it that private citizens are supposed to know everything? If everyone took the time to consult a lawyer every time they did something that was the slightest bit questionable, nothing at all would ever get done.
Seems to me that this adage is just lawyers and the judicial system trying to ensure great profits and long term employment for themselves.
The whole problem is that people seem to think that just adding more legislation to the system will cure its problems. I think that most laws need to be reviewed periodically or expire so that they get updated to reflect the current state of reality. Laws that are unenforceable or that the system has no intention on ever being able to enforce uniformly should probably not be made in the first place.
jesusveg.com (Jesus was a vegetarian, and we're just like Jesus apparently)
Damn, those PETAphiles are really full of crap. Not only is there no biblical evidence to suggest that (assuming you believe that Jesus was a real person) Jesus was a vegetarian, if you read the bible, one of the miracles he is credited with is feeding fish to the multitudes. Sounds like something the PETAphiles would advocate, not.
Why are you making up stuff?
What am I supposedly making up? In case you didn't know, PETA really has registered "petasucks.org".
The argument was simply because Peta.org is where someone would go to look for PETAs website.
Either someone else got PETA.org first, or PETA incorrectly registered PETA.com instead of PETA.org. Either way, other posters have already commented that the page itself clearly stated it was a parody site, and had a prominantly displayed link to the actual PETA site. Hardly sounds like someone who was just trying to get accidental people visiting.
Some clown hijacked that to put up a parody there. That's all this issue is about.
Clown? I'd have considered it hijacking if the domain was grabbed by someone who just wanted to try to hold PETA up for money. I don't consider a legitimate parody site to be a hijacking. If that was the case, what was PETA doing when they registered "ringlingbros.com"?
Don't bring whatever prejudices you might have about PETA to pretend they are working against all prejudices or discouraging discourse or whatever you pretend they are doing.
Look carefully at my wording. I said it appears that they are actively working against freedom of speech and the open discourse of ideas. Tell me how their pre-emptive registration of "petasucks.com" is not consistant with that appearance?
My 'predjudices', about PETA being what they are don't change things. Everyone brings their own predjudices to things. What are your predjudices about PETA? That they would never do anything illegal or unethical in furtherance of their political goals?
I'm willing to at least put my handle and email on my postings. You, sir, (assuming, if not then substitute ma'am there), are an 'anonymous coward'. What does that mean? You can look at the posting history to determine what my biases might be and use that to do your own judgement of value of what I say. I'm not against anonymous posting, but forgive me if I am more skeptical about anonymous posts than normal.
A pox on both their houses. The PETA.ORG people for registering a domain to trick people looking for the real PETA into viewing a parody -- it is deliberate misdirection, not a simple name space collision. The PETA people for establishing a lousy legal precedent. The damage to the system is the same: people need a simple, stable way of finding resources on the Internet and the behavior of both parties undermines this.
What people want: a simple, mnemonic way to identify organizations and resources they offer on the Internet (e-mail service, public information kiosks).
What people have: The domain name system.
DNS filled the bill way back when, but doesn't cut it today. It's a typical technological victim of success -- it became so popular it has outstripped its design. The name space is both too small and too loosely regulated (the registrars have no interest in limiting the number of domains registered, although this would be good for the system as a whole). That people can make money by having possession of a valuable domain, in the absence of the usual kinds of goodwill associated with a trademark, is evidence that the system is broken. Money is being diverted to people who are in no way producing wealth, just exploiting scarcity of a resource that should, in a system adequate to the task, be abundant.
Does anyone think that the current system of two and three letter TLDs is going to be workable ten years hence? Where are the proposals for the next generation solution that will technically, from a user standpoint and from and administrative one?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Does mcdonalds legal have it's own url/email?
The McLibel case certianly shows that the golden arches will (try to) sue nonprofits into the ground when they talk smack about ronald.
Sick huh, that we're talking about doing part of a mulitbillion dollar corp's legal dept's work for them. Normally I'd despise mcdonalds as much as anyone...
But PethicalTS's rampage against the internet and the fair use principle is a real pisser.
I's *LOVE* to see both of those bastards grind it out to the tune of millions in legal fees in court.
And no matter *who* wins, we all win, because one bunch of assholes or another will lose!
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
And real world laws, and many prior court ruleings, allow for the use of other's material for a variety of uses, including parody, commentary, critisism, etc...
"Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair
use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by
that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching(including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
or research, is not an infringement of copy-
right."
PeatingTA, is clearly a commentary, and/or criticism of PethicalTA. Wether or not PeatingTA makes money or not is irrelevant. Weird AL certianly makes money off HIS parodies, yet they are still protected as fair use.
The mass judge is clearly an idiot who ignored YEARS of precidents protecting fair use rights. Or perhaps he's a militant PETA zealot. Or perhaps he's one of those RIAA/MPAA/metallica/DMCA types who beleives that fair use should be abolished.
Which are you?
In any event, you, and that judge, are wrong.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
I am getting extremely sick of this, but since ignorance persists unchecked, I must push ever onward. I will say this slowly and clearly.
PETA did not sue peta.org over being an unflattering parody. They did not try to take away the peta.org maintainer's right to post to the Internet a parody of them. The idea that the maintainer of the peta.org web site has a Constitutional right to parody PETA was never questioned by anyone. He still has that right. He has not lost it. It is completely intact. If there's one thing that the peta.org maintainer has, it's the right to parody PETA.
Got it?
Now here's the tricky part: the domain name "peta.org" is not a parody of PETA, the organization. The information that your browser displays when it accesses that site may be, but the domain name is not. If the domain name itself were a parody of PETA in some way- say, perhaps, he registered "PETAphile.org" or "PETArd.org" or something- that would be a parody, and ought to be protected speech. But the name "peta.org" is not a parody, any more than "ibm.com" is a parody of IBM the computer company. ("Ha ha ha! Ed, look at this! 'peta.org'! That's hilarious! Man, they got PETA good by saying 'peta.org!'")
So---
those of you who are all smugly saying that PETA is a bunch of hypocrites for making use of parody themselves, maybe you should consider that perhaps a legal scholar such as a judge might possibly have understood the law better than you. Consider further what you would be posting now had Microsoft registered linux.org in 1995 and put anti-linux materials on it, and the judge had now ruled that Microsoft had to turn it over to Linus. (Saw that analogy elsewhere on this message board- good job, whoever came up with it.) Consider that perhaps you just think that the site was funny (which it was, of course) and that you dislike PETA because you disagree with their political views.
But even if you refuse to consider that, as I'm sure most of you will (this is Slashdot, after all) please please please for the love of God please stop confusing this case with a case that set some kind of precedent about whether you're allowed to parody something or not.
Note that this post in no way says that PETA ought to or ought not to be able to appropriate the 'peta.org' domain name from its prior owner. I'm just trying to establish where the legal argument actually is.
(By the way, to the author of the post I'm replying to- don't consider this a directed attack against you, but rather the result of me passing a critical threshold in reading what I saw as the same incorrect argument repeated one too many times just as I read your post. Nothing personal against you.)
--
-jacob
-jacob
I suggest .parody. No serious/legitimate organization can use it.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Let's not forget their attempts to promote beer comsumption by youth. I'm wondering when MADD or someone else is going to toss lawyers at PETA over that on. But then, MADD seems to be a bit more rational than the PETA promoters that have come pounding at my door.
I've been fairly vegetarian in the last few years, but PETA is being to change how I think. ...
1. Defending the First Amendment
2. Attacking vegetarians in general by doing things to deliberately offend them
You can do #1 without doing #2.
I'm with you on #1, but as an ethical vegetarian, I'd find it hard to continue to stand with you if you're doing #2, since it's a deliberate attack on moral values which I cherish. #2 would be a good thing to do if your intent is to attack your own allies and to create fragmentation and infighting among the defenders of the First Amendment.
Didn't the Matell suits already establish a precendent in this sort of thing? It really sucks, though. When domain names become subject to trademark laws, then we know that the Internet is becoming owned by companies. (What, you say you want yourname.com? Sorry, yourname is also the name of our company. We're suing.) I think that this illustrates the need for domain name decetralization. Maybe the .com TLD should be subject to trademark infringment, whereas .org and whatever other TLD's get created should be given to whomever wants them.
Parody is considered one of the fair use exemption to copyright law and I see no reason why trademark parodies should not be subject to the same protection. Trademark protections exist for a couple of reasons: to prevent consumer confusion, and to protect the value of the company's trademark. In the case of this parody, there is no confusion, and the PETA trademark is not diminished. I think there is a decent chance that peta.org would win on appeal.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Dude! Here's a few URLs that look very similar but have different content:
www.whitehouse.gov
www.whitehouse.net
www.whitehouse.com
www.whitehouse.org
Wonder what that judge would have to say about these.
Count me in on that project! I think it would be cool to have a competing registry... maybe we could set up one that sticks to standards.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
As for your Nazi argument (must... resist... temptation... to recite... Godwin's Law...), I would not attend such a rally, because their ideology is evil. If you think eating meat is evil, you should not attend our rally either.
I don't think a barbeque is evil. I think it is fun. Obviously, judging by all these responses, I am not alone.
I applaud your desire to promote free speech, and support your right to oppose a rally where meat is served... but I want to do it anyway.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
It is interesting that a groups can claim they have won a "landmark case" against a site that parodies them and then on the same page go and parody another company (McDonalds) to further their political views.
PS: Being originally from a third world country, it is very distressing to see organizations like PETA squander time, energy and money to save rats, cats and monkeys when hundreds of millions of people on this planet are being ravaged by war, hunger, famine, drought, poverty and repressive government.
Even my vegitarian friends (if I have any left after this comment) would agree with you there.
The simple truth is that the notion that being wantonly cruel to animals is wrong, which most of us can agree with, has been perverted into the absurd notion that the life of a chicken holds the same value as the life of a human being. PETA propoganda literature goes so far as to equate the consumption of poultry in this country with the Nazi holocaus ("six million Jews were killed in Germany but a hundred million chickens will parish in the US this year!" or some such) I won't get started on the quality of people I have seen speeking out on behalf of PETA, except to say my opinion of them, and their movement, has gone from an initially high level to very, very low indeed. As you correctly point out, if people are so desperate for a cause to give their empty lives meanings, there are far more urgent problems deserving of attention than the living conditions of pork prior to its harvest.
Hitler was a vegitarian and animal rights activist. Perhaps his ability to equate human life with animal life explains some of the atrocities his regime was responsible for.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
As an ethical vegetarian, how do you feel about PETA's attempt to steal ringlingbrothers.com and put up an anti circus site. Or their "unhappy meal" thing that looks just like a McDonalds meal including the Ronald mascot holding a bloddy knife?
PETA is a joke, they are a bunch of irresponsible, childish hate-mongers who tolerate no other view than their own. They deserve to be attacked and ridiculed at every opportunity by those who support free speach. Not due to their beliefs, but due to their actions.
Hey, I'm a strong support of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, but I don't like the NRA. Just because you share their beliefs doesn't mean you have to like them. Look into some of the crazy things PETA has done, like initiating terror campaigns against their enemies. The recently cross-posted a message on newsgroups encouraging people to mail bomb and threaten this guy for his peta.org site.
Finkployd
That's nothing. PETA has also registered:
EatDifferent.com (Apple-like look)
MeatStinks.com (only if you leave it out too long)
cowsarecool.com
helppuppies.com
milksucks.com
dolphinfreedom.com
furisdead.com
circuses.com
collegeactivist.com (if they start demonstrating on MY campus, I can't be held responsible for my actions)
nofishing.net
furshame.com (fur shame, get it?)
jesusveg.com (Jesus was a vegetarian, and we're just like Jesus apparently)
helpinganimals.com
menopauseonline.com (I'm surprised they haven't been sued to give up this one yet)
lettuceladies.com
islamveg.com (Wow, Jesus _and_ Islam vegetarians?)
taxmeat.com
pginfo.net (anti-Procter-and-Gamble)
voguesucks.com
If you go to their "Other PETA sites" link way in the bottom-right corner of their home page, you'll be treated to a grand total of 17 animated buttons, suitable for use on YOUR activism home page! Visit today!
For more information, click here.
A simple search for "People Eating Tasty Animals" turns up several useful and still functional sites, including petasucks.cc. There's even a rather old version of the here-disputed site, with various updates on the status of them geting peta.org in the first place.
For more information, click here.
To the first point: it's called parody. A protected activity. People Eating Tasty Animals was clearly the name of the site. No attempt was made to convince others that the site was Peope for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sponsored.
Second, profit is good, OK (said in a South Park guidance counselor voice). Profitting from someone else's work is perfectly legal, in conjunction with works of parody. Take for example Weird Al, Political Satirists, Segfault.org, etc, etc, etc.
This precident will haunt the Internet for years, and quite honestly I've begun to question the wisdom of continuing to support the Net in it's current form. There has to be a better way that doesn't create evil empires like AOL/Time/Warner and Network Solutions/Verisign. There must be a way to give total control to those who make up the Net. When I figure it out, I will work toward it because the current situation is insane.
To whom it may concern,
I am a vegetarian, and I am disturbed and offended by your organization's legal activities concerning PETA.ORG.
When your protest activities go awry, you quickly shield yourself with the First Amendment. Your organization produces parody sites using trademarked properties, but when you yourself are the target, you hide behind claims of fraudulent representation, trademark dilution and commerical exploitation.
Even though I share some of your beliefs, I am sickened by your hypocritical behavior and will neither donate to your organization nor will I encourage others to do, ever. There are far more reasonable and honorable vegetarian/animal rights organizations with whom I would rather be associated.
Sincerely,
Tim Elkins
--
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
Who says that web addresses are a protected form of speech? Is the address of your house a protected form of speech? If you make a parody using the exact same name as an organization, that breeds incredible confusion because people will just go there thinking it is the organization's site. Of course, when they get there, they will know that they've been misdirected, but the point is that there's no way of telling from just the url that it will not be the organization you are looking for.
There is no real clear definition of what is and what isn't a form of expression in this country. I would argue that almost everything we do is basically some form of communicating, and thus even the places we choose to live in should be protected. Some people would argue that protecting all speech would be complete anarchy, but I think it would force us to develop more sophistaicated (and necessary) methods of filtering information.
<rant/>
lf.o
Dougheny's statements imply no intention to sell or profit from the site.
What's wrong with parodies? If they're bad, then why does PETA have this link on their homepage?
See: http://www.animalrights.net/16 In 1998, while it was whining about how wrong it was for someone else to register peta.org, PETA went out and registered ringlingbrothers.com and put up a site ripping on the circus. Ringling Brothers filed suit against PETA and PETA reached an agreement to give back the domain name. Complete hypocrisy on PETA's part.
just for that i'm going to eat twice as many Perfectly Edible Tasty Animals in the following year. I hope you PETA people are happy, their blood is on your hands!
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
http://www.petaonline.org/news/60 0/600dotorg.html
Therapy is expensive. Bubble wrap is cheap. You choose.
Hypocritical...
Deriding the parody
When they do the same
A novice told the master: "I have great news! Today we have obtained an injunction against a parody website. Now they can no longer mock us."
The master replied: "You do not understand Tao. Free speech is for all or for none."
The novice went away to contemplate the words of the master.
The next day, the novice came to the master in great distress and said: "I have terrible news! The fashion show organizers have obtained an injunction against our demonstration next week. Now we cannot shame them with fake blood and pictures of dead animals."
Upon hearing this, the master fell silent.
------
------
You are in a twisty little maze of open source licenses, all different.
After doing a lot of research (just for curiosity) on Lexis-Nexis and so forth, I've come to the conclusion that any parody-related court decisions, are, in effect, arbitrary. It comes down to the mood of the judge and how they appreciate the humor involved. There are standards, but they're not clear-cut. I think there is a lot of room for comparison to the following court case synopsis I came across. It's also funny (although it helps if you can read Legalese). Affirming a judgment in favor of a small company that manufactured blue jeans especially designed for large women, and against a corporation that alleged infringement of its "Jordache" trademark, the court, in Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v Hogg Wyld, Ltd. (1987, CA10 NM) 828 F2d 1482, 4 USPQ2d 1216, 92 ALR Fed 1, held that there was no likelihood of confusion of the trademark with the small company's "Lardashe" jeans, where that company intended only to parody the corporation's mark. The corporation, the fourth largest blue jeans manufacturer in the United States, had as its principal product designer blue jeans bearing the trademark "Jordache" superimposed over a drawing of a horse's head. It licensed another company to manufacture and market "Jordache" jeans for larger women. The defendant, a small company formed for the purpose of marketing designer blue jeans for larger women, limited its sales to specialty shops in several southwestern states and to acquaintances of the owners or others who had heard of its product. The two women who had formed the company conducted the business out of their homes in New Mexico. The "Lardashe" trademark on their jeans was accompanied by a drawing of a pig's head. Finding that the two women did not intend to "palm off" their jeans as "Jordache" jeans or confuse members of the public to believe that they were buying "Jordache" products, the court observed that where a party chooses a mark as a parody of an existing mark, the intent is not necessarily to confuse the public, but rather to amuse. The purpose of a parody, noted the court, is to create a comic or satiric contrast to a serious work. While observing that, in one sense, a parody is an attempt to derive benefit from the reputation of the owner of a trademark (if only because no parody could be made without the initial mark), the court pointed out that the benefit to one making the parody, however, arises from the humorous association, not from public confusion as to the source of the marks. A parody, said the court, relies on the difference from the original mark, presumably a humorous difference, in order to produce the desired effect. The court remarked that the requirement of trademark law is that a likelihood of source, sponsorship, or affiliation must be proved and that this did not involve any "right" not to be made fun of. While it observed that a parody of an existing trademark can cause a likelihood of confusion under certain circumstances, the court stated that an intent to parody is not an intent to confuse the public. The court also held that because of the parody aspect of "Lardashe," it was not likely that public identification of the "Jordache" trademark with the corporation would be eroded. Parody, noted the court, tends to increase public identification of a plaintiff's mark with the plaintiff. While recognizing that "Lardashe" might be considered by some consumers to be in poor taste, the court reasoned that the mark was not likely to create in the minds of consumers a particularly unwholesome, unsavory, or degrading association with the corporation's name and trademark. The court found it unlikely that the public would assume that the same manufacturer would use quite different marks on substantially the same product.
I find it funny that PETA can shut down a parody site at the same tim ethat is is running it's own parody of another well known company. Peta is launching an "Unhappy Meal" campaign... hmm, and the mascot sure looks a lot like Ole' Ronny.
But in this case, the owner of peta.org was doing two things wrong:
- Using a trademark in a derrogatory manner
- Profiting on that.
Combined, these both give the impression that peta.org was being used maliciously againsts the lawful trademark owners, PETA, and PETA had every right to sue and reclaim their name.If instead they had used petasucks.org, I doubt that the case would have turned out the same way. Parody would be protected, and it's hard to claim trademark disputes since the whole domain name is not trademarked. However, the fact that peta.org is probably the first place that people will look when finding info on PETA, and such parody would hurt PETA's image.
Trademark disputes are not all cut and dried. Etoys vs Etoy, Mattle's and Archie Comic's attempts to swap trademarks have failed or are still in the works, but in those cases, the conflicting site is legit and does not dilute or harm the image of the company that questions the trademark. But here is a different case, and I believe I agree with the decision.
I do want to see this appealed however, up to the Supreme Court, such that some national precident is set; hopefully not in the judges words, but to the point that the cybersquatting/trademark laws are more strongly set. Why this case? Neither side is a large company with lots of money to blow, so this won't be a battle of resources, but of true intent.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I submitted this story yesterday, but with an added bit.
I read about the court decision in yesterday's USA Today. There was another story about PETA in the paper. It seems they introduced their "UnHappy Meals" McDonalds parody, complete with a stuffed Ronald McDonald doll holding a bloody butcher knife.
The UnHappy Meal comes in the same kind of box as a Happy Meal and is aimed at children. Intentionally trying to confuse and frighten children using McDonalds trade dress.
Why is it that 'real world' parody is ok but web parody is not? Why does PETA think that they have the right to use anothers name and look and feel but is exempt from the same treatment?
And more importantly, how do we get the judicial system to have a clue?
Steve M
The PETA parody is currently at http://mtd.com/tasty
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
NTAGARA
Of course it's always followed by the goose-stepping 'greenshirts' of the vegan-reich ....
"In a court ruling yesterday, Mr. Jones was ordered to give up control the domain mrjones.com to online strawberry-polisher, MRJ-ones. Though Mr. Jones has has operated this website since 1997, and despite the fact that name "Jones" has been in Mr. Jones' family for centuries, the court ruled that the domain name was a violation of the trademark held by MRJ-ones. When asked why the company did't simply register the domain "mrj-ones.com," the spokesman for MRJ-ones replied "We should not have to settle for a lesser domain simply because someone wanted to violate our trademark."
MRJ-Ones has held the trademark for 3 months as of next friday.
All operating systems suck. Some just suck less than others. (and some are virtual black holes)
At the very least, offer PETA's press release. They claim that Michael Doughney (peta.org) fraudulently claimed that People Eating Tasty Animals was a non-profit organization, was clearly diluting the PETA trademark and was gaining commercial benefit from such dilution. Not only that, but he also holds many other "parody" websites.
It's one thing to make light of these guys, but it's another thing to profit from their names - that is very clearly infringement.
--
Parody? Entertainment's Too Amusing
Prefer Elephants To Anarchists
Please Establish Trademark, Assholes
Perhaps Everyone's Too Anal
PETA Excised Their Assailant
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
DNS needs an ".alt" top level domain.
When the Big 7 newsgroups were being drafted on USENET just prior to the great flag day, this simple need was recognized practically from day one and .alt was born (and is today bigger than all the Big 7 groups combined).
Flame all you want, but without a dumping ground where anything goes without restrictions, the trash will not go away. It will seep into all areas of the "approved TLDs".
If an .alt TLD is set up, it will make rule violations in the remaining TLDs much easier to enforce because there will always be an alternative. "You didn't have to create [domain] here".
Trap the rats with no way to register their profane, controversial, questionable, or whatever-offends-whoever domains and they'll start clawing at the walls of whatever other heirarchy they can get at.
Remember, in the Big 7 newsgroups, there was no room for sex or drugs, so these because the very first two alt groups.
Even the cleanest, most orderly city still has a garbage dump.
And how will the "lawsuits prohibited against anyone in the .alt TLD" be agreed to and given teeth? Simple. Make that an agreed to condition for everyone registering OR RENEWING a domain AND for registrars renewing their registrar status, just like ICANN did with its current domain name dispute policy. After 2 years or so, the policy will trickle down to all registrants and be in full force. Anyone who disagreed will be gone from DNS. Then open up .alt to accept anything-goes registrations.
.
The real issue at stake here is whether you can use (as a domain name, primarily, but who knows how this will translate-- perhaps as the title of a site, or just ON your site) a trademark that doesn't belong to you. So many common names and acronyms and phrases are trademarked that this could have tremendous implications.
I don't know why they were accused of cybersquatting, unless someone doesn't understand what cybersquatting is. "It's not a cybersquatting case at all," Davis said. "It simply presents a question: Can you use a trademark as a domain name for the purpose of creating a parody?" The "for the purpose of creating a parody" part is kind of irrelevant, unless we're talking slander-- and that's an entirely separate issue, especially since parody is a fair use exemption to copyright law, as has been pointed out here already.
And another issue-- what happens when more than one organization has a similar or identical name (NASA and NASA, or the space people and the Native American Student Association, for instance) and one wants a domain that the other has (the space people now decide that they want all domains incorporating NASA into them, but find that the students already use one or two of them, for instance). They're equally entitled, despite the fact that one owns the trademark and the other doesn't. Does that mean that the students aren't entitled to a domain with their name in it? That they should change the name of their organization? I know that there was a case recently where a kid nicknamed Pokey was being sued for his domain by the Gumby people... this is the same bad idea.
This trademark/domain name stuff was discussed in part earlier in an article on Slashdot.
Do something about world hunger. Click here