Slashdot Mirror
Ford vs. 2600 Judge Upholds Right To Link
AnimeFreak writes: "According to this 2600 article, 2600 has won the right to link to Ford's website after Ford sued them for doing so. Ford had asserted that hyperlinking to their website or referring to it in DNS records constituted a variety of trademark violations. Judge Cleland rejected Ford's twisted interpretation of the trademark act, which claimed that by disparaging Ford's mark and preventing it from 'fully exploiting the value of its mark,'" 2600 was in violation of trademark law by redirecting a possibly offensive domain to Ford's site. We've mentioned this before, and it's nice to see a ruling in favor of linking. Thanks to Phalse Phace, here's a link to the 11-page decision.
now, if someone would show this to the morons at KPMG
8 87 4%2C00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0%2C1367%2C4
This completely contradicts the judgement in the DeCSS case. 2600 only linked to the site to get the code..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
now they can buy and redirect wedidfuckgeneralmotors.com
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
If its "only in the programming code", does that mean I could link, say "mcdonalds.com" (if it were suddenly to become available or something) to my own site, if my site does not mention a single word about McDonalds?
come and talk about this story on the irc server.
Doesn't the fact that this is a denial of a preliminary injunction mean that the actual case has not happened yet? IANAL, but I was under the impression that all this means is that the web site will be allowed to continue while the case goes forward. Am I wrong?
I don't see how the internet could exist without links. If we had to manually type in url's for every website, I don't think anybody would get very far. Search Engines wouldn't even exist, would they?
Ford is now the owner of "wegotfuckedby2600.com"
I belive everyone should have the right to have hyperlinks. However, I don't feel the way inwhich this redirection is done is entirely fair to ford.
People who are not new to the web are going to be able quickly determine that this(http://fuckgeneralmotors.com/) is not ford's work. However, someone new to the web is going to say I went to http://fuckgeneralmotors.com/ and then it loaded up the ford site. Since I didn't do anything when I loaded the site, then it must be ford's work.
I think they should have to have somekind of statement on that page saying they have nothing to do with the ford motor company.
chad
ERROR 404: sig not found
a lots of poeple link to my mouse (file:///dev/mouse )in their website
i want to sue them...
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
Ford, that is. Doubtful GM could now try and bust them for -not- trying to do anything about it. If they hadn't tried to do anything about it, after GM possibly bringing it to their attention at some point, well, it might be more problematic. As it is now, it is sort of like Calvin 'honoring' the Chevy logo, but Ford can say 'hey, it wasn't us'.
Even if they're not violating Ford's trademark, I'm sure BT can still get them for violating their patent on hyperlinks.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
So, does this mean I can register fuckslashdot.org?
:)
Seriously, to register a derogatory domain name and point it to someone else's webpage is effectively slander. Ford did not want its image associated with a profane domain name because that would hurt sales, and they were right to do so. When the average person typed fuckgeneralmotors.com and Ford's website popped up, they would have assumed that the domain name was registered by Ford, and hence, that Ford supported the use of profanity. Thus, doing so effectively disparaged the Ford name by association with what some would consider objectionable language.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Ford failed to prove these things, thus the injunction was denied. It's a nice finding, but the outcome of the trial remains to be seen.
One encouraging footnote in the finding, for those who don't want to read 11 pages of legalese (although it's not nearly as bad as some), reads as follows:
Also, towards the end of the finding Judge Cleland provides an excellent criticism of the implication in Planned Parenthood and Jews for Jesus that causing commercial harm is sufficient cause for a claim of infringement, pointing out that many uses that are specifically excluded by the FTDA cause commercial harm to the mark holder.
While the case is far from over, it doesn't look good for Ford.
\
And i'm linking to your modem! !!!!!!
Ford Motor Company probably just wanted to keep the General Motors lawyers off their backs.
Not sure if they expected to win such a case..
but for saving face, they had to try something to show they weren't responsible for the mud sling.
__________________________________
Free your mind - Flush your toilet
I was interested in this domain at one time, until I found out somebody already took it. Fortunately for us Chevy folks, it looks like someone can still get FordsSuck.com
Registrant:
Ford Motor Company (FORDSUCKS5-DOM)
330 Town Center Dr. FPS-Suite 600
Dearborn, MI 48126
US
Domain Name: FORDSUCKS.COM
Administrative Contact:
DNSmgr, Ford (DF197-ORG) dnsmgr@FORD.COM
Ford Motor Company
1303 Fairlane Circle
Allen Park, MI 48101
US
313-390-3476
Fax- 313-390-1697
Record last updated on 20-Sep-2000.
Record expires on 20-Sep-2002.
Record created on 20-Sep-2000.
Database last updated on 22-Dec-2001 22:53:00 EST.
There isnt a meatspace equivalent unless somehow by looking at your sign people were mysteriously teleported to a Ford dealership.
-
The guys at 2600 had taken a domain name which used a trademark as just a part of the domain name, and directed it to Ford's site. That's different from taking someone else's valid trademark and directing it to your own site. The main difference being that in the 2nd case, you could prevent legitimate users from finding the page that they're looking for. Take a look at this quote:
I think that if you got the mcdonalds.com domain, even though it would be funny as heck, you would probably end up having to give it back eventually.
I don't see why Ford had a problem here. In most cases, someone linking to your site is free publicity. In cases where you'd rather not have them link, and asking politely doesn't do the job, just configure the website to reject requests from that referrer.
When will they learn that if someone is linking to their site, they can determine that through the HTTP Referer header and stick in some logic to do some of their own redirection or change the dynamic content. They can surely make the link as ineffective as if the original page had made an error in the link and put in the wrong domain. Or are corporate suits just too dumb to realize they can control something like their own web site?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Most people who have used the Internet for some time understand that anyone can link to you, and that because they did doesn't mean you endorse their site. Many companies have threatened legal action against linkers on the grounds that they don't want to be associated with certain kinds of sites.
The cause for concern is that the human brain tends to associate things that occur together, even though intellectually we know they are separate. So although this case is a bit off target (who cares if GM sucks points to Ford), think of the case where a porno site links to yours. People intellectually know that your site has nothing to do with porno, but will associate the two anyway.
2600 stepped in when they found out someone got sued by Ford for the domain name fordsucks.com the domain name was taken from the person sued as you can see:
Registrant:
Ford Motor Company (FORDSUCKS5-DOM)
330 Town Center Dr. FPS-Suite 600
Dearborn, MI 48126
US
Domain Name: FORDSUCKS.COM
Administrative Contact:
DNSmgr, Ford (DF197-ORG) dnsmgr@FORD.COM
Ford Motor Company
1303 Fairlane Circle
Allen Park, MI 48101
US
313-390-3476
Fax- 313-390-1697
Technical Contact:
DNSadmin, Ford (AD2148-ORG) dnsadmin@FORD.COM
Ford Motor Company
1303 Fairlane Circle
Allen Park, MI 48101
USA
313-390-3476
Fax- 313-390-1697
Billing Contact:
DNSbill, Ford (DF169-ORG) dnsbill@FORD.COM
Ford Motor Company
Fairlane Business Park
1303 Fairlane Circle
ITHQ-B
Allen Park, MI 48101 US
313-390-3476
Fax- 313-390-1697
Record last updated on 20-Sep-2000.
Record expires on 20-Sep-2002.
Record created on 20-Sep-2000.
Database last updated on 22-Dec-2001 22:53:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS004.FORD.COM 136.1.1.20
DNS003.FORD.COM 136.2.1.20
2600 caught wind of this and wanted to fight for our rights. They then registered fordreallysucks.com. So don't think 2600 did this just to fuck with Ford. Ford started this shit by suing anyone that used their name in a domain.
I am proud of what 2600 did. Many would not have the nuts to take on a giant sompany like Ford. 2600 forever!
OMG 2600 won a court case! Stop the presses! The end of the world is nigh!
Comedy aside, I was starting to wonder if it would happen in my lifetime (thme winning anything.)
This is simply the judge denying a prelimenary injunction that Ford tried to impose. The trial has yet to proceed.
Basically, it looks like they tried to hoodwink the judge into shutting it down based on some loosely similar precedent. The judge's ruling reads quite clearly and concisely. He even states that Ford has 'no chance of succeeding'.
But.. again, this is just the denial of the injunction.. it has no real bearing on the case itself, other than the judge feels, based on what he's been shown, that ford has no case.
Sorry.. Trademark law requires 'resonableness' on the part of the public. Trademark law was *not* created in order to prevent slander.
Also..'fuckgeneralmotors' is not slander. 'Scientologysucks' COULD be slander, depending on if it's opinion or fact (hey.. it DOES suck.. but that's another story).
Trademark is not there to 'prevent your name from being associated with objectionable language'. It's there to prevent others from benefiting from the use of your mark, period, or from otherwise 'diluting' your mark.
Oh.. and please note.. the only mark in dispute here is the hyperlink to 'ford.com'. THey are NOT EVEN USING THE TRADEMARK ON THE SITE. The domain name is not what's in dispute... Ford was trying to say that using the word 'ford' in the hyperlink, because it came from a site called 'fuckgeneralmotors.com' was diluting the value of their mark.
And the judge called bullshit.
This is not a slander case. It's a trademark case.
Seeing as that 2600 page does an auto redirect to the real ford page. Not cool. Ranks right up there with spammers who forge their addresses.
For those of us in the UK:
I just thought about how this related to the Data Protection Act (1998 iirc). If someone were to create a link to an individual's website, and write: Here is a link (nb. this link does not work) to Joe Bloggs' website, does that link constitute personal data? After all, a link is like saying Here is Joe Bloggs' address: ..., and an address (so long as there is a name associated with it) is personal data.
If a link is personal data, does that mean that to link to Joe Bloggs' website you must either be registered with the Data Protection People or have Joe Bloggs' permission? In fact, wouldn't it be worse than that because you would have to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the personal data was secure (placing it on the internet is nothing like secure).
Any thoughts? Can we all go out and start sueing our friends?
TJ
PS. Appologies to our US friends. The DPA governs how people may use data about other people in the UK. It gives citizens the right to know what data someone holds on them (yes, even the security services), the right for that data to be accurate, and a number of rights governing how that data is used. Crucially, it often means that someone must have your permission before they can store data on you. This applies to paper and electronic data. Don't try to read the Act - it's boring.
Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
After spending 1/2 hour downloading an appalling Flash sequence, I eventually found they don't have a list of dealers.
I am planning to buy a 7 ton truck, and I was unable to find any data on their web site about engine or transmission options. (No shortage of Flash though).
I have recommended their webmaster visit "websitesthatsuck.com", since he clearly needs help. Expect them to have links to most of the major auto manufactuerers now.
I plan to buy a Peugeot car and a DAF truck next time.
I presume websitesthatsuck.com will have links to Volvo, Ford, and several other truck manufacturers too. If you plan to buy a truck, forget the web.
$cientology is continously attempting to "spam" search engines like Google in attempt to push critical sites back in the list.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.ORG) and the United States Department of Commerce know how to solve trademark and domain name conflict. They hide the answer to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is impossible to avoid - surely they would have to be corrupt people not to use solution?
It is obvious a restricted TLD is required to replace the ® trademark symbol. The World Intellectual Property Organisation SWIPE domains from the lawful owner - so I got SWIPO.ORG to redirect to them.
Seen a domain name you would like to hijack? Order it now from SWIPO.ORG.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see the simple solution.
So does that mean that this is legal?
Actually, it is completely over. Ford lost. Read the update on 2600.com...
http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=915
We're on the road to Tycho.
An injunction is granted when there is a great likelyhood of irreprerable harm and a great likelyhood of the case being won by the party requesting the injunction.
Fight Spammers!
There was a *** Second Ruling ***, however, in the 2600 case, bearing the same date, which John Young now has up on the Cryptome Website.
Bottom line is that 2600 has REALLY WON BIG!!!! Judge threw out the whole lawsuit.
Eric C. Grimm
CyberBrief, PLC
320 South Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-7341
734.332.4900
fax 734.332.4901
I think it's not a coincidence that their uptime dropped to less than 1 day without rebooting on april 28, the day 2600 announced Ford was dragging them to court. ;)
What a great way to get some user-not-so-friendly words to be spoken in court...
"In the manner of Fuck-general-motors{dot}com linking...."
I would have loved to have been there to see the justices face.
"It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
Any use of their trademark, in links, DNS entries or anywhere else without a license is a violation of their intellectual property rights. Even keeping bookmarks to their website is a violation. Of course, Ford has clearly not protected that trademark adequately. They have allowed it to pass into the public domain by not pursuing these violations in the past.
Yes, my argument is stretching pretty far. I don't actually believe it for a minute. But Ford is going to have to live with the fact that it is legitimate for other people to use their trademark to refer to their company and their products. Otherwise, we will have to resort to euphemisms such as Found On Road Dead. Ford, your lawyers are not a profit center. That is why we call you Ford, instead of Microsoft.
Ford can easily do that
Just check for the "Host: " tag in the HTTP request and act accordingly
www.notslashdot.org
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Ford failed to prove these things, thus the injunction was denied. It's a nice finding, but the outcome of the trial remains to be seen.
* * * *
While the case is far from over, it doesn't look good for Ford.
Yes, but its worse for Ford than you have suggested. In another ruling, issued the same day, the Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
This meant that the Defense was able to prove that, even assuming that every allegation present in the complaint was absolutely true, that the facts nevertheless failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the law -- that is, Ford doesn't have a case.