Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ford vs. 2600 Judge Upholds Right To Link

Posted by timothy on from the sky-falling-film-at-11 dept.

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.

6 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. 2600 irc server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    irc.2600.net

    come and talk about this story on the irc server.

  2. hhmmmm by suffering.bot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  3. Preliminary injunction hilights by Ethidium · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I am not a lawyer, and the following does not even resemble legal advise.

    First off, as some have wondered, this is a denial of a preliminary injunction, which means that the court has only considered preliminary briefs, and found that the briefs were not sufficient to force the site to be taken down while the trial goes forward. This would be done only if (as stated in the opinion):

    1) the movant [Ford] has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of the injunction.

    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:

    In the offline context, consider a graffiti vandal painting "Fuck General Motors" on a sign at Ford headquarters. While some other law may (or should) provide a remedy, it would be a stretch to conclude that trademark law had been violated. The same is true in this case.

    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.

    --
    \
  4. Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... by tkrotchko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Seriously, to register a derogatory domain name and point it to someone else's webpage is effectively slander"

    No, slander is an oral act; you're thinking of libel.

    Besides, if I say some brand "sucks", that is an opinion and certainly covered under the 1st amendment. If I put up a sign in my front yard that "Brand XYZ Sucks", I'm ALLOWED to do that, correct? Why does the web get a special set of rules?

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  5. Nobody has 'won' any rights. by mindstrm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. SWIPO.ORG redirected to WIPO.ORG by Garry+Anderson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.