Slashdot Mirror


Domain-Name Protest Is Protected Speech

Lunartik links to this Detroit Free Press report, writing "The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled Friday that Michelle Grosse did not violate the law when she used the name of Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc. for a Web site she created to complain about the Canton, MI nursery. 'This is a very important case,' said Paul Levy, staff attorney with the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. 'This is a mainstream circuit court that said using the Internet and the name of the company to criticize a company is perfectly legitimate.'"

9 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Wayback machine by bobthemuse · · Score: 4, Informative

    A link courtesy of the archive.org.

  2. What about ICANN by MrByte420 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, So the the federal courts have ruled in favor of these people, this is a Good Thing[TM] IMHO...However, who's to say they can't try to then persue this through ICANN which has its own rather nutty Domain Dispute Policy which has done things like uphold a claim by Molson (beer) to own canadian.biz (which was later overturned in canadian courts...) Who exactly has the ultimate jurisdiction here?

    --
    If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
  3. This happened to Bally Total Fitness 6 years ago by StandardCell · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. Copy of old page text by bobthemuse · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to archive.org, 7/20/2001, the page read as below. Seems like a very straightforward and factual complaint, unlike many of the xxxxsucks.com domains I see now. My Lucas Landscaping Experience I hired Lucas in Canton, MI to landscape my new home last year. I was very displeased with the results. Here is my story. Lucas didn't use slag sand for the base of any retaining walls. The results you can see above -- sinking walls. After less than a month and lots of rain, the walls sank in three places. Brick circles built around two identical trees between the sidewalk and curb were made two different sizes. Lucas refused to repair them. The ground was not prepped before sod was laid. Unfiltered topsoil and sod were laid on top of existing weeds. The grade in the backyard was altered to prevent proper drainage. Inspectors from Canton Township confirmed this. Most of the sod was laid hastily during a rain storm which resulted in numerous holes throughout the lawn. Sprinkler heads were covered up by sod -- (they did fix that the next day). Lucas does NOT warranty sod so they refused to repair the holes. What I didn't realize until it was too late was that Lucas would not take credit cards or a personal check, they wanted cash or money orders only. This provided me with no way to hold back payment until my concerns were addressed. I've learned a very expensive lesson about fine print in contracts. I wish I'd gotten those verbal promises in writing. The Better Business Bureau was usless. Lucas never once came out to look at the finished product. Instead they replied to the BBB with an absurd letter. Apparently that is all they need to do to stay in good standing. I paid $5400 to a second contractor to remove all of the sod and retaining walls, regrade, rebuild walls and lay all new sod. My landscaping is now beautiful! Many, many more photos are available if you are interested. Feel free to e-mail me today.

  5. Public Citizen website by clenhart · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those interested to learn more about Public Citizen, here is their website.

  6. Re:I'm confused... by quonsar · · Score: 4, Informative
    I thought usuing the name of a company to criticize said company was perfectly legal

    well, it is, as long as you do it in a medium where nobody cares (ranting at pals in your living room) or where it costs you a ton of money and nobody pays any attention because you are not a well known content provider (tv, any print media) or where you get arrested for disturbing the peace (car-mounted loudspeaker). but if you think for one second that 500 meg/50 gig shell/ftp/email account you pay $5/month for gives you the right to besmirch the public-minded selfless corporate sugar-daddys who improve your sad little existence on a daily basis, and to do it in front of the entire wired planet, at no additional cost, well, you are a thief and a traitor to the [insert greed-driven dog-eat-dog financial philosophy of choice here] dream. and that's the reason we'll have that upstart internet so enmeshed in restrictive laws - within a short time we'll have made the internet safe for business, just like tv is now! </bile>

  7. Re:I find this rather suprising... by JayBlalock · · Score: 4, Informative
    Good point, but the distinction is that she did it in Good Faith. Her sole purpose in registering the domain as she did was to express her displeasure with the company, with what appeared to be a valid complaint about the way they did business. Which means her Free Speech rights trump their trademark.

    Conversely, had she been selling "Lucas Nursery Sucks!" T-Shirts, or had provably falsified the complaint, then she would've been acting in bad faith (out to either profit through bashing them, or engaging in slander) and therefore would have lost the case.

    --
    Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
  8. Full text of the opinion by CaptainStormfield · · Score: 4, Informative

    The full text of the opinion here if you're interested.

    --
    "The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
  9. Re:I'm confused... by jackb_guppy · · Score: 4, Informative

    But the domian name was *NOT* the company's legal name. It was "www.lucasnursery.com" that you may imply belonged to "Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc."

    Since she did not sell or offer to sell the site so cyber-squating was out.

    If PETA did grab McD's first they would still in control, if they did not offer it for sale. That is why Mr Nissan lost use of his site in a fight with Nissan Motor Corp.

    Though my opinion he was business man working under his name as a business name first, so Missan Motors should be paying him.
    http://www.nissan.com