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.'"

26 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. I'm confused... by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "This is a mainstream circuit court that said using the Internet and the name of the company to criticize a company is perfectly legitimate."

    How is this not legitimate???

    I thought usuing the name of a company to criticize said company was perfectly legal

    ...or am I supposed to refer to Micro$oft as something else?

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:I'm confused... by JayBlalock · · Score: 5, Insightful
      EXACTLY.

      Certain powers were attempting to twist trademark law into, essentially, outlawing negative speech about their products. They were just fighting it in the realm of the Internet, a place regarding which the courts can make very silly decisions, due to their misunderstanding of it.

      Now we just need a judgement striking down "Thou shalt not speak badly of us," terms in EULAs, which have been used to intimidate publications into not running negative reviews.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    2. Re:I'm confused... by JayBlalock · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How did that become legal in the first place?

      It's not entirely legal, per se, as it's never really been tested. (AFAIK & IANAL) Many publications will back down rather than face a court battle from a major power, since even if they won, it would be a phyrric victory.

      And that, in turn, leads us right back to the current problem with our legal system, which is that, "He who has the money, wins."

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    3. Re:I'm confused... by JayBlalock · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wow, someone likes my .sig. Mainly I get flamed for it. :-)

      You point out the major argument that the Trademarked Powers were making. They were saying that the proliferation of (Company)Sucks.com sites was cutting into their market share by keeping people from seeing their official sites. This decision basically says, "Tough. Free Speech means you too can get shouted down."

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    4. 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>

    5. Re:I'm confused... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think the issue is that she didn't just say "the company sucks," she registered "thecompany.com" for herself and put up her web page there. So if PETA had beaten mcdonalds.com in registering that domain name, it would still take you to a protest site today.

      Anyways just wanted to clarify, this was about domain names rather than any old use of the company name in protests.

    6. Re:I'm confused... by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From a devil's-advocate perspective, I suppose the real-world equivalent of protest via domain names would be like buying a store, putting up the golden arches, and when someone comes in looking for cheeseburgers you give them anti-McDonalds pamphlets instead. That would be a clear-cut case of trademark infringment, causing customer confusion, and so on. This case is no different from other domain name complaints, except that the little guy won.

    7. 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

    8. Re:I'm confused... by iminplaya · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We can spend all picking out pieces of the good and bad. I'm talking about the general demeanor of the country. In my life the slide started when Kennedy was killed (there went camelot) The sheer ugliness of the Johnson and Nixon years is still prominent in my memories. The lies about Vietnam and Nixon's political enemies list are there for all to see, but it's still business as usual. Before the 80's a one income family with 70 percent(!) of one's paycheck going to the IRS could still keep a very nice house out in the 'burbs. That's all gone now. Clinton was just a bad reaction to Bush Sr. And now with 9/11 the march towards fascism is moving double time. Please don't think for even the briefest second that Bush Lite(Kerry) is going to make any meaningful changes.

      --
      What?
  2. Free speech by gid13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me that there are more than enough exceptions to free speech already. Glad to see this allowed, let's go a little farther.

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

    A link courtesy of the archive.org.

  4. Sadly... by robochan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although she owns the site name until 2005, Grosse said she is done. "I am so broke right now defending myself. . . . I defended freedom of speech but I don't want to open that can of worms again."
    Sadly, it costs a lot of money to exercise free speech in America

    --
    ...Rob
    The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. I find this rather suprising... by supersat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you read the article, you'll see that she didn't register something like lucasnurserysucks.com, but lucasnursery.com. I'm suprised that it wasn't decided that she was using their name to trick potential customers into going to her site, since many people assume companyname.com will work. It'd be similar to someone registering slashdot.com (if it wasn't already registered) to make an anti-Slashdot site.

    1. 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.
  9. I disagree by mcx101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it would have been acceptable if she had something like http://www.lucasnurserysucks.com but she didn't have the right to take the domain name that was the name of the company. Where are they supposed to have their website then? Not everyone necessarily agrees that Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc. sucks.

    --
    My operat~1 system unders~1 long filena~1 , does yours?
    1. Re:I disagree by Ironica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it would have been acceptable if she had something like http://www.lucasnurserysucks.com but she didn't have the right to take the domain name that was the name of the company.

      Interesting. How many "Lucas Nursery" businesses do you suppose there are out there? Besides landscaping and plants, there might be nursery schools under that name as well. How do you decide who has the "right" to take the domain name?

      Domain names are generally first-come, first-serve for exactly that reason. It's pointless to say whether she had the "right" to the domain name; they weren't trying to do business online and they didn't have a website, so she beat them to the punch.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  10. Re:Free Speech or George Orwell by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Funny

    It concerns me that this even got this far ... are we going to be validated for everything we say or write - sound's Orwellian.

    Dear Mr. Coward:

    I represent the owners of the estate of Eric Blair, better known by his nom de plume, "George Orwell".

    You may remember Mr. Blair for such tropes as "a boot heel stamping a human face-forever", "the Two-minute Hate", "newspeak", "Animal Farm" and of course, "Big Brother".

    What know may not know, but I am now for the record informing you, is that Mr. Blair's Intellectual Property in these and other phrases, including the adjective "Orwellian" itself, has been acquired by The Mouse That Ate The Public Domain, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporatism Turns Individuals into ConsumerSheep, Ltd., a division of All Your Base Are Belong To A Few Rich Men and Their Lobbyists, LLC.

    As representative of the afore-mentioned corporation, I am writing you to demand that you cease and desist from using the word "Orwellian", or any other Intellectual Property belonging to ny client, except with express written permission.

    Should you wish to arrange a limited license to use the word Orwellian -- either on a per use basis, or for a set period --, please contact my office immediately for a rate sheet.

    Thank you,
    A. Lackey

    Law Offices of
    Plutocrat, Prevaricator and Politico,
    Attorneys at Law

  11. Re:Oh, Good by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah. So if I claim I got bad service from someone, and then produce some form of evidence to back it up (hello, Photoshop? Pictures of XY's company rep doing something awful, please), then I can set up a domain name and squat legally.

    Well, if your claim is false, you can be easily sued for libel.

    You see, there are existing remedies to protect against what you propose without resort to the "novel" -- read unprecedented and dangerous -- limitations on free speech that the plaintiff in this case, and too many corporations in general, advocate.

    But like most attempted usurpers of freedom, they spread FUD first, claiming that unless freedom is throttled, all sorts of bad things will happen -- and so Draconian new laws and new legal interpretations are needed.

    Much like what you're doing in your post -- or, may I be so bold, like the RIAA and its call for judge-less subpoenas, or advocates of the "War on Drugs" and the resulting erosion of 4th amendment rights, or the fear-mongering that brought about the so-called "Patriot Act".

  12. 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
  13. Backwards compatibility by alexandr19 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Do you think they'll notice? http://www.tsewq.com

    Are we perfect? Of course not. Do we (as you say in your website) "suck"? Far from it.

    Now to get to the legal stuff. Your false and defamatory statements and your use of the Qwest name and trademark are illegal. You should cease and desist from using the Qwest trademark and publishing false, defamatory and disparaging statements. We would like to resolve this matter without legal action, but will pursue a lawsuit if necessary.

    I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience before we both start spending money on lawyers.
    -- Legal Dept Letter

    Money, when isn't it about money.
  14. How dumb is Lucas? by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Funny

    Instead of working it out with the woman as in:

    Lucas: We'll fix yard, you give us domain
    Disgruntled Customer: OK.

    They spent all that lawyer money to sue the woman. And all over a job they'd done allegedly done poorly. So now they still haven't made the woman happy, AND the entire world knows about it AND they don't have their domain.

    Talk about complete lack of common sense.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  15. This stuff works big time by mabu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hired a contracting firm to level my house. They screwed it all up and cracked the slab. This was a well-known national company. They said it wasn't their fault and they weren't going to pay to fix it. I had pictures before and after and gave them 48 hours to agree to help fix the situation. They blew me off.

    So I acquired the domain (companyname)sucks.com and put up a before-and-after set of pictures along with my side of the story.

    24 hours later, they agreed to settle with me. I paid them $6000 for their work. They gave me over $14,000 as part of the settlement and maintained the guarantee on their work.

    I know these days people think that "nobody cares" and for the most part, I agree. But part of this has to do with many companies who have factored customer laziness and unwillingness to protest into their business model. I refuse to let crappy contractors or other businesses get the better of me, and if more people did this, these companies wouldn't get away with the stuff they do.

    So if someone screws you over, give them every chance to fix the situation. If they still don't, feel free to tell everyone that you think they suck. Which reminds me, I got screwed over by this company in Arkansas: Big Impressions - and I will never do business with them again. And until they resolve my situation, I'll make it public I think they're sleazebags until the end of time.