Slashdot Mirror
Jerry Falwell Wins Dispute Over Fallwell.com
setzman writes "According to this article from CNN, conservative minister Jerry Falwell has succeeded in shutting down a web site run by a gay activist on the domain fallwell.com. The judge said it was 'nearly identical' to the registered trademark 'Jerry Falwell' name and was likely to be confusing to Web surfers." (This was a Federal case, held in the 4th Circuit Court.)
I can't believe this even became a story on Slashdot, it isn't that big of a deal and will probably turn into a huge flame war with comments.
the Political Inquirer
>>his is clear intent to use some one else's name to generate traffic and money for your site, which I believe is a clear violation of (the correct reading) copyright laws.
>>
No it's not... the ruling seemed to center around a registered trademark.
copyright!=trademark
Me, I think it's crap... trademarks aren't all encompassing (or shouldn't be)... now if the owner of the site was in the same industry, maybe it would make more sense...
*shrug*
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
I can't disagree with the court, but I thought this would be a Trademark case, not a copyright case. Of course, since I didn't go to Harvard Law, I may be wrong.
If you went to a better law school than I did, I'll agree that I may be mistaken.
Katie.com was the issue of a book publisher using someone else's domain name for a book years after someone else started using the domain, and then putting pressure on the owner of that domain to give it up.
This is the case of someone registering a domain that is confusingly similar to someone else's for the purpose of tricking browsers. It's not as if this gay activist's name was Fallwell, or this domain was clearly in protest, ie falwellhatesmebecauseimgay.com or whatever.
I think there is a difference here. The Katie.com domain was registered years before the title for the book was made; while, the Jerry Falwell domain was made to copy an already exisiting trademark.
Boxing Equipment Reviews
Sounds fair to me.
A gay activitst registered a domain name similar to the name of a promiant conservative, implied anti-gay.
The judge's choice was 100% morally correct, in addition to being in accordance with the letter of the law.
I agree that using another entity's name to divert traffic for your own means is a violation, what about the use of derivations that show a defined antagonistic slant? For example, what if someone hosts www.fallwellsucks.com?
I've heard of companies going after people that host www.<entity>sucks.com sites, but I think that they most definitely be allowed since the name is clear in its differentiation from, and bias against, the entity.
Considering that about 50% of all posts are already flamebait not worth responding to, I have to go with a couple of the more intelligent posts in saying that intential use of common spelling errors to increase traffice to a website should be ruled against. Had this group had a real claim to the Fallwell name I'd see most people's disagreement with the ruling. But sadly it comes down the the bottom line that most who are against this ruling only due to a religious/political view instead of a fair assessment of the case.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
One of the legal standards of trademark infringement is "likelihood of confusion." Clearly this site intended to capitalize on this very thing, and so violate Falwell's intellectual property. However, parody is acceptable under the copyright law, but one's parody still cannot violate trademarks and other IP. But trademark coverage only extends to certain categories, e.g. a trademark registration for a web site covers web site infringement. One does not automatically have a registration in all categories. I laughed years ago when Paramount unsuccessfully sued a music group called "The Romulans," who had a Roman-style motif. At the time, Paramount only had a TM for "Romulans" that protected a 70s-era Star Trek action figure. The judge in the case said there was no likelihood of confusion between a music group and a little toy. So you /. regulars are all anti-IP, what do you think?
Jerry Falwell is a religious zealot thinly disguised as an ultra-conservative Christian.
This proves my point to a T. Falwell's religious and political practices have NOTHING to do with the lawsuit. What difference does it make what Falwell subscribes to religiously and politically? From the way this sounds it's as if certain members would have Falwell squelched in the name of free speech.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
This isn't a christian nation, despite all the fundie attempts to make it so. It was not founded by christians, it was founded by Deists (look it up if you are that ignorant). Further, we have a right to practice whatever religion we want here (or none at all), guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights.
And you are hardly living in peace when G.W.Bush is waging war in the Middle East.
Its your god. Your rules. YOU go to hell!
He's selling his brand of Jesus. Been in business for a long time.
Now if somebody capitalizes on his name to lure people on a site that hurts his business, that's unfair competition.
JerrySucks.Com would be fine with me, as would JerryIsALoser.com. But not what the guy used. It's clearly outside the bounds.
A more interesting question would be: what if there were another person named Jerry Fallwell who, for instance, believed that Jesus came from a UFO? Could HE register the site? Wasn't there some guy, Mike Rowe, who registered MikeRoweSoft.com last year? Does the first public person with a name get it for all time?
If this is all about name confusion, then explain why whitehouse.com is still in business? How many times have uninformed people mistakenly gone to whitehouse.com instead of whitehouse.gov?
Then again, I am sure whitehouse.com is more interesting.
Okay, maybe I'm just nuts ... but why shouldn't someone have the intent to tarnish or disparage?
I'm not entirely sure whose "side" of this I fall on, but let me declare my prejudices: I am a fundamentalist Christian, so that might make you think I'm biased toward Mr. Falwell. But I don't believe Falwell is a Christian nor a preacher of the Christian Gospel, so that might make you think I'm biased against.
It seems to me this decision is legally correct. I thought at first the website owner was actually named Fallwell (note spelling) but apparently that is not the case. According to law as it stands, the site was registered in bad faith and should apparently be taken away. Since I believe in the rule of law, I would tend to agree that this should be done even if I disagree with the law in question (and that if there's a problem with the law it should be changed).
So, is there a problem with the law? I kind of feel like there is. In fact, I kind of feel like the First Amendment would make whatever law is involved here unconstitutional. Given that we're told our rights to speech CANNOT be infringed, where do we really get off saying that people can't say bad things about other people? Sure, the site tarnishes and disparages Mr. Falwell ... so what's the big deal? People tarnish and disparage me all the time. And I dare say Mr. Falwell does his own tarnishing and disparaging of some folks. Why is some of this protected speech and some of it illegal?
I was under the impression that trademark law was about preventing someone from misrepresenting themselves or their business as you or your business. That there had to be some reasonable chance that those encountering the trademark violation could confuse it for the real thing. Now, let's be honest ... is someone looking for Mr. Falwell online going to be confused by this site into thinking Mr. Falwell is suddenly posting gay activist material?
And if someone really was that confused ... aren't they really beyond help no matter how many laws we pass or legal actions we take?
In this case I don't see how you could possibly confuse these two. And even in cases where confusion could possibly result ... I'm still not sure why the burden is not on the consumer/customer/whoever to verify identity. We live in a world where it doesn't take long to confirm or disprove facts. Nowadays when you hear an urban legend, you can google around and usually find out the truth, even amongst websites that continue to propagate the legend. Here's an example exercise: is "Duck tape" a proper spelling of "Duct tape"? The answer may surprise you, and even though the common misknowledge about the origin of this term is all over the internet, the truth exists and comes up high on a search. Seems to me that in the same way if some entity misrepresents itself as another entity, it won't take long for someone on the web to state that fact and for that fact to start becoming evident on a search. (And in the meantime we have fraud law to deal with the problem if anyone is taken in.)
Why exactly is our legal system worried about tarnishing, disparaging, or people with so little mental prowess they would confuse Jerry Falwell with a gay activist?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
If the guy's site was www.mysite.com and had the same content, Falwell would have no recourse. This ruling isn't about the pure content, but rather the site's use of the domain to trick people into going to it.
Free speech isn't the issue here. Deception is.
Someone has taken a previously existing name, and has been exploiting it for their own gain by trying to confuse the public. And got caught. The fact that it's Jerry Falwell is immaterial; it's the actions of the other guy that were wrong. This is exactly what was wrong with trying to extort away the Katie.com domain, too. I have my own domain name, and I don't want other people stealing it, or confusing people with subtle variations. This is a good ruling; it protects people everywhere from shams and scams.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Jerry Falwell is a religious zealot thinly disguised as an ultra-conservative Christian.
And this has anything to do with a domain name dispute because......
Finkployd
Hrm... I recall the http://www.katie.com/ fiasco, and in that case, I think the right result was finally achieved. The publisher blinked.
This case though seems different.
You have an individual who disagrees with with Jerry Fallwell concerning homosexuality and gay rights. That's all good. If this were merely a parody or disenting view website I'd think that it should fall under free-speech guidelines. But the guy had links to Amazon for a book he published. The arguement then becomes that this was not an issue of free speech, but rather commericially motivated.
Is this the correct reasoning, I don't know. But based on what I read in the article, I don't think the judge erred in his decision. The arguements presented to the judge seemed to be that the use of falwell.com was a deliberate attempt to use the etablished name of Fallwell in an attempt to drive traffic to his site for the intent of selling more books. Asked to base a decision on that regard, and asked to consider this under trademark law, I don't think the judge really could have decided otherwise.
Was this an attempt by Jerry Fallwell and his ministry to silence criticism of his preachings? I'd say most certainly, and ethically, that sort of attack against falwell.com was wrong. Far better would have been to ask the owner of falwell.com to have a link saying something like `if you meant to go to blah blah blah`. But then again, from what I have seen of Jerry Fallwell, reasonable might have been too much to hope for.
I should have been more precise in stating my views originally.
gOOpie
And I should have remembered to add break-tags in my original message... darn lack of coffee!
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
1. The Scientologists open up a storefront to sell their books and recruit followers.
Can the Scientologists shut you down?2. You lease the storefront right next door and paint your storefront and doorway to match theirs.
3. You call your storefront "Science, Really".
4. You distribute free pamphlets and sell your book which is critical of Scientology.
Yes, you've tried to lure people into your storefront by making it appear to be another entrance to theirs. Is that illegal?
If you answer "Yes," then substitute this for step 3.3. You put no sign on your storefront.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
The argument is basically: This guy is using my name to promote his agenda, which is to attack my agenda. Please make him stop.
The ruling is not limiting the free speech of the website owner. They did not say he wasn't allowed to say what he wanted to. However, it is preventing that website owner from using confusion about the spelling of Falwell's own name as a conduit to criticize Falwell.
If the domain had been 'falwellthefucktard.com', there would have been no problem. There would have been no confusing that the site you're visiting is not Jerry's site.
It CAN be brought up as a trade issue, as Falwell apparently uses his website for the sale of his book(s).
It's a Federal court, by the way, which is an important distinction. The court's ruling is simply that you cannot use confusion as a means to further your own agenda.
Just cuz Falwell's a prick doesn't mean that we're allowed to abuse his name to endanger his livelihood. He can be removed from the popular eye with education and tolerance, without resorting to trickery.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
It really irks me that people can trademark their names. Granted, a name like Jerry Falwell has a certain market value, but it just seems contrary to the original intent of trademark laws. Would he sue a family for naming a child after him? How about for having the same last name (or being named Fallwell)? To me this sounds a lot like when Spike Lee tried to prevent TNN from changing their name to Spike TV on the grounds that it infringed on his trademarked name. With the way current laws are going, soon enough everyone will have to come up with a unique name for their offspring.
"Well, Matthew may not be explicitly trademarked, but it is used in the Bible, and that's prior art. Sorry, we're going to have to fine you heavily for trademark infringement."
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
well in this case the site went a little beyound tarnishing someone good name (i guess good name is a matter of opinion). It went to the heart of someone riding on someone elses work in order to advance a cause or make a gain. If the site was named falwell_is_a_homophobe.com all would be differnet. It was counting on falwells name to generate trafic and entise new anti gay people into the pro gay realm were that wouldn't have been possible without using his name.
And yes people will blindly follow some chirch leader even if what they think he says isn't what he actually says. remeber the "if you don't give me money, god will kill me" or somethign simular that ended up with the baker's relocating operations to a jail cell.
If we look at this the same way most of us looked at Katie.com, we would compare Falwell to Katie, and the Gay Rights Activist to the Book Company. Of course, the circumstances are different, and many people, including myself dislike Jerry Falwell, but I think it was worth noting. -ben
This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
The bible is also quite clear that eating shell fish will send you to hell, that its a good idea to sell your daughter and that disobedient sons should be stoned to death. If you don't except EVERYTHING in the bible verbatim then it doesn't really mater what it says about gays.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
If Falwell has his name trademarked, then he's engaged in "trade" and should not enjoy any
tax-exemption benefits, for himself, or his "church" companies.
He's getting his congregation to vote for Bush, so at this point in time he could get away with any
questionable activity he would care to undertake. I'm sure that even without coercion, the Church of Morons
would vote for the King of Morons. I do hope that Mr. Falwell dies soon.
I'm not sure if it was your intended purpose, but you have given us a perfect example of what would have won in court and been ruled perfectly legal. This is because the material on the website (cats)would be deemed completely different than Jerry's website.
I'm not defending Jerry Falwell (I don't even know who he is really), but I needed to speak up in compassion for those of you who are lost.
Being loud and obnoxious about your chosen Religious Service Provider does not mean that you are "speaking in compassion for [those who are] lost".
For a start, those people don't consider themselves lost. And some of us consider you to be the one who is completely lost - that is, you've lost the ability to reason, and you're running on the huffed fumes of faith alone.
Always dangerous for a human to do that - it makes you so easily manipulated. And that's what religion was invented for - to allow societies to be built around them, because it allowed the upper echelons to manipulate the sheeple. Such as yourself, oh great beacon of light in the darkness.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Politicus
Good lord what a great piece of hair-splitting.
I think you'll find the correct answer is: the court's are not above the law, nor are they above the Constitution.
To put it succinctly consider: who defines what free speech is?
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Trademarks are intended to prevent consumer confusion, correct?
This ownder of this site doesn't purport himself to be Jerry Falwell, he's just critical of Falwell. You can see for yourself. If anyone gets confused on that site and thinks that Jerry Falwell has repented his anti-gay ways then they deserve to be confused, for they are stupid.
Personally I don't mind parody sites, as long as the domain is not simply a mistake spelling of the name. And is clearly labeled for what it is.
OMG CHRISIANZ ARE TEH ST00P1D!!! LOL OMG!
Timothy was right to edit your submission, but not because he "clarified" it, but because he removed your bigoted conclusion.
If the domain in question were "muslum.org", would you be joking about how people trying to go to muslim.org are likely to be confused? Considering, you know, that they're poor illiterate Muslims? Or is it only funny because Christians are fair game for ridicule?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Since when did Christ talk like that? For that matter, when did Peter, Paul, John, or any other early shapers of the Christian faith talk like that? I would agree with the previous poster in saying that Falwell is not a Christian, and if in fact he is, then he's a seriously decieved one.
I'm well aware that the eating of shell fish was Old Testament law. I simply don't believe you can pick and choose the laws you want to abide by. And since Leviticus always seems to get trotted out by religious conservatives, I think it's important to note that if you're going to accept some of the teachings in the bible, then you've got to accept them all, not just the ones that are convenient to you. What does the New Testament say? Not a heck of a lot. There is one passage that is seen as particularily daming by religious conservatives, and that would be Romans 1:26-27. But the letters that Paul wrote tend to be very tricky to translate because they are missing a great deal of context. What you are reading is a reply to a letter by someone or to an unknown news event. His writings have been used to condem Jews, women, blacks, slaves... the list goes on and on. Some people believe he was writing about pagan ceremonies that involved homosexual rituals. Since the original Greek sources say very little about homosexuality, so it's likely that agendas by religious leaders have been pushed into translations over the years. My point is that the passage is not a good example of the NT condeming homosexuality. Other references tend to be religious conservatives reaching for examples and not definitive proof that the Bible condems homosexuality. Obviously, neither of us are going to get anywhere convincing each other we're correct on this matter, so I'm happy to leave the conversation at this point. I've said my peace. I do hope that you don't attribute any of my comments are a personal attack, I'm just trying to tell the other side of the story. Disagreements are what makes free speech wonderful, no?
Says who? It's no different than when MCI had a "1-800-OPERATER" number to play off misspellings of AT&T's "1-800-OPERATOR". So long as the service at the end of the number/URL correctly indentifies itself and isn't doing anything fraudulant, no harm and no foul. "This isn't the site you're looking for, but how about this instead?" is no worse than a 404.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
There is a disclaimer at the top (at least according to the caches I found) that made it impossible for a literate person to be confused. If the judge found them confusing, then he is a moron.
I was also unaware that trademarks applied to the trademark and all possible misspellings. When was that ruling? I must have missed it.
Even if the trademark applies (which it doesn't) and the site was confusing (which it isn't) the speech involved is political/social commentary on a public figure. That type of speech is the most protected. If it were a commercial issue, then let them fight it out in courts. If it is a free-speech issue for political/personal views, then the court should *always* err on the side of making the speech available.
Learn to love Alaska
Courts define the constitution and the law--remember Marbury v. Madison. How did they get that power? They interpreted it. Why can they interpret it? It's their power. How did they get that power? (STACK OVERFLOW)
English is easier said than done.
If the domain in question were "muslum.org", would you be joking about how people trying to go to muslim.org are likely to be confused? Considering, you know, that they're poor illiterate Muslims? Or is it only funny because Christians are fair game for ridicule?
I target all things/persons I oppose equally, Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden get no religious preference from me. Fuck both of them.
I would certainly laugh about it, simply since people should be educated enough to find accurate information from reliable sources for information about topics that concern them. If they stumble upon an assualt or praise of that particular position because they looked at the wrong source, oh well, too damn bad. It might actually open their eyes to a larger perspective of that topic.
Also keep in mind that this Falwell character is just a sonofabitch who praised God and placed blame for 9/11 on liberals. He is not a Christian in the true sense (IMO).
The audience of this trash "minister" is generally made up of a large group of right-wingers with little education (or desire to become educated) that would likely make such spelling mistakes and then howl about the liberals abusing free speech to insult "a man of God". Fuck them too.
C:\>
Falwell is not a Christian
He is a successful businessman and politician. Christ is just a mascot to help keep his accountants employed full-time. If something more marketable than Christ comes along, I'm sure Falwell will be all over it.
Acctually... I've spent time studying the Bible (not just listening to others oppinion of it) and I've not come accross any true contradictions. I have however come accross things that are difficult to understand, but that doesn't make them contradictions.
You may find this site interesting.. it starts at the beginning
i read the decision and didn't see anywere wewre it said he couldn't put the site up under a different name or continue to use the content on the site. I don't see how that makes this a fre speach issue.
It is more like you not guarentied a audience for your free speach issue. The new york yanky's or the bosten glob doens't in any way have to let you use thier facilities to get you message across. Tagging in the back of someones popularity with an oposing view point is much like forcing the globe to run your comments or forcing the nfl to allow you to make you speach durring half time. The site owner can even place a redirect link saying they aren't alfiliated with falwell ministries and they have moved the site to somenewdomain.com to reflect that. they can even keep the same contect that is already availible there.
I still don't see were the free speach issue is. unless you do expect the whitehouse to post you comments on this. (it's the saem thign as using someone elses name to benefit. except you don't have thier permition)
would not have directly generated any book sales. If the person actually intended to visit Jerry Falwell's site, but visited a gay activist site by mistake, I seriously doubt he/she would probably not be likely to purchase the books advertised in the parody site.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
The court can interperet the law and in some cases can shape it around the constitution. They cannot create new laws or change the constitution.
Since the trademark laws are created by congress, the courts must interperet them as being limited by the constitution. The owner of fallwell.com can say whatever he wants about the nutcase who he dislikes, as long as it is not libelous. However he cannot represent himself as a person or business without permission. By registering that domain, he is representing himself as Jerry Falwell. The primary purpose is to get people who are trying to find Jerry's site and let them see his own site instead.
If on the other hand he wanted to have a sight called jerryfalwellisamoron.com, I would be less likely to criticize his use of the trademark.
-Jacob
Let's see what else is an "abomination" according to Leveticus:
- Eating leftovers from your animal sacrifice that are 3 or more days old
- Eating the wrong parts of your animal sacrifice
- Eating any kind of shellfish, certian kinds of bird, or "creeping things"
- Anyone who eats abomonable foods is an abomination
Leveticus also says the penalty for homosexualty is death by stoning. Also on the list of capital crimes:Since it's the Word Of God, naturally you should do EVERYTHING that the Bible tells you to -- it can't POSSIBLY be wrong. You DO make animal sacrifices in the manner GOD commanded you to in Leveticus, don't you? What? You don't? Abomination! Blasphemer! Heretic! Fetch the stones!
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
This is exactly why it's so damn scary to have a religious fundamentalist in the White House. He operates on the idea that he's never wrong about anything. Just once, I'd like to hear him say that he made a mistake. He's got lots of mistakes to choose from, I'd like to hear him own up to just one.
A rebuttal is a perfectly fine thing to have, (I'm damn glad people are rebutting Falwell). However, people who are interested in the rebuttal should be reading it because they want to, not because they typo'd.
I agree, nothing about the website content was misleading. However, I feel the domain that generated the traffic WAS misleading. People that thought they were going to Jerry's site were not. In my book, that kind of exploit is a low move, and not to be encouraged.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
What isn't absurd is to point out that there is zero observational evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a supreme being, nor is there any logical basis to the belief. Wishful thinking is still a logical fallacy, no matter how attractive the idea may be or whether if fills a psychological need.
That said, it's pretty easy to DISPROVE some of the specific dogmatic beliefs through emperical and observational evidence and experimentation. The scriptual observations that Pi = 3.0, or that bats are a kind of bird, or that rabbits chew their cuds are trivial examples of provable Biblical falsehoods. Likewise the widely held belief that praying to Jesus (versus praying to Allah or Ganeesh or Isis) is an effective at curing disease or avoiding natural disaster is easily disproven via double-blind experimental protocol and statistical analysis.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
So Fox news was right to sue Al Franken for using 'Fair & Balanced' in his book title, and unless he gives away every copy of his book for free the judge in the case was wrong?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.