Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jerry Falwell Wins Dispute Over Fallwell.com

Posted by timothy on from the thus-saith-the-court dept.

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.)

4 of 538 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A good ruling by goopie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While yes this was more about Trademarks than Copyrights, it does seem that the operator of the site chose the name specifically to take advantage of the name `falwell` and to counter the rhetoric that Jerry Falwell spews out. Quoting from the article
    Hilton said the site's operator, Christopher Lamparello, intended to divert people from the Jerry Falwell Ministries' Web site "with the direct intent to tarnish or disparage"
    It seems that the ruling of the Judge was centered around that rational rather than simply viewing this as similar site names. So while I may not approve of the tactics nor the message of the Falwell ministry, I would view this as a matter of established trademark law as I understand them. Also, based on the site content of fallwell.com as described in the article, it does seem that he used the site to generate revenue (links to his books on Amazon, etc). gOOpie
  2. fallwell.com vs fallwellsucks.com by landoltjp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Jerry's running a business by DanielMarkham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. Re:A good ruling by goopie · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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!