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.)
This 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. I would say (and I know many on Slashdot will hate me for this) this is the correct ruling. It is like if I try to get slashdo.org, and put up a anti Slashdot site, I would be in violation of copyright laws, and the owners of Slashdot would be fully in their rights to sue me to take said site down. Not that I am a Falwell follower, he being a TV preacher, probably one of those decision theologies, and/or send me money to be saved, which I would say both are wrong.
Is slashdot going to kick a scream as loud about this as with Katie.com? It brings up a interesting debate, does a girl on the internet have more pull than the gay community?
And does now that Jerry Falwell has Fallwell, will he also own Tom & Jerry websites, all a's, e's, f's l's j's, r's and w's too? Him, I dont agree with some ways certain groups do things but censorship is censorship in it's ugliest form. Is slashdot going to kick a scream as loud about this as with Katie.com? It brings up a interesting debate, does a girl on the internet have more pull than the gay community? Hmm, I don't agree with some ways certain groups do things but censorship is censorship in its ugliest form.
and the 'helpful' 'little' snippet by the editor was 'nearly identical' to what the submitter already said in the original writeup.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
However folks fall in the religion fueled debate on homosexuality issues (gay marriage, gay "normalcy", etc) this was a middle-of-the-road ruling from a court that appears that didn't side with either of the agendas being pushed.
Like cyber-squat efforts (registering domains like "pepsi.com" when you're not affiliated with Pepsi at all) overall, this was a targeted effort by someone with an agenda. The intent was to squat their agenda on any internet traffic by "hugging" search criteria and even simple mispellings in a url. Their agenda to do this was clearly spelled out.
I expect the people running Drudge Retort to be nervous over a ruling like this.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
The right to free speech does not give you the right to speak when and where you want. No one is saying that the gay activists can't run a website, just that they can't run it on a domain chosen solely to be similar to a trademark.
Going on down the spectrum, there is bush2004.com, which satires Bush. Could Bush trademark his own name so as to shut this site down? At this particular moment of eroding free speech, probably not yet. Criticism of the president holds a special place when it comes to the First Amendment.
Now we step down spectrum another notch to fallwell.com. Jerry Falwell is a prominent religious and political figure -- perhaps not #1 like Bush, but certainly in the top thousand. He is able to squelch criticsm because he trademarked his name.
Falwell has intentionally blurred politics, religion, and business. Trademark was meant to protect consumers from sham products, not restrict discussion of politics and religion.
Here we have trademark law in conflict with the First Amendment regarding politics and religion. Trademark law was already being applied to block criticism of a business. Now it's being extended into politics and religion, the heart of the First Amendment.
Going further on down the spectrum, Robin Ficker, a political candidate of much less stature than Falwell, was unable to shut down robinficker.com. Why? Because he didn't trademark his name.
In the realm of criticizing Falwell, today it's domain names. Will it be blog content tomorrow, like the Ford case?
The judge's decision need to be legally correct, not morally correct.
/. gang get their knickers twisted everytime someone wins a suit against some jerk who deliberately violated a trademark. They -- Timothy, et al -- believe trademarks and copyrights are immoral, so they look at issues based on their dreams and wishes, not on reality.
There's only one legal code, but many moral codes to choose from.
That's why Timothy and the
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Looks like the Federal circuit is fractured on this issue.
Uzi Nissan, as we all know, didn't exactly lose nissan.com, but it's been converted to a placeholder site bereft of content.
Perhaps it's because his site served a purpose other than bashing Nissan Motors, the courts let him keep it.
Still, it's a mixed signal. Why didn't the court just give nissan.com to Nissan Motors? I get the feeling that's what the 4th Circuit would have done.
Conclusion: If you have the domain name that "belongs" to someone bigger than you, you can't step on their toes. You will either lose your domain outright, or lose the right to do anything useful with it.
I wonder what Justice thinks of all this, peering out from behind Ashcroft's curtain.
Posting AC for obvious reasons...
I am ex-gay. At one time, I was completely homosexual, and was not attracted to women whatsoever. Now (four years later), I am completely heterosexual, and happily married. It has been a hard road, and change didn't come instantly, but I stuck with it because I became convicted in my belief that what I was doing was wrong.
In retrospect, I feel that I decieved myself into believing that I was unchangable because I believed that I was happy in my sin. In reality, I was completely dead inside, and my behaviour was driving me into deeper depression because it was absolutely impossible for me to find a meaningful relationship with another man. Reason? As I realize now, two men are just not compatible together in a romantic relationship (and I'm not even talking about the physical part). Now, four years later, I am completely crazy about my wife, and I can't even imagine ever being without her. Yes, I love the sex too (although I'll probably have to turn in my geek card for admitting I've been with a woman). I'm not saying that it's curable for everyone, or anything like that. All I know is what I was, and what I am now. Take it however you want. Mod me troll if you want, but this post is not intended as such, and is the truth of my experience.
Christopher Lamparello, the guy on the other end of the Falwell suit, had it coming. Bad Karma so to speak.
He's a scammer of the first class. He ripped off a family member of mine with his book (should be called a pamphlet) "$1,000 a week for life", where basically he tells you to start a business. He doesn't tell you how, but he pontificates on very many other subjects besides money. $25 for a product that an 8th grader could have come up with.
He's a known Spammer too. Here's the whois for mailordergold.com Domain Name: MAILORDERGOLD.COM
Administrative Contact:
Christopher Lamparello (HISVIQDHMO) chrislamparello@aol.com
875 Avenue of the Americas Suite 1700
New York, NY 10001
US
212.736.1238 fax: 212.736.1181
Technical Contact:
Domain Reg CWS (ILJVDIGYVO) hostmaster@cws.net
829 3rd Ave SE
Suite 225
Rochester, MN 55904
US
507-289-2229 fax: 507-289-0349
He also has 18 unresolved complaints against him per the Better Business Bureau of New York.
what kind of bullshit is that, anyway.
"mine mine miiine..it sounds like my name, give it to me"
If the site were about anything BUT Jerry Falwell, I'm sure the courts would have given the guy a pass. However, since the content of the site IS about Jerry Falwell, the domain name is obviously an attempt to hijack hapless users who misspell his name, the ruling is correct.
People have lost domain names for a lot less than this. A guy named Don Henley had to surrender donhenley.com, even though the page was about himself. A Catholic hospital had to surrender madonna.com.