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.)

Comments

'Nearly identical'

[GillBates0]

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; the judge held that the disputed fallwell.com was "'nearly identical' to the registered trademark 'Jerry Falwell.'" )

and the 'helpful' 'little' snippet by the editor was 'nearly identical' to what the submitter already said in the original writeup.

Re:A good ruling

[malelder]

I understand your point, but my first thought was that this wasn't a good thing. The name was spelled differently, and for me thats enough. I guess I had hoped that on a medium like the web, it was perfectly OK to go ahead and put up a slashdo.org and make it anti-slashdot...so much for the last bastion of (very) free-communication. The article mention an appeal is in motion by the original owner; I'm curious to see how this gets interpreted further up the chain.

I guess I'm stupid to think that people who use the web should learn how to spell...after all, I've been reading a lot of /. posts over the years (;

The more general "we" get in deciding that a domain name is "nearly identical" to another, the less options we have in naming. I'm still bitter though, because the Motor Vehicle Division wouldn't let me put my last name on a license plate...I guess "Christ" is too similar to some other famous person :/

It's reasonable...

[mratitude]

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.

Trademark your religion

[michaelmalak]

The most egregious case of cybersquatting is, of course, whitehouse.com (anchor tag intentionally omitted). But the U.S. government cannot trademark whitehouse.gov.

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?

Re:fair enough

[reallocate]

The judge's decision need to be legally correct, not morally correct.

There's only one legal code, but many moral codes to choose from.

That's why Timothy and the /. 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.

Re:A good ruling

[sploo22]

Given that we're told our rights to speech CANNOT be infringed...

May I quote the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This decision was made by a federal court, not through legislation. The court has the right to, and indeed often does, abridge freedom of speech; this allows for things like gag orders.

Re:A good ruling

[Tassach]

Are you saying that people who belive there are absolutes and that there is a differnce between right and wrong, lack critical thinking skills?

No, I'm saying that anyone who accepts the crap that Falwell spews lacks critical thinking skills.

Anyone who can't recognize that the Christian Bible has numerous internal contridictions, even on basic theological issues, lacks critical thinking skills.