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.
Praise Jessus. (Not to be confused with Jesus)
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
www.fallwell.com
Sometimes it is quite unlear if the domain name is the same because of conisidence, but in this case, Lamparello's site criticizes Falwell's stance against homosexuality and includes a disclaimer that reads, "This Web site is not affiliated with Jerry Falwell Ministries.", the site using the "same name" even admits they did choose the name because of the resembelence. This is something very different from the kathy.com story where Pengiun is trying to steal another persons domain for no reason.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
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
In related news Ben Jery's Ice Cream won a judgemnt aginst Jerry Falwell for infringing on theri trademark as being nearly identical..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
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. Considering Falwell's audience, the judge was probably right.
C:\>
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.
Headline : "Court rules religious websites illegal."
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Anyone remember the first lawsuits against from verizon against 2600 for verizonreallysucks.com ? I can't remember who won, but 2600s case was that the first amendment protected their right to make an anti-verizon website.
I suggest that the gay community registers fallwellsucks.com, a website dedicated to how much of a bigot fallwell is. Or, as www.fallwell.com previously was, a classy activists site void of name calling and libel...
-n
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.
Here's an image that triggered an earlier Falwell lawsuit against Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine:
f licts/print/falwell.html
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/cases-con
Ironically enough, Falwell lost that one.
In a related incident, The Alliance for Feline-Americans was dismayed at the loss of the FallWell.com domain, with their spokesman Richard Manx stating, "In this day and age it is imperative that young FAs [kittens] across this world learn how to land on their feet, literally. With this news he lose our hopes for establishing a website to teach youngsters how to learn this skill." AFA has been unable to secure LandWell.com, AFA.com, AFA.org, CatLand.com, 9lives.info or any other number of domains. When advised by Dr. E. Thomas Lanzburg of the Feline Health Center at Cornell that the ability to land on four feet seems to be in fact, genetic, the eminent biologist was clawed in the face by three onlookers.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Will www.godhatesfigs.com be shut down beacuse it is too similar to another site
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
THIS POSTING IS IN NO WAY ASSOCIATED WITH SLASHDOT NOR BOISCOUT'S POSTING, NOR IS IT AN ATTACK ON Mr BOISCOUT NOR DOES IT SEEK COMMERCIAL GAIN THROUGH ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION.
Buy my book here that explains why boisscout is oh so wrong. All proceeds to my personal bank account.
THIS POSTING IS IN NO WAY ASSOCIATED WITH SLASHDOT NOR BOISCOUT'S POSTING, NOR IS IT AN ATTACK ON Mr BOISCOUT NOR DOES IT SEEK COMMERCIAL GAIN THROUGH ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
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?
Oh I didn't realise my name was copyrighted to me. Well considering my name is John Lynch, I have a bone to pick with a certain actor and a certain football player.
I'd go after my grandfather but I think he may have prior art in that case actually.
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?
Even if you didn't like her or her movies, it could be argued that this site was designed to take traffic away from another site, given the nature of the star.
You are right, this is a very different issue. In this case, they are trying to suppress a viewpoint that is not in line with theirs, even though the people of that view are clearly stating that they are in no way affiliated with Falwell Ministries.
So this is a freedom of speech issue. They chose a simliar name for their domain. But the fact that they are making it very clear that they aren't affiliated makes this a free speech issue. I think if they weren't making that clear, then Falwell would be right.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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
What's this have to do with free speech? They guy can say whatever he wants.
He just can't pretend, or try to trick people, into thinking he's someone else saying those things.
With freedom comes responsibility. With freedom of speech comes responsibility for deciept, slander, libel, harassment, etc..
So let him register Fallwellsucks.com or something else. I hate sleazy little scams like this.
What if I registered stallman.com and started selling XP Pro and SCO licenses through it, and ranting about viral licenses and how open source is destroying the economy? Or trovalds.com and I can talk about how crappy linux is.
Even with a microprint disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying "I am not affiliated with blah blah all similarities are pure coincidence".
I wonder if slashdotters would jump to defend my "freedom to pretend I'm Linus and tell people how much linux sucks and how many patents I willingly infringed".
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
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
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.
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?"
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
It has been a common practice for some religious organizations to register their symbols as trademarks. (The Church of Christ, Scientist has registered their circular emblem, for example.) "Watchtower" and "Awake" are two pamphlets put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses; should they be denied the right to register the name of their publications as trademarks same as any other magazine? Isn't a particular church entitled to protection of its brand of God against tarnishment by another Trap of Satan(TM)'s brand of God?
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
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.
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?
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
No one would be confused by that.
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
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.