Slashdot Mirror
Company Name in URL Not Copyright Infringement
Christoph writes "CNN
reports that a man's website, http://www.bosleymedical.com, criticizing the Bosely Medical Institute does not infringe the institute's copyright on its name. The man's attorney is quoted as saying that the court's decision 'is an important victory for free speech on the Internet. It makes clear that consumers can use a trade name for a company they want to criticize.' The appeals court, however, reinstated part of the lawsuit in which Bosley alleged that Kremer is violating a so-called cybersquatting law by allegedly attempting to sell the site to Bosley in exchange for removing the disparaging material."
I bet some people are kicking themselves for not holding on to domain names they
could have sold for $$$$$$.
I would think it'd be a lot easier to have BosleyMedicalSucks.com and get away with it, than BosleyMedical.com
Time to go buy aol.ws
For context, click Parent.
They are probably talking about the trademark law. But that's what you get when you use the term intellectual property, more confusion.
People will be snapping up the *sucks.com domain names now, but be warned, companies will still threaten suits for trade defamation if they find disparaging remarks about them or their products on the web.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
The linked article seems to conflate copyright and trademark. I imagine this is a trademark dispute, not copyright. I don't think you can copyright anything as simple as a name.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
This has been addressed by WIPO in their FAQ. They have specific examples of when a trademark owner can take a domain over.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Copyright... on a name? You mean Trademark?
Yes, yes you do. A quick glance at the article shows they have it right. Trademark is significantly different than copyright; and this seems to me to be a significant decision, but then I'm not a lawyer or anything.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
This reminds me the microsoft case with www.mikerowesoft.com It is just the opposite of what they tout right now.
This isn't about freespeech. This is about slagging off a place under their own name. If I go and register Slashdot.org the second it comes up to be re-registered and turn it into "OMG IT SUCKS TACO IS A GIMP AND COWBOYNEAL IS A FAG!" then I deserve to have the URL taken off me for false advertising in the URL.
If the URL says something then it damn well better be that thing.
I like muppets.
... http://www.microsoftjerks.com
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I think this is wrong. This person purchased a domain name that is the company name and used it to slam a company (or hospital, whatever). Free speech is the right to take out an ad in the newspaper, not use a domain name that can be confused for an offical company website. In other words, I have every right to purhcase "microsoftsucks" but not something like "microsoftware.com". The big difference is that the second domain can be confused for a official company website.
Business Voyeur
I disagree. I as a person using the web want websites accurately named. I can't express the horror I had at school when I accidently went to www.whitehouse.com some many years ago. Not to mention all the SPAM out there that changes one letter of popular websites. The only reason they picked those names is because they know people make mistakes, people who don't want to go to those websites.
Maybe the solution is to take away domain names. No more letters. Instead replace it with phone number type domains. This kind of problem does not seem to exsist with phone numbers. I can't count how many times I have visited wrong websites, but I don't make incorrect phone calls.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Do you think this tatic will work with organizations such as Microsoft or Apple? I doubt they would go quietly.
Would this be limited to domain names? What about misleading signs on the street, and yellow pages listings.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
So does this apply to Nissan Motors trying to sue the guy that has www.nissan.com (which he aquired back when Nissan was still selling vehicles as Datsun)?
The appeals court, however, reinstated part of the lawsuit in which Bosley alleged that Kremer is violating a so-called cybersquatting law by allegedly attempting to sell the site to Bosley in exchange for removing the disparaging material.
Man shoots self in foot. Film at 11.
Repeat after me: you cannot copyright a frase, but if you use it in conjunction with offering a good/service, you can trademark it. It's getting really annoying when even the article posters get the basic facts wrong.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Just have a TLD of .sucks That way I can register aol.sucks
Hmm although this would give a whole lot of p0rn sites a new TLD to use she.sucks etc.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/181621 0&tid=109&tid=98/
he could've had some serious cash.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
I guess paypalsucks.com is safe.
One appears to be false advertising. Many people would go there thinking it was Bosley Medical.
I can't name my restaurant McDonald's. And that's not a violation of my free speech rights.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
But the appeals court disagreed, saying the Web site was not created to make a profit or to confuse Bosley's customers and potential clients. There were no links on the site to other hair-restoration providers, the court noted.
So it seems like the guy is not purposefully attempting to confuse people, which is a good thing. It would be much worse if he had a redirect to a competitor.
The appeals court, however, reinstated part of the lawsuit in which Bosley alleged that Kremer is violating a so-called cybersquatting law by allegedly attempting to sell the site to Bosley in exchange for removing the disparaging material.
But then he tries to do something stupid like this. This is black mail, like if I have pictures of your wife naked and threaten to post them on the web unless you pay me $1000. What can a person do?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I'm tempted to give Zouk a hard to for the usual Slashdot editors sin of posting a story without really reading it. But with so much sloppy thinking by Christoph and that nameless idiot at CNN.com, I guess that's kind of lame.
A "bald-faced effort to get even"? Wasn't that pretty much the problem in the first place?
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
How would this be handled for a domain registered outside the US?
Assuming the registrant is in a country that doesn't respect/fear/give a damn about US laws.
...because I sho' don't believe what I is seeing.
I am really shocked that slashdotters aren't more of a "live free or die" kind of crowd.
Remember when the Internet was the last free (by which I mean uncontrolled, not without monetary cost) outlet of information, not privy to the whims of corporations, governments, or media cartels?
I know I sound like Tim Robbins, or some similar mid-life liberal, but we need to seriously look at what we're proposing when we say that (quotes not verbatim) "if a URL says it is something it damn well better be" and "it's one thing to make a fan site with a trademarked URL, but it's another to express dissent. Dissent isn't fair!"
Wake up, folks. If those of us who dig on the slashdot can't stomach a few wayward URLs, and in fact do not defend the right of computer users to do or say as they wish in cyberspace, this happy little arena will come tumbling down as fast as you can say partisan agenda.
bona-fide sludgesicle man,
pub
I agree 100%. Everyone has free speech rights, to complain or say anything they want, as long as their rights don't infringe my rights. If I want to go to KFC for a chicken dinner, I have a right to go there without having PETA throw buckets of fake blood on me while protesting. If I want to go to work, and my co-workers are on strike, I have a right to drive into the parking lot, the workers don't have a right to block my enterance or threaten me.
So if I want to get medical work done by BosleyMedical, I have a right to use their website. If someone tries to use fraud or deciet in tricking me, by directing me somewhere I did not want to go, then they are violating my rights. But if someone wants to vent, then by all means get BosleyMedicalSucks.com and I'll be 100% happy. I'll know it is not the company, but a website where someone is complaining. I might even visit it, to read what is there, in deciding if I want to use the parent company.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I have a question about the "cybersquatting" portion of the article. From what I understand, they can "get" you legally if you offer to sell the domain.
I own cantarafamily.net. Say hypothetically, there was a doctor's office called "Cantara Family Medicine" and they wanted to buy my domain. Could I be brought up on "cybersquatting" charges if I offer to sell it to them (if the company wanted to be bastardly)? I would offer to sell it to something legitimate if it was a reasonable offer. All I have at that domain is just my family photos 'n stuff. Would I be SOL if they decided to sue me?
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
It's Bosley not Bosely. Spelt wrong on CNN too.
DNS is a problem. What about when 2 or more companies share the same name, and both want websites? It would seem much more fair if everyone got random numbers when they registered.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
The ICANN domain name resolution panels have been divided on this, so this ruling might help settle it -- some.
Don't you think is is reasonable to ave the domain verizonsucks.com and verizonreallysucks.com if you are saying they suck. BTW. Verizon has the domain verizonsucks.com -- I guess it is an admission.
Fight Spammers!
yeah, i was horrified when i went to whitehouse.com in high school too.
so horrified i had to go back a couple times just to make sure i was so horrified.
it was terrible. just terrible.
I remember the good old days, when the internet was new, there was no google, just webcrawler and excite. I remember when gopher was useful. And back then, there was no porn on the web, not like today. Back then if I wanted to search for breast cancer, I could type it in and get useful websites. The content on the web was mostly created by university students and professors, or really bright people who wanted to share information. It was not for profit, it was because people wanted to share information.
Fast forward 10-15 years. Now everyone wants to use the interenet to make a dollar. It does not matter if the company has any service to offer. I would bet more websites exsist with links to porn than places that sell porn. Those links pay a penny each, so people think of ways to trick people into clicking.
I would like to see the web cleared of porn and for-profit companies. Make it a place where people can get information. Maybe have a new "web" that is just univeristies and ".org" type websites. And then index them correctly, unlike what google is starting to do, and push people to the top who pay, and where people use tricks to get higher search results. Maybe have a index where someone at the company goes to the website and reviews it.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
This isn't about freespeech. This is about slagging off a place under their own name.
And that is different from free speech how?
If I go and register Slashdot.org the second it comes up to be re-registered and turn it into "OMG IT SUCKS TACO IS A GIMP AND COWBOYNEAL IS A FAG!" then I deserve to have the URL taken off me for false advertising in the URL.
Clearly, you don't understand how domain registration works. The owner will get many emails asking him for money to reregister it, for many months prior to its being expired. In fact, slashdot.org is more than likely registered for a much longer period of time than usual - probably for 10 years or more.
In other words, it is the domain owner's responsibility to make sure the domain doesn't get stolen from under him. If slashdot's owner manages to forget to renew it, he definitely deserves to have it ripped from his loins.
If the URL says something then it damn well better be that thing.
As another reply mentioned, what is a "slashdot"?
I've lost domains in the past for using a companies product in the domain names, ex buy-widget.com. Seeing as those my sites were blank at the time, I probably could have fought to keep the domains. I would still like to know - does generating a profit on a site exclude you from rights that would allow you to keep a domain?
All this ruling says is that you can use the trademarked name to reference the company you are criticizing even in a url. This web site clearly contains information that is critical of Bosley Medical Institute and this person is not trying to compete with them by misleading. Heck even pepsi and coke can use eachothe's trademarks in commercials when the point is to levy criticism. The principal test here is confusion and the effect of confusion. Do a google search for bosleymedical.com and you will even see that the search result makes it clear that this site is a critical site and not bosley medical institute itself.
What they cannot do is put content that is critical on the site just to ask them for money to shut them up. Be like me picketing a store and asking the owner to pay me to go away.
Ahem.
The Ninth Circuit webpage has a PDF of the opinion.
I was thinking of becoming a Bosley customer. I typed in bosleymedical.com and what I read there might have saved me some grief. I still have the problem but Bosley won't be providing a solution.
http://www.taubmansucks.com/Act108.html
...allegedly attempting to sell the site to Bosley in exchange for removing the disparaging material
Can't he just remove the disparaging material and retain the site? Or does he only sell it if Bosley agrees to remove the disparaging material? Why wouldn't they?
...allegedly attempting to sell the site to Bosley in conjuction with offering to remove the disparaging material
I have a mail server at home in which I create aliases that I give out so I know where the email address has been given from.
For example, I created an email: dmv@[myhomedomain].com so that I could have the DMV of California email me, and I would know if I got spam that it came from them.
I received several emails and letters from the DMV head lawer for me to "cease and dessist immediately" from using DMV as I would be infringning on their right to "defend their BRAND"
I told him how, as a public office, I did not feel that he had a brand, and that since I was using it only for the DMV to contact me, but they were adamant that I stop using it as an email alias.
I actually submitted this issue as an ask slashdot, but it was rejected...
Sweet! didn't even know there was such an ongoing trial. but now that the verdict is out, that means http://www.paypalsucks.com/ and http://www.bestbuysux.org/ gets to stay!
HD Trailers
it seems the judges were not without a sense of humor:
from the 9th Federal Circuit, Court of Appeals, the summary:
Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Michael Steven Kremer
"Defendant Michael Kremer wes dissatisfied with the hair restoration services provided to him by the Bosley Medical Insitute, Inc. In a bald-faced effort to get even, Kremer started a website at www.BosleyMedical.com, which, to put it mildly, was uncomplimentary of Bosley Medical Insitute. The problem is that "Bosley Medical" is the registered trademark of the Bosley Meidcal Institute, Inc., which brought suit against Kremer for trademark infringement and like claims. Kremer argues that noncommercial use of the mark is not actionable as infringement under the Lanham Act. Bosley responds that Kremer is splitting hairs..."
Hey its the K-Man!
The appeals court, however, reinstated part of the lawsuit in which Bosley alleged that Kremer is violating a so-called cybersquatting law
I guess Jackie Chiles is still going strong, but what has this got to do with Charlies Angels?
NB: Yeah yeah, Kramer. I met Micheal Richards, I think I scared him a bit.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Some companies have tried, and failed. If you're putting up a purely inflammatory site with little to support your opinion, you may get slammed in court. If you're posting a site with legitimate/true stories etc in a regards to a company's actions, then you'll likely be better off.
When you've told them to fuck off and they try to get you to stop.
For bonus points, take them to court for copyright infringement for keeping the "mydomain" message in their mailserver.
Trademarks are there to identify products--both in their good and in their bad aspects. It is completely appropriate to use a trademark to say bad things about a product.
What you cannot do is cybersquat (occupy a trademarked domain name for the purpose of selling it to the trademark holder) or mislead trick people into buying goods under the trademarked name without authorization of the trademark holder.
I think we've decided this issue in the past a number of times.
.org or .us domain name he wanted, no one would have a problem with that I think. Maybe the TLD administrators should lock down who can register domains at certain TLD's? Does that sound like a better answer?
Domain names like "ford.com" should belong to Ford Motor Company, if it's in America. At the minimum fordmotorcompany.com is theirs as they hold the U.S. Trademark for that specific name.
Besides the TLD is ".com" for a reason, it is supposed to be a company, LLC, corporation et. al. The person in question could hold a
I say self-policeing is the best kind. Fight for freedom, but let's use some common sense.
Get your Unix fortune now!
The reason why the court reinstated the ACPA claim is because there is no language in the cybersquatting act that protects non-commercial use.
For trademark (not copyright as the article mistaken called it) infringement, the law requires that the use be commercial. It is a pretty big difference because commercial speech gets far less protection under the First Amendment than non-commercial specch.
In this case, the Plaintiff went through great lengths to try to show that the use was commercial, going so far as to argue that because the Bosley cybersquatting site links to a message board that has advertising sponsors, the Bosley site was in fact commercial use. That just doesn't fly! The First Amendment can and should protect non-commercial uses for trademarks, especially for comment, criticism and analysis.
Here's a link for the lazy
I've not gotten sued for UAWSucks.org -- no law suits. I've not had a whole lot of time to develop it, but the "fair use" stuff it supposed to talk about the precents set in the taubmansucks.com debacle of a few years back.
In other words, I thought courts had already established that "sucks" was okay. Granted, the difference in this case is there was no "sucks" in the domain name.
"[...] Bosley alleged that Kremer is violating a so-called cybersquatting law by allegedly attempting to sell the site to Bosley in exchange for removing the disparaging material."
So Kremer (the guy with the website) will sell it to Bosley (the company) if they remove disparaging material from his site? No. Try again.
http://www.bosleymedical.com
Bosely Medical Institute
they aren't even spelled the same, or is that just great slashdot spelling again?
The exclusive use of a mark (like a printed word) to represent a company, product, service, etc, is covered by trademark, not copyright. And trademarks do not protect from use in representing satire, parody or criticism - as long as the mark is still used to represent the same entity. Who pays these lawyers for these ill-advised lawsuits?
--
make install -not war
Wouldn't it be trademark infringement instead?
copyright != trademark
copyrights cover designs, code, things produced
trademarks cover names, images, logo, sayings (short company slogan)
patents cover ideas and processes/methods
Sorry I don't understand. How is this any different than the people in the past that were hit with lawsuits and sued by companies for using the company's name in a URL? If when the person holding the URL wasn't looking to blackmail the company and hold it for ransom?
If yo go to the site, you can clearly see it is not the company's actual site. The court also ruled this.
Fight Spammers!
Not quite parallel, but an interesting read.
In that case, the defendant had created a web site with a "similar" URL to the official URL for the shopping mall. His site was a fan site offering lots of free information about the mall. The developer of the mall sued him, after which he registered 5 "protest domains" which consisted of variations of the trademarked name with "Sucks" appended. The courts have upheld this use as an exercise of free speech and not infringing the trademark (because they can't reasonably be confused with the company that owns the trademark).
If [you] go to the site, you can clearly see it is not the company's actual site. The court also ruled this.
Absolutely. But the point I was trying to make was that the URL suggests that it is the company's website. Validity of assumptions aside, people usually assume that a company uses its name as the basis for its homepage. If I wanted online information about Ford trucks, for example, I'd assume that I could find it at "ford.com". Cybersquatting excepted, this is usually the case.
This ruling clearly nullifies those types of assumptions. I suppose that one of the (debatably) more sinister things to do would be to discover some new company that will be competing in your field. For $5 a pop, you can register 100 domains along the lines of "companyname.com", "companynamesite.com", "companyname[etc].com", ... and, as long as you can "clearly see it is not the company's actual site", then this ruling should protect you against being sued. $500 is pretty cheap to ensure that the new company has a hard-to-remember, non-intuitive URL.
Again, just one of those "interesting" observations, IMO. I usually go with the "register your domain early" camp.
A man who killed thirty-seven people by strangling them to death has been found innocent of shoplifting.
-37 redundant
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does this mean, Mike Roe has a chance again?
How does this relate to that issue? Anybody a lawyer?
A domain name is essentially a machine's hostname, and should bear little to no relationship to the name of a company which "owns" the machine. For example: German companies might have an umlaut in the name. But their servers' domain name can't.
Corporate Names should represent a discrete namespace from domain names, and web-browsers should support being able to map that namespace over to domain names. Copyright/Trademark law should only apply to this Corporate Name namespace, and not EVER to a technical concern like a DNS Domain Name.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I can't remember.. but I thought a while ago for something to be copyright it had to be thirteen words or longer. Not sure how that would work for single urls..
But this isn't a case of copyright infringement but trademark infringement.. I did this back asswards because I'm posting first and reading TFA later..
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
Can a retailer, say Joe's Electronics, use a domain like sonytvs.com? Or, say, ibm-computers.com?
The retailer is not really pretending to be sony or ibm, but it could be interpreted as confusing perhaps. So I would think the manufacturer with a trademarked name could restrict some variations?
Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
Not surprisingly, this is a trademark case - submitter is confused. It's really not hard - trademarks are for business names, while patents are for (hopefully) innovative and industrially applicable technical ideas (even if re-invented by someone else). Copyright is for the specific expression of an idea (i.e. your particular sci-fi novel or web application, not the *idea* of sci-fi novels or web applications).
How come the editors don't catch this sort of basic mistake? They only post a handful of stories a day, and checking the short text from each submitter can't be that hard... Yes, I know the editors never read the stories and barely skim the submissions...
jabbering like impassioned no-nothings...
What's a no-nothing? Someone who says "no" to nothing? Yew mite consider a "kn0w-n0th1n9" sticker fore you're own fourhead.
attempting to sell the site to Bosley in exchange for removing the disparaging material.
Ok, which is it? Is the offensive team saying he tried to sell them the site, or that he is selling the removal of the disparaging material while retaining ownership of the site? Is English the first language of these Reuter's reporters?
Not much detail given on this "offer". Was it made verbally or is there actually evidence (ie. a document).
Let's have a hypothetical:
1. Man makes disparaging website about company
2. Company threatens man hoping to make him stop
3. Man tells company to take running jump at wall
4. Company consults lawyer, told man is acting legally.
5. Company verbally offers to buy website from man first.
6. Man replies to company refusing all offers until the price becomes so high he is tempted.
7. Company goes to court, fails miserably, then launches appeal that man was cybersquatting based on his acceptance of the huge offer they made for the URL, that they never intended to pay.
Those who possess extreme greed know how it affects people and use it to their benefit...
-- Howto: Get +5 (1) Whine about M$ (2) Namedrop Gentoo (3) Casually Abuse Mods (4) Namedrop Early Computer Model
Maybe it's just a really big "tip" as a "thank you" for "handing the site over" to Bosley? And as part of "routine maintenance", he'll remove all the data he owns so their new webspace is fresh and clean. It's like moving out of your house... you know? :-)
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!