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."
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 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.
The reason he got away with this is because he was not selling the domain name for money. The judge ruled since he was not linking to competing hair loss clinics it was ok.
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
Time for a new TLD: .sucks.
If you want to use a "phone number type" system, you're more than welcome to use 66.35.250.150 to come to Slashdot from now on. And 216.239.37.99 for Google. Can you remember those numbers without writing them down?
The whole point of having domain names is so you don't have to remember the IP address of the computers you want to connect to. DNS is the "yellow pages" of the Internet. If someone wanted to, they could register their phone sex business as "Teh White House" in the phone book.
Scrapping DNS is certainly not the solution.
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."
Probably not. It is prefectly legal to have a domain name that is identical to or incorporates someone else's trademark, as long as the domain name was registered in "good faith," i.e., was registered without the intent to profit from the domain name's relationship to the trademark. You could have "nissan.com" and put up your vacation photos, or information on your model trains, or whatever -- as long as you didn't use the domain to talk about cars (then you get into "likelihood of confusion"), or try to sell it to Nissan for PROFIT! (runs afoul of anticybersquatting laws), or otherwise try and drive traffic to your site because people are confused by the name, then you are okay.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
That's one of the reasons why it caved. If I recall correctly, he was selling his own software on that site and from TFA, one of the two biggest reasons why this was allowed was because the site owner was not profiting (the other being that there was no intention of misdirection).
Also, to say the WIPO "is not the law" is misleading. Lose a case against them and you will lose your domain name.
The WIPO is not a legal court of law. They can take away your domain name, but appeal in a court of law, and win, and the WIPO's decision is moot. A real court can put anyone who disagrees with them in jail, or impose fines. If the court says the domain is yours, any registrar who honers the WIPO transfer from you can find themselves shut down.
From the article: A man can disparage a hair-restoration company on a Web site using the company's name without violating copyright law, an appeals court ruled Monday.
They screwed it too.
It's entirely possible the guy just wants a refund from the company and/or compensation for the trouble of setting up the site and whatever costs he has incurred from the website.
It could be blackmail, but without knowing what this guy is thinking, I don't think we can reach that conclusion. If he's a greedy bastard, it's probably blackmail even if it didn't start out that way. But what do we really know about the guy's sense of morality and ethics?
It's not quite the same thing as naked pictures of your wife. This guy has perfectly legitimate reasons to want to post this information outside of whatever potential profit he may or may not hope to gain.
And heck, it's entirely possible his attempt to sell was in response to the company attempting to buy him off.
"We'd be happy to pay you $X to remove the site."
"Okay, that's fair."
"Ha, sucker! See you in court."
It depends on who controls the TLD. If the TLD is an ICANN TLD, then there is the Uniform Domain Name Duspute Resolution system, or whatever it's called.
.tz is doesn't have anticybersquatting rules, or if Microsoft hadn't registered their trademark in wherever .tz is, then Microsoft would be outta luck.
Also, most countries have trademark laws, and big companies obtain trademarks in as many countries as they can, so they can take advantage of local laws.
But yeah, if someone registered microsoft.com.tz or whatever, and whereever
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
A secondary question comes up. Let's say that I register cantarafamily.org and use it to make fun of your family photos. You come to me and say "take that down". If I say to you that I will not take it down, but that I will *sell* it to you for whatever price, am I cybersquatting?
Actually you are. The anticyrbersquatting protection act (and now trademark law) gives specific protections in certain case when someone registers a domain using another's name as the domain name, even if they are not famous. So, the rules set forth in the case in the article would also apply to a domain that used a family name to make fun of said family.
My impression of cybersquatting is that it needs to have the express goal of being sold. When you go to a domain and see a big spammy page that says "this domain is for sale", that's cybersquatting. Putting up an inflammatory site and demanding money to remove it is blackmail... not cybersquatting.
Both are cybersquatting. The first example is clearly cybersquatting. The second would be cybersquatting under the provisions that the use of the domain must be in "good faith." But that doesn't mean that their might not be an extortion or defamation case as well...
I suppose it comes down to contact. If I call you with a proposal and say "pay me", that's one thing. If you come to me with requests and I say "pay me", that's a whole different thing.
Not according to U.S. trademark law.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Domains are ~5 dollars.
Register variations. It's cheap and it's worth it. At least, that's what they taught us to do in the Cisco website design class I took.
On a sidenote, did anyone else notice a new "No Karma Bonus" checkbox next to Post Anonymously?
For context, click Parent.
Actually, I think that becuase you aren't representing them nor selling something as them, then you are ok.
/two bits
What I *think* they were thinking was that you could be sending emails as dmv@domain.tld -- and this would probably tick them off, as you could be causing trouble in their lands (not that I think they could do anything about it... but...)
Generally, the reply of "The please list to me every alias or email address I can not have, so that I may purge my database. I would also like proof of you owning said names and characters. Failure to produce a clean and consice list will result in your emails being ignored and this alias continued. I would also like to note that since that email alias is the one I contact you with, that you are implying that you do not want to contact me anymore and would thusly like to contact me via telephone (insert number here). I would like a signed statement of the such, so I can keep for my records."
I say this, becuase I've been in the same boat as you... usually they just stop talking. If they then proceed to nag you, get a signed letter and remove the name. Afterall, if they need to send you something, they've done promised they would contact you via telephone. I, personally, would not accept snail mail as an option as it can't be trusted (yes, sir, we mailed it 3 months ago. What? you didn't get it. Too bad, so sad; you get the idea). I've never recieved a signed letter, but they usually stop talking because they aren't willing to back up their talk.
It ain't legal if it ain't on paper... generally speaking, of course.
"Do or do not. There is no try." -- Master Yoda (Half man, half muppet)