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."

Comments

copyright?

[latroM]

They are probably talking about the trademark law. But that's what you get when you use the term intellectual property, more confusion.

Re:copyright?

[Macadamizer]

I think that two words would fall under 'fair use' for copyright. You are allowed to take short bits and quote them.

As others have noted, this is a trademark problem, not a copyright problem. There is no "fair use" under copyright here, because words, short phrases and titles are not copyrightable subject matter to begin with.

Re:copyright?

[tverbeek]

They are probably talking about the trademark law. But that's what you get when you use the term intellectual property, more confusion.

It's obvious that this is a trademark question. It has nothing to do with copyright, and it's only confusing if you don't know anything about intellectual property law. Seriously, sometimes /.ers sound as silly as a non-tech person talking about a "56 megahertz" dial-up connection, calling a 3.5" diskette a "hard disk", or saying that Microsoft invented the web browser.

Listen people: if you want to be taken seriously about legal matters, stop jabbering like impassioned no-nothings and learn something about the topic first. Saying "copyright" when you're talking about trademarks is like putting an "I'm an id10t" sticker on your forehead.

So, let the *sucks.com race begin

[The I Shing]

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 keep using that word.

[Elwood P Dowd]

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.

Re:They should have waited

[LiENUS]

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.

Re:Maybe BosleyMedicalSucks.com, but this?

[Yolegoman]

Time for a new TLD: .sucks.

Re:BosleyMedicalSucks.com

[Dun Malg]

But the argument for potential confusion is there.

So long as the site at bosleymedical.com doesn't pretend they ARE Bosley Medical, where's the confusion? You get to the site and see it's a complaint site, and the confusion is over.

With *sucks or *reallysucks domains the confusion argument is rendered mute by the bulk of US court decisions.

Forcing all protest into something like a "(whatever)sucks.com" is like saying picketers can only march along a 40' section of sidewalk around the corner, next to the building loading zone.

Also, the word you're looking for is "moot", not "mute". Arguments are rendered moot.