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 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
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
Don't be silly. If I want to register "restauraunt.com" and never say a word about food on the site, that is my right. If you don't like it you don't frequent it.
Offering to sell a domain name that includes someone else's trademarked name in it to that someone for $$$ is what gets you in trouble under the anticybersquatting rules. Here's the (long_ relevant part of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999:
(d)(l)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person --
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that --
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
(III) is a-trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
(B)(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to --
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of section 43.
(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that regi
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
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.
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.
Maybe the solution is to take away domain names. No more letters. Instead replace it with phone number type domains.
Yeah! Then we'd need a directory of numbers, of course... something to link the numbers back up to names like a phone book. But more convenient. Automatic even. Keep going man, you might invent something great!
I dont know what a "frase" is, but I'm sure if you invented it you could probably copyright it.
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.
Maybe the solution is to take away domain names. No more letters. Instead replace it with phone number type domains.
I suppose what you're looking for already exists
[sarcasm on]
I can see it now:
"So I was reading this article on 66.35.250.150, and it totally reminded be of this quote on 216.154.206.222..."
Yeah, that'd be so much more useful and easy.
[sarcasm off]
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
...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."
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
"If the URL says something then it damn well better be that thing."
And a "slashdot" is what exactly?
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).
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!
The Ninth Circuit webpage has a PDF of the opinion.
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
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.
Sounds like an improvement.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
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...
He using a URL which is assumed to be the main company's. There would be no reason to have the URL except for subterfuge. The original post was right. CompanyXSucks.com would be appropriate.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
How is that possible? The cars were Nissans (not Datsuns) long before Al Gore invented the internet.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion