Court Rules Against Woman Who Didn't Like Search Results

The Seventh Circuit Court has ruled that Beverly Stayart can't sue Yahoo! because she did not like what she saw on the results page after searching for her name. Stayart claimed that her "internet presence" was damaged by Yahoo! because results for a search of her name showed listings which included pharmaceuticals and adult oriented websites. The court disagreed. From the article: "Stayart had sued under Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act, which prohibits false advertising, false implications of endorsement, and so on. Her problem was that a Lanham Act claim requires a showing that the plaintiff has a 'commercial interest' to protect, and Stayart did not have a commercial interest in her own name."

Comments

But....

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone like Tiger Woods or Steve Jobbs could sue Yahoo!?

Re:But....

[mea37]

More likely the judge is just using the most open-and-shut logic applicable in order to put this to bed at minimal cost to all involved. My gut reaction was that this was a Bad Thing, as it left the door open for other litigious behaviors; but when I thought about it, that's the right thing for the court to do: address the case at hand, narrowly.

Probably we could have a grand old time arguing about who's responsible for keyword associations, and who owns what, and on and on... but when the law in question can be quickly shown as inapplicable by examining a single fact, what's the point letting her dump money into an effort that forces Yahoo and the taxpayers to spend additional money as well?

If she's really committed to wasting resources, perhaps she'll have her lawyer come up with another theory with which to bring a suit that cannot be so quickly set aside; if so, I guess the fun will start anew.

Re:But....

[zeropointburn]

Just curious, but isn't it a commercial interest in the modern world when search results are used as part of employee screening? If my name brought up a bunch of scams and raunchy porn in a web search, it is quite possible that a prospective employer would decide not to hire me because of it (in whole or in part). This could be an impact in decisions that directly affect my income.

My guess is that the legal meaning of 'commercial' has little to do with the common meaning, thus leading to my irrelevant conjecture above.

Be Honest

[Ironhandx]

How many of you just went to google images and turned safe search off and searched for this womans name?

I think the answer will illustrate just how bad an idea this was for her.

Re:Be Honest

[Ironhandx]

If you RTFA(I know, I know) she sued both Yahoo and Google, but they haven't tossed the google case out of court yet.

Thought EVERY search came up with pharm/adult site

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out it was just me. How did they know I like drugs and sex?

Beverly Stayart free porn

[A. B3ttik]

Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart

So what if she did?

[KnownIssues]

So what if she did have a "commercial interest" to protect? Could the court have ruled that Yahoo! could be sued for search results in that case? How would you prove that it's not just someone with the same name? It's almost too bad she didn't have a commercial interest to protect, because it would be interesting to see what the ruling would have been in that case. And it would be even more interesting to see how Yahoo! could comply.

Re:So what if she did?

[tool462]

And in her case, she should be glad her search results are polluted with links that are obviously unrelated to her. It will cause any potential employer who might search her name to question the legitimacy of anything he finds.

Re:So what if she did?

[Loadmaster]

A "commercial interest" is not just whatever someone thinks it is. To maintain an action under the Lanham Act you must meet the definition of a "commercial interest" as used/implied by the Act. The court tells you what that means in the opinion.

Stayart’s argument hinges on the claim that by virtue
of her extensive activities, her name has commercial
value. These include: humanitarian efforts on behalf of
baby seals, wolves and wild horses; what she describes
as “scholarly posts” on a website; two poems that
appear on a Danish website; and genealogy research.
To determine whether a person or entity has standing
under 43(a), we look at whether they have “a reasonable
interest to protect” in a commercial activity. Dovenmuehle,
871 F.2d at 700; accord Stanfield v. Osborne Ind., Inc.,
52 F.3d 867, 873 (10th Cir. 1995). Indeed, standing to
assert a 43 claim is limited to a “purely commercial class
of plaintiffs.” Berni v. Int. Gourmet Rest. of Am., 838 F.2d
642, 648 (2d Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). While
Stayart’s goals may be passionate and well-intentioned,
they are not commercial. And the good name that a person
garners in such altruistic feats is not what 43 of
the Lanham Act protects: it “is a private remedy for a
commercial plaintiff who meets the burden of proving
that its commercial interests have been harmed by a
competitor.” Made in the USA Found., 365 F. 3d at 281
(quotation and brackets omitted). We addressed a
similar scenario in Dovenmuehle where we held that,
under the Lanham Act, relatives who had no commercial
interest in their family name did not have a
reasonable interest to protect in the trade name
“Dovenmuehle, Inc.,” and thus lacked standing to sue.
Dovenmuehle, 871 F.3d at 700.

Court opinions are not black boxes. If you want to know why the Judge decided a certain way then read the opinion. It will tell you everything you need to know about that very specific case. If you want to know about "but what ifs" you'll have to look at other cases or look to dicta. Courts don't go on long tangents of hypotheticals.

Anti-Streisend effect....?

[Joce640k]

The hundreds of news stories about this trial seem to have swamped the juicy links and made them vanish.

Is this an 'anti-Streisand' effect?

Re:Anti-Streisend effect....?

[scot4875]

There really is no comparison. The images of Milano were copyrighted and being distributed without permission. There were no images of Stayart herself, copyrighted or otherwise; just that a search for her name returned unrelated links to porn.

There is no irony, or even contradiction. Two completely different issues.

--Jeremy

Re:Anti-Streisend effect....?

[srussia]

The hundreds of news stories about this trial seem to have swamped the juicy links and made them vanish.

Is this an 'anti-Streisand' effect?

No, this is the "Stayart Effect" ®

She got what she wanted

[guyminuslife]

She may have lost in court, but if you search for "Beverly Stayart" now, the first result is actually her.

Be careful what you wish for.

Re:Backwards thinking court

[UnknowingFool]

Someone who is googling and not testing whether the results are false is probably someone you don't want to work for. Also someone who googles a lot would hopefully recognize that sort of thing happens a lot.

Python?

[snspdaarf]

Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart

"Could I have that without so much Beverly Stayart in it?"

"You mean free porn sex sex anal free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens free porn sex sex anal free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens free porn sex sex anal? Eugh!"

"What do you mean, 'Eugh!'? I don't like Beverly Stayart!"

Beverly Stayart? Pfffft.

[bobdotorg]

Let's just hope that Bobbie Goatse never googles herself.

I sympathize with this woman

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

There are others with your plight

Sincerely,

John Q. Viagra