If instead they had used petasucks.org, I doubt that the case would have turned out the same way. Parody would be protected, and it's hard to claim trademark disputes since the whole domain name is not trademarked. However, the fact that peta.org is probably the first place that people will look when finding info on PETA, and such parody would hurt PETA's image
Whoops! you blew it here. go to the 2600.com web site and learn what corporate america thinks of www.verizonsucks.com.
This gets interesting when you consider that the Porn industry has been doing it for years. i.e. When "Saving Private Ryan" came out, the porn industry had a movie called "Saving Ryans Privates" couldn't that be argued as possibly confusing and potentially resulting in trademark dilution?
I feel confident this question has been answered in case law, but I don't know which cases. Any Law student's out there still have their free WestLaw acocunt to check this out with?
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops! you blew it here. go to the 2600.com web site and learn what corporate america thinks of www.verizonsucks.com.
This gets interesting when you consider that the Porn industry has been doing it for years. i.e. When "Saving Private Ryan" came out, the porn industry had a movie called "Saving Ryans Privates" couldn't that be argued as possibly confusing and potentially resulting in trademark dilution?
I feel confident this question has been answered in case law, but I don't know which cases. Any Law student's out there still have their free WestLaw acocunt to check this out with?