I'm not lawyer but the "complainant's" arguement seems to hold up when put against the standard of legal precedent, which sucks. Just becuase some fatty in some court somewhere who has never heard of a domain name before nor has no concept of what the Internet is or what is represents decides that Walsucks is confusingly similar to Walmart, every domain name with a trademark or partial trademark in it can be seized by the Trademark holder. This is the issue with the Legal Precedent system, there is no rating of the quality of the legal precedent which would be simple by ranking the number of times it has been upheld (which I think is also used to support the legal precident) and by what types of judges in which juristictions. Basically the whole thing rests on the fact that the legal system believes that people are naturally retarded and when using a search engine made to be easy for the lowest common denominator already people can not differentiate between Guinesses site and the guinness-sucks site. Shows what our Judicial system thinks of us.
The case also rested on the fact as to whether the "Respondant" -- Cupcake Patrol was "harassing" the "Complainant" -- Guinness. I would think that the the decision of the panel in some ways impinges on the freedoms of speech granted in the US 1st Ammendment, but it appears as if the case was mediated under British laws. How do we differentiate harassment from voicing one's own opinion on the quality of a beer or the shadyness of a corporation.
Basically the courts will uphold the fattest argument regardless of it's merrit. In this case the Cupcake patrol did not have the resources to produce a really long and unnecessarily wordy legal defense and therefor they were at a significant disadvantage in the current system.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not lawyer but the "complainant's" arguement seems to hold up when put against the standard of legal precedent, which sucks. Just becuase some fatty in some court somewhere who has never heard of a domain name before nor has no concept of what the Internet is or what is represents decides that Walsucks is confusingly similar to Walmart, every domain name with a trademark or partial trademark in it can be seized by the Trademark holder. This is the issue with the Legal Precedent system, there is no rating of the quality of the legal precedent which would be simple by ranking the number of times it has been upheld (which I think is also used to support the legal precident) and by what types of judges in which juristictions. Basically the whole thing rests on the fact that the legal system believes that people are naturally retarded and when using a search engine made to be easy for the lowest common denominator already people can not differentiate between Guinesses site and the guinness-sucks site. Shows what our Judicial system thinks of us. The case also rested on the fact as to whether the "Respondant" -- Cupcake Patrol was "harassing" the "Complainant" -- Guinness. I would think that the the decision of the panel in some ways impinges on the freedoms of speech granted in the US 1st Ammendment, but it appears as if the case was mediated under British laws. How do we differentiate harassment from voicing one's own opinion on the quality of a beer or the shadyness of a corporation. Basically the courts will uphold the fattest argument regardless of it's merrit. In this case the Cupcake patrol did not have the resources to produce a really long and unnecessarily wordy legal defense and therefor they were at a significant disadvantage in the current system.