Jerry Falwell Wins Dispute Over Fallwell.com 538
setzman writes "According to this article from CNN, conservative minister Jerry Falwell has succeeded in shutting down a web site run by a gay activist on the domain fallwell.com. The judge said it was 'nearly identical' to the registered trademark 'Jerry Falwell' name and was likely to be confusing to Web surfers." (This was a Federal case, held in the 4th Circuit Court.)
A good ruling (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A good ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
>>
No it's not... the ruling seemed to center around a registered trademark.
copyright!=trademark
Me, I think it's crap... trademarks aren't all encompassing (or shouldn't be)... now if the owner of the site was in the same industry, maybe it would make more sense...
*shrug*
e.
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A good ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, maybe I'm just nuts ... but why shouldn't someone have the intent to tarnish or disparage?
I'm not entirely sure whose "side" of this I fall on, but let me declare my prejudices: I am a fundamentalist Christian, so that might make you think I'm biased toward Mr. Falwell. But I don't believe Falwell is a Christian nor a preacher of the Christian Gospel, so that might make you think I'm biased against.
It seems to me this decision is legally correct. I thought at first the website owner was actually named Fallwell (note spelling) but apparently that is not the case. According to law as it stands, the site was registered in bad faith and should apparently be taken away. Since I believe in the rule of law, I would tend to agree that this should be done even if I disagree with the law in question (and that if there's a problem with the law it should be changed).
So, is there a problem with the law? I kind of feel like there is. In fact, I kind of feel like the First Amendment would make whatever law is involved here unconstitutional. Given that we're told our rights to speech CANNOT be infringed, where do we really get off saying that people can't say bad things about other people? Sure, the site tarnishes and disparages Mr. Falwell ... so what's the big deal? People tarnish and disparage me all the time. And I dare say Mr. Falwell does his own tarnishing and disparaging of some folks. Why is some of this protected speech and some of it illegal?
I was under the impression that trademark law was about preventing someone from misrepresenting themselves or their business as you or your business. That there had to be some reasonable chance that those encountering the trademark violation could confuse it for the real thing. Now, let's be honest ... is someone looking for Mr. Falwell online going to be confused by this site into thinking Mr. Falwell is suddenly posting gay activist material?
And if someone really was that confused ... aren't they really beyond help no matter how many laws we pass or legal actions we take?
In this case I don't see how you could possibly confuse these two. And even in cases where confusion could possibly result ... I'm still not sure why the burden is not on the consumer/customer/whoever to verify identity. We live in a world where it doesn't take long to confirm or disprove facts. Nowadays when you hear an urban legend, you can google around and usually find out the truth, even amongst websites that continue to propagate the legend. Here's an example exercise: is "Duck tape" a proper spelling of "Duct tape"? The answer may surprise you, and even though the common misknowledge about the origin of this term is all over the internet, the truth exists and comes up high on a search. Seems to me that in the same way if some entity misrepresents itself as another entity, it won't take long for someone on the web to state that fact and for that fact to start becoming evident on a search. (And in the meantime we have fraud law to deal with the problem if anyone is taken in.)
Why exactly is our legal system worried about tarnishing, disparaging, or people with so little mental prowess they would confuse Jerry Falwell with a gay activist?
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes people will blindly follow some chir
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
May I quote the First Amendment?
This decision was made by a federal court, not through legislation. The court has the right to, and indeed often does, abridge freedom of speech; this allows for things like gag orders.
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Good lord what a great piece of hair-splitting.
I think you'll find the correct answer is: the court's are not above the law, nor are they above the Constitution.
To put it succinctly consider: who defines what free speech is?
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the trademark laws are created by congress, the courts must interperet them as being limited by the constitution. The owner of fallwell.com can say whatever he wants about the nutcase who he dislikes, as long as it is not libelous. However he cannot represent himself as a person or business without permission. By registering that domain, he is representing hi
Re:A good ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
1. The Scientologists open up a storefront to sell their books and recruit followers.
Can the Scientologists shut you down?2. You lease the storefront right next door and paint your storefront and doorway to match theirs.
3. You call your storefront "Science, Really".
4. You distribute free pamphlets and sell your book which is critical of Scientology.
Yes, you've tried to lure people into your storefront by making it appear to be another entrance to theirs. Is that illegal?
If you answer "Yes," then substitute this for step 3.3. You put no sign on your storefront.
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I don't mind parody sites, as long as the domain is not simply a mistake spelling of the name. And is clearly labeled for what it is.
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Hrm... I recall the http://www.katie.com/ [katie.com] fiasco, and in that case, I think the right result was finally achieved. The publisher blinked.
This case though seems different.
You have an individual who disagrees with with Jerry Fallwell concerning homosexuality and gay rights. That's all good. If this were merely a parody or disenting view website I'd think that it should fall under free-speech guidelines. But the guy had links to Amazon for a book he published. The arguement then becomes that this was not an issue of free speech, but rather commericially motivated.
Is this the correct reasoning, I don't know. But based on what I read in the article, I don't think the judge erred in his decision. The arguements presented to the judge seemed to be that the use of falwell.com was a deliberate attempt to use the etablished name of Fallwell in an attempt to drive traffic to his site for the intent of selling more books. Asked to base a decision on that regard, and asked to consider this under trademark law, I don't think the judge really could have decided otherwise.
Was this an attempt by Jerry Fallwell and his ministry to silence criticism of his preachings? I'd say most certainly, and ethically, that sort of attack against falwell.com was wrong. Far better would have been to ask the owner of falwell.com to have a link saying something like `if you meant to go to blah blah blah`. But then again, from what I have seen of Jerry Fallwell, reasonable might have been too much to hope for.
I should have been more precise in stating my views originally.
gOOpie
And I should have remembered to add break-tags in my original message... darn lack of coffee!
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Says who? It's no different than when MCI had a "1-800-OPERATER" number to play off misspellings of AT&T's "1-800-OPERATOR" [icbtollfree.com]. So long as the service at the end of the number/URL correctly indentifies itself and isn't doing anything fraudulant, no harm and no foul. "This isn't the site you're looking for, but how about this instead?" is no worse than a 404.
Re:A good ruling (Score:4, Funny)
A bouncy, purple, teletubby hell.
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's protected free speech if you publish it out of pocket but loses its protection if you find a way to finance it? That upholds the notion that freedom of the press is only for those who own one. In a society so dominated by capital, if you are unable to raise money for your opinion then you're effectively censured.
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Commercial speech is less protected (as it should be) than non-commercial speech. If Fallwell.com was merely an attempt to capitalize on spelling errors, then this is not different than for me to register Mircosoft as a platform for me to promote non-Microsoft software.
Now, if I put Mircosoft.com as a place for a parody like mslinux.org, that would probably be protected. Fallwell.com could have been a mere parody and that would have been acceptable, but it wasn't.
Nothing in the ruling effectively silences the guy. They just prevent him from profiting by diverting traffic in a deliberate attempt to divert value from a registered trademark. This is probably fair.
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
The traffic itself... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Informative)
Nope - Larry Flynt was already accused, tried, and acquitted of doing just that in Hustler magazine decades ago. I'll leave the search for the parody he did up to the reader...
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Informative)
BTW- Slashdot has reported [slashdot.org] on Jerry's crusade to trademark his name in the past. He even sent people overseas to lobby WIPO.
Re:A good ruling (Score:2)
Re:A good ruling (Score:2)
That being said, i don't agree with this decision, because while a pro-gay site may be offensive to Falwell's followers, they are adults(though if they are looking for Falwell's webiste and can't spell his name, one has to question their intelligence....) and can
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Funny)
You sure that's true? I thought porn' was protected as free speech in the US. (Bizarre really as I have to wonder how those women can say anything: they always seem to have their mouths full.)
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Funny)
No, you wouldn't.
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess I'm stupid to think that people w
fallwell.com vs fallwellsucks.com (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that using another entity's name to divert traffic for your own means is a violation, what about the use of derivations that show a defined antagonistic slant? For example, what if someone hosts www.fallwellsucks.com?
I've heard of companies going after people that host www.<entity>sucks.com sites, but I think that they most definitely be allowed since the name is clear in its differentiation from, and bias against, the entity.
JennaJamesonSucks.Com (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A good ruling (Score:2)
Also, copyright applies to stealing the text of another, not having a similar name. Although slimy, I don't think using a similar name should be in violation of anything unless the user of the similar name is trying to represent themselves as the original.
So, copying the look and feel or t
What Profit? (Score:2)
I believe that hosting an anti-Jerry-Falwell site identical to the one that was shut down on fallwell.org minus the amazon link would still be perfectly legal. Only those rich enough to pay for their bandwidth out of their own pocket get to speak loudly...
People's names are copyrightable (Score:3, Funny)
I'd go after my grandfather but I think he may have prior art in that case actually.
Re:A good ruling (Score:2, Funny)
(Disclaimer: I was raised Roman Catholic.)
Re:A good ruling (Score:2, Offtopic)
Informative?!? INFORMATIVE!?! FFS I was being **FUNNY**.
Hmm maybe the mod' accidentally selected the wrong category on the drop down. Ok I'll take whatever I can get.
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Informative)
You don't get karma++ for funny, to misquote from the
We want you to be smart, not smartassed.
But you did get karma++ for the informative, assuming that it holds up in metamod.
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Funny)
I have Excellent Karma already, thanks but I have enough :-)
Re:A good ruling (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A good ruling (Score:2)
Re:A good ruling (Score:3)
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
The ruling is not limiting the free speech of the website owner. They did not say he wasn't allowed to say what he wanted to. However, it is preventing that website owner from using confusion about the spelling of Falwell's own name as a conduit to criticize Falwell.
If the domain had been 'falwellthefucktard.com', there would have been no problem. There would have been no confusing that the site you're visiting is not Jerry's site.
It CAN be brought up as a trade issue, as Falwell apparently uses his website for the sale of his book(s).
It's a Federal court, by the way, which is an important distinction. The court's ruling is simply that you cannot use confusion as a means to further your own agenda.
Just cuz Falwell's a prick doesn't mean that we're allowed to abuse his name to endanger his livelihood. He can be removed from the popular eye with education and tolerance, without resorting to trickery.
~D
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, nothing about the website content was misleading. However, I feel the domain that generated the traffic WAS misleading. People that thought they were going to Jerry's site were not. In my book, that kind of exploit is a low move, and not to be encouraged.
~D
Re:A good ruling (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Informative)
I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed. (this one I like)
God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev. Pat Robertson agreed, quoted from John F. Harris, "God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)
The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev. Pat Robertson again agreed, quoted from AANEWS #958 by American Atheists (September 14, 2001)
And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, quoted from John F. Harris, "God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)
I sincerely believe that the collective efforts of many secularists during the past generation, resulting in the expulsion from our schools and from the public square, has left us vulnerable.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, after the 700 Club broadcast wherein he had blamed civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, speaking to The New York Times, quoted from Dick Meyer, "Holy Smoke," CBS News (September 15, 2001)
I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist, [but America's] secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, backpedaling amidst criticism of his statement blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, quoted from John F. Harris, "God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)
Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged"? In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time -- calling upon God.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, justifying the breech of Constitutional Separation of Religion from Government while blaming civil libertarians for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev. Pat Robertson again agreed, quoted from AANEWS #958 by American Atheists (September 14, 2001)
I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Informative)
-------------
Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."
Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lo
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm, it's amazing how Jesus could be the source of something in the OLD TESTAMENT which was written thousands of years before his (alleged) birth.
Let's see what else is an "abomination" according to Leveticus:
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Funny)
Try this [slashdot.org]...
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone who can't recognize that the Christian Bible has numerous [skepticsan...dbible.com] internal [skepticsan...dbible.com] contridictions, [skepticsan...dbible.com] even on basic [skepticsan...dbible.com] theological [skepticsan...dbible.com] issues, [skepticsan...dbible.com] lacks critical thinking skills.
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Interesting)
. Appeal to authority. An expert in one field (physics) is not necessarily an expert in another field (theology), and just because a person IS an acknowledged expert in a field does not make them automatically correct.
It's a pretty sad reflection on our species that even the smartest human being who ever lived (Newton) could not see past his
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Try to prove that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage. Proving the non-existance of something is a logical absurdity. The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmitive claim, not the one refuting it. If I claim I invented a working perpetual motion machine, I have to support that claim; the person who says it doesn't work needs to do nothing besides demand proof to the contrary.
What isn't absurd is to point out that th
Re:A good ruling (Score:3)
Ad hominim attack, another logical fallacy. Just because I made a supportable, accurate observation you found unpleasant dosen't make it an insult. It may be a sacred cow to you; to me, it's hamburger. Let's look at the words I used:
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Informative)
This guy was deliberately using a misspelling to generate traffic on the back of Falwell's "trademark" to "disparage" Falwell. That is a no-no.
Re:A good ruling (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read the article or look at the Google cache of the site before posting? Silly question I guess. The judge took the defendents *intent* (which was clearly to attack Falwell) into account. It wasn't just the fact that the spelling was similar: it was the reason behind the site owner choosing the name (it's wasn't his, nor anything he had any reason to pick other than to attack the real guy) **AND** he was using it for commercial gain off the back of Jerry Falwell's name.
See: knowing some facts does
Re:A good ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech isn't the issue here. Deception is.
All I can say is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All I can say is (Score:5, Funny)
A burgler breaks into a home, and is quietly walking around, finding valuable things to take.
"Jesus is watching."
The burgler freezes, looks around, doesn't see anything, and continues.
"Jesus is watching."
The burgler freezes again, and mutters, "Who's there?"
"Gabriel."
The burgler's flashlight comes to rest on the source of the sound, a parrot. He grumbles, "What kind of idiot names a parrot 'Gabriel?'"
"The same idiot who named the Rottweiler 'Jesus.'"
Sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Funny)
You're new here, aren't you?
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Oh isn't flame wars with comments what slashdot is all about? :) What other use is there for the Anonymous Coward function than to launch cowardly insults without fear of reprisal?
Google cache of home page (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Google cache of home page (Score:3, Interesting)
"mine mine miiine..it sounds like my name, give it to me"
If the site were about anything BUT Jerry Falwell, I'm sure the courts would have given the guy a pass. However, since the content of the site IS about Jerry Falwell, the domain name is obviously an attempt to hijack hapless users who misspell his name, the ruling is correct.
People have lost domain names for a lot less than this. A guy named Don Henley had to surrender donhenley.com, even though the page was ab
The site was even "related" (Score:4, Informative)
You are right - and he is not (Score:3)
You are rig
Re:You are right - and he is not (Score:3, Insightful)
It is more like you not guarentied a audience for your free speach issue. The new york yanky's or the bosten glob doens't in any way have to let you use thier facilities to get you message across. Tagging in the back of someones popularity with an oposing view point is much like forcing the globe to run yo
'Nearly identical' (Score:5, Interesting)
and the 'helpful' 'little' snippet by the editor was 'nearly identical' to what the submitter already said in the original writeup.
in related news (Score:2, Funny)
Re:in related news (Score:2)
Uhm no. Falwell.com's name was chosen to deliberately associate with and attack Jerry Falwell. Are you trying to say Jerry Falwell's parents chose his name to attack Ben and Jerry's?
Yeah I know this is slash dot but you could try putting your brain in gear before posting.
My original submission... (Score:3, Informative)
setzman writes "According to this article from CNN [cnn.com], conservative minister Jerry Falwell has succeeded in shutting down a web site run by a gay activist on the domain fallwell.com. The judge said it was "nearly identical" to the registered trademark "Jerry Falwell" name and was likely to be confusing to Web surfers. Considering Falwell's audience, the judge was probably right.
Re:My original submission... (Score:5, Insightful)
OMG CHRISIANZ ARE TEH ST00P1D!!! LOL OMG!
Timothy was right to edit your submission, but not because he "clarified" it, but because he removed your bigoted conclusion.
If the domain in question were "muslum.org", would you be joking about how people trying to go to muslim.org are likely to be confused? Considering, you know, that they're poor illiterate Muslims? Or is it only funny because Christians are fair game for ridicule?
Rmmm (Score:2)
Funny how well known people often win in these kind of disputes, and anonymous ones always get screwed. I'm not disputing the ruling, as I do not have enough information to determine whether it was a fair one or not, I'm just quite puzzled at how domain name disputes are handled.
Yes, I'm putting aside the actual content, the intent to make profit out of said content and the profile of both persons, so please no flames on that :p
fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
A gay activitst registered a domain name similar to the name of a promiant conservative, implied anti-gay.
The judge's choice was 100% morally correct, in addition to being in accordance with the letter of the law.
Re:fair enough (Score:4, Interesting)
There's only one legal code, but many moral codes to choose from.
That's why Timothy and the
Re:There are Gay & Lesbian Christians! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is true Christianity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Being loud and obnoxious about your chosen Religious Service Provider does not mean that you are "speaking in compassion for [those who are] lost".
For a start, those people don't consider themselves lost. And some of us consider you to be the one who is completely lost - that is, you've lost the ability to reason, and you're running on the huffed fumes of faith alone.
Always dangerous for a human to do that - it makes you so easily manipulated. And that's what religion was invented for - to allow societies to be built around them, because it allowed the upper echelons to manipulate the sheeple. Such as yourself, oh great beacon of light in the darkness.
Smart not to go to the 9th Circuit (Score:5, Funny)
www.fallwellsucks.com (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone remember the first lawsuits against from verizon against 2600 for verizonreallysucks.com ? I can't remember who won, but 2600s case was that the first amendment protected their right to make an anti-verizon website.
I suggest that the gay community registers fallwellsucks.com, a website dedicated to how much of a bigot fallwell is. Or, as www.fallwell.com previously was, a classy activists site void of name calling and libel...
-n
Earlier Falwell lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/cases-con
Ironically enough, Falwell lost that one.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
To be honest (Score:5, Insightful)
The amazing thing is (Score:2)
old site (Score:2)
Does this include www.archive.org (Score:2)
this is why we have trademarks (Score:4, Insightful)
It's reasonable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Like cyber-squat efforts (registering domains like "pepsi.com" when you're not affiliated with Pepsi at all) overall, this was a targeted effort by someone with an agenda. The intent was to squat their agenda on any internet traffic by "hugging" search criteria and even simple mispellings in a url. Their agenda to do this was clearly spelled out.
I expect the people running Drudge Retort [drudge.com] to be nervous over a ruling like this.
Whats next? (Score:5, Funny)
Jerry's running a business (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if somebody capitalizes on his name to lure people on a site that hurts his business, that's unfair competition.
JerrySucks.Com would be fine with me, as would JerryIsALoser.com. But not what the guy used. It's clearly outside the bounds.
A more interesting question would be: what if there were another person named Jerry Fallwell who, for instance, believed that Jesus came from a UFO? Could HE register the site? Wasn't there some guy, Mike Rowe, who registered MikeRoweSoft.com last year? Does the first public person with a name get it for all time?
Trademark your religion (Score:4, Interesting)
Going on down the spectrum, there is bush2004.com [bush2004.com], which satires Bush. Could Bush trademark his own name so as to shut this site down? At this particular moment of eroding free speech, probably not yet. Criticism of the president holds a special place when it comes to the First Amendment.
Now we step down spectrum another notch to fallwell.com. Jerry Falwell is a prominent religious and political figure -- perhaps not #1 like Bush, but certainly in the top thousand. He is able to squelch criticsm because he trademarked his name.
Falwell has intentionally blurred politics, religion, and business. Trademark was meant to protect consumers from sham products, not restrict discussion of politics and religion.
Here we have trademark law in conflict with the First Amendment regarding politics and religion. Trademark law was already being applied [com.com] to block criticism of a business. Now it's being extended into politics and religion, the heart of the First Amendment.
Going further on down the spectrum, Robin Ficker, a political candidate of much less stature than Falwell, was unable [washingtonpost.com] to shut down robinficker.com. Why? Because he didn't trademark his name.
In the realm of criticizing Falwell, today it's domain names. Will it be blog content tomorrow, like the Ford case?
Good ruling. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nissan? (Score:3, Interesting)
Uzi Nissan, as we all know, didn't exactly lose nissan.com, but it's been converted to a placeholder site bereft of content.
Perhaps it's because his site served a purpose other than bashing Nissan Motors, the courts let him keep it.
Still, it's a mixed signal. Why didn't the court just give nissan.com to Nissan Motors? I get the feeling that's what the 4th Circuit would have done.
Conclusion: If you have the domain name that "belongs" to someone bigger than you, you can't step on their toes. You will either lose your domain outright, or lose the right to do anything useful with it.
I wonder what Justice thinks of all this, peering out from behind Ashcroft's curtain.
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
This ownder of this site doesn't purport himself to be Jerry Falwell, he's just critical of Falwell. You can see for yourself [216.239.41.104]. If anyone gets confused on that site and thinks that Jerry Falwell has repented his anti-gay ways then they deserve to be confused, for they are stupid.
The judge is wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
I was also unaware that trademarks applied to the trademark and all possible misspellings. When was that ruling? I must have missed it.
Even if the trademark applies (which it doesn't) and the site was confusing (which it isn't) the speech involved is political/social commentary on a public figure. That type of speech is the most protected. If it were a commercial issue, then let them fight it out in courts. If it is a free-speech issue for political/personal views, then the court should *always* err on the side of making the speech available.
Lamparello had it coming (Score:3, Interesting)
He's a scammer of the first class. He ripped off a family member of mine with his book (should be called a pamphlet) "$1,000 a week for life", where basically he tells you to start a business. He doesn't tell you how, but he pontificates on very many other subjects besides money. $25 for a product that an 8th grader could have come up with.
He's a known Spammer [google.com] too. Here's the whois for mailordergold.com Domain Name: MAILORDERGOLD.COM
Administrative Contact:
Christopher Lamparello (HISVIQDHMO) chrislamparello@aol.com
875 Avenue of the Americas Suite 1700
New York, NY 10001
US
212.736.1238 fax: 212.736.1181
Technical Contact:
Domain Reg CWS (ILJVDIGYVO) hostmaster@cws.net
829 3rd Ave SE
Suite 225
Rochester, MN 55904
US
507-289-2229 fax: 507-289-0349
He also has 18 unresolved complaints against him per the Better Business Bureau of New York. [bbbnewyork.org]
Re:What about the other day? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad Call, Your Honor! (Score:5, Insightful)
This proves my point to a T. Falwell's religious and political practices have NOTHING to do with the lawsuit. What difference does it make what Falwell subscribes to religiously and politically? From the way this sounds it's as if certain members would have Falwell squelched in the name of free speech.
What asbout (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A good ruling??!!??! NOT! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupid Ruling (Score:4, Funny)
THIS POSTING IS IN NO WAY ASSOCIATED WITH SLASHDOT NOR BOISCOUT'S POSTING, NOR IS IT AN ATTACK ON Mr BOISCOUT NOR DOES IT SEEK COMMERCIAL GAIN THROUGH ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION.
Buy my book here [notreallyamazon.com] that explains why boisscout is oh so wrong. All proceeds to my personal bank account.
THIS POSTING IS IN NO WAY ASSOCIATED WITH SLASHDOT NOR BOISCOUT'S POSTING, NOR IS IT AN ATTACK ON Mr BOISCOUT NOR DOES IT SEEK COMMERCIAL GAIN THROUGH ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION.
Re:No problem, except.. (Score:3, Informative)
One has the right to register a trademark or service mark even if one is not "selling" something; the Department of Defense registered the term "ADA" as a trademark for a computer language. This allows them to have a say so in whether or not the product is compliant with the standard.
It has been a common practice for some religious organizations to regi