Court Rules In Favor Of Domain Owner Using Trademark To Criticize The Company - GoFuckYourself.com

KRL · 04-04-2005, 10:45 PM

Interesting legal case where the court ruled in favor of the domain owner using BosleyMedical.com to criticize the company because the owner of the domain had a hair restoration done and wasn't happy with the results.

Bosley claimed the domain owner was infringing on their company trademark by using it in the domain.

The court ruled against Bosley.

Full details on this link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...h&sid=95573501

Rochard · 04-05-2005, 12:09 AM

This is interesting and perhaps more of us should take notice about this.

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 "ibillsucks.com" but not something like "ibillmedia.com". The big difference is that the second domain can be confused for a official company website.

European Lee · 04-05-2005, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RocHard

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.

Um no...

Free speech is just about that.. Free speech.

This definately sets an interesting precident though... Off to see what domains i can register now

Regards,

Lee

KRL · 04-05-2005, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by European Lee

Um no...

Free speech is just about that.. Free speech.

This definately sets an interesting precident though... Off to see what domains i can register now

Regards,

Lee

Indeed, this opens some very interesting loopholes to slam a company.

SleazyDream · 04-05-2005, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RocHard

This is interesting and perhaps more of us should take notice about this.

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 "ibillsucks.com" but not something like "ibillmedia.com". The big difference is that the second domain can be confused for a official company website.

i'm with rochard TOTALLY on this - and hope this case gets overturned

paxton · 04-05-2005, 12:34 AM

I agree with Roc also. I think it's wrong.

Very interesting news report. Thanks for posting, KRL.

KRL · 04-05-2005, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paxton

I agree with Roc also. I think it's wrong.

Very interesting news report. Thanks for posting, KRL.

Welcome. Got to stay on top of these legal cases that set unexpected precedents. They can have a major impact on what we all do.

reynold · 04-05-2005, 12:54 AM

Free speech still has its price.

V_RocKs · 04-05-2005, 01:13 AM

www.SupershuttleSucks.com

Shoehorn! · 04-05-2005, 01:19 AM

A similar outcome happened awhile ago in favor of 2600 redirecting a domain.

bikinihouse · 04-05-2005, 02:15 AM

Someone should get one related to Paypal... fuck I hate paypal so much these days.

$5 submissions · 04-05-2005, 02:34 AM

Here's the meat of the ruling:

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.

emthree · 04-05-2005, 03:35 AM

Wow, I dont think that's going to hold up for too long.
I just can't see someone registering a CO's name and using it for straight bashing (no links, no ppc ... no purpose)

polish_aristocrat · 04-05-2005, 03:38 AM

so cay i use microsot.com to criticize Microsoft ?

BRISK · 04-05-2005, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emthree

Wow, I dont think that's going to hold up for too long.
I just can't see someone registering a CO's name and using it for straight bashing (no links, no ppc ... no purpose)

He registered the domain 5 years ago, and it should be obvious that the website has a purpose

$5 submissions · 04-05-2005, 03:54 AM

Well... the 9th Circuit isn't exactly the Supreme Court's favorite appellate circuit. I think a study was published some years back showing that the 9th Circuit has the most reversed rulings among all the appeals courts. Wouldn't suprise me a bit--the 9th Circuit is, on average, quite liberal which is in stark opposition to the Supreme Court's conservative trend. Should be interesting how this plays out.

MGPspots · 04-05-2005, 04:57 AM

I don't think there is anything new in this. Criticism sites are well established as not taking advantage of trademark/goodwill/copyright.

paypalsucks.com , aolsucks.org , brucespringsteen.com (not a criticism site but a fan site which doesn't exploit copyright)

04-04-2005, 10:45 PM	#1
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	Court Rules In Favor Of Domain Owner Using Trademark To Criticize The Company Interesting legal case where the court ruled in favor of the domain owner using BosleyMedical.com to criticize the company because the owner of the domain had a hair restoration done and wasn't happy with the results. Bosley claimed the domain owner was infringing on their company trademark by using it in the domain. The court ruled against Bosley. Full details on this link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...h&sid=95573501 __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

04-05-2005, 12:09 AM	#2
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,038	This is interesting and perhaps more of us should take notice about this. 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 "ibillsucks.com" but not something like "ibillmedia.com". The big difference is that the second domain can be confused for a official company website. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

04-05-2005, 12:34 AM	#6
paxton Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,156	I agree with Roc also. I think it's wrong. Very interesting news report. Thanks for posting, KRL. __________________ Contact ICQ: 159141828

04-05-2005, 01:19 AM	#10
Shoehorn! Die With Your Boots On Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hawaii Posts: 22,872	A similar outcome happened awhile ago in favor of 2600 redirecting a domain. __________________

04-05-2005, 02:34 AM	#12
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	Here's the meat of the ruling: 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. __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

04-05-2005, 12:54 AM	#8
reynold Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Global Traveler Posts: 51,271	Free speech still has its price.

04-05-2005, 01:13 AM	#9
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	www.SupershuttleSucks.com

04-05-2005, 02:15 AM	#11
bikinihouse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 843	Someone should get one related to Paypal... fuck I hate paypal so much these days.

04-05-2005, 03:35 AM	#13
emthree Dialer Kingpin Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New York Posts: 10,816	Wow, I dont think that's going to hold up for too long. I just can't see someone registering a CO's name and using it for straight bashing (no links, no ppc ... no purpose) __________________ • Sell Patches & Pills •

04-05-2005, 03:38 AM	#14
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	so cay i use microsot.com to criticize Microsoft ? __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

04-05-2005, 03:54 AM	#16
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	Well... the 9th Circuit isn't exactly the Supreme Court's favorite appellate circuit. I think a study was published some years back showing that the 9th Circuit has the most reversed rulings among all the appeals courts. Wouldn't suprise me a bit--the 9th Circuit is, on average, quite liberal which is in stark opposition to the Supreme Court's conservative trend. Should be interesting how this plays out. __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

04-05-2005, 04:57 AM	#17
MGPspots Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 422	I don't think there is anything new in this. Criticism sites are well established as not taking advantage of trademark/goodwill/copyright. paypalsucks.com , aolsucks.org , brucespringsteen.com (not a criticism site but a fan site which doesn't exploit copyright) __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.