Slashdot Log In
Ford vs. 2600 Judge Upholds Right To Link
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Dec 23, 2001 09:00 AM
from the sky-falling-film-at-11 dept.
from the sky-falling-film-at-11 dept.
AnimeFreak writes: "According to this 2600 article, 2600 has won the right to link to Ford's website after Ford sued them for doing so. Ford had asserted that hyperlinking to their website or referring to it in DNS records constituted a variety of trademark violations. Judge Cleland rejected Ford's twisted interpretation of the trademark act, which claimed that by disparaging Ford's mark and preventing it from 'fully exploiting the value of its mark,'" 2600 was in violation of trademark law by redirecting a possibly offensive domain to Ford's site. We've mentioned this before, and it's nice to see a ruling in favor of linking. Thanks to Phalse Phace, here's a link to the 11-page decision.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
hurray! (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0%2C1367%2C4
Re:hurray! (Score:1, Informative)
let's try it this way:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0%2C1367%2C488
odd... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:odd... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
next step... (Score:4, Funny)
or... (Score:2)
Does This Mean... (Score:1)
2600 irc server (Score:1, Interesting)
come and talk about this story on the irc server.
Linking is the basis of the Internet (Score:1)
Re:Linking is the basis of the Internet (Score:2)
In the early days of the Web all the links were embedded and you had to go to a menu bar option to enter a link by hand. It all worked fine.
The ability to enter a URL into the menu bar appeared in one of the later versions of Mosaic after folk pointed out that it was confusing to have the URL presented in one place and changeable in another.
The Web would work and be pretty successful if we were all using raw IP addresses. However the likes of Alta-Vista and Yahoo would have become much more important than they have.
The real problem would be managing the Internet, links would be hardcoded to particular ISP providers. The effect would probably have been to introduce something like DNS and call it the URN system, as opposed to what we actually did and develop something on top of the DNS system we call the URN system... hey ho...
And in related news... (Score:5, Funny)
hhmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
People who are not new to the web are going to be able quickly determine that this(http://fuckgeneralmotors.com/) is not ford's work. However, someone new to the web is going to say I went to http://fuckgeneralmotors.com/ and then it loaded up the ford site. Since I didn't do anything when I loaded the site, then it must be ford's work.
I think they should have to have somekind of statement on that page saying they have nothing to do with the ford motor company.
BT can still get them though (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting... (Score:2, Funny)
So, does this mean I can register fuckslashdot.org?
:)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Go ahead. I dare you. I've always wanted to know where Anonymous Coward lives. :)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
"123 Main St., Yourtown, USA"
-Legion
Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, to register a derogatory domain name and point it to someone else's webpage is effectively slander. Ford did not want its image associated with a profane domain name because that would hurt sales, and they were right to do so. When the average person typed fuckgeneralmotors.com and Ford's website popped up, they would have assumed that the domain name was registered by Ford, and hence, that Ford supported the use of profanity. Thus, doing so effectively disparaged the Ford name by association with what some would consider objectionable language.
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean its not like it's freespeech or anything like that to effectivly say that you should buy another comapanys products.
After all anyone can hold up a sign out side of their fence that does the same thing, and who says that they arent employed by one of the companys? Why shouldnt I be able to point my domain name where ever the hell I want?
Parent
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:2, Interesting)
No, slander is an oral act; you're thinking of libel.
Besides, if I say some brand "sucks", that is an opinion and certainly covered under the 1st amendment. If I put up a sign in my front yard that "Brand XYZ Sucks", I'm ALLOWED to do that, correct? Why does the web get a special set of rules?
That's not the same. (Score:2)
Re:That's not the same. (Score:2)
Re:That's not the same. (Score:2)
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:2)
No, slander is an oral act; you're thinking of libel.
Besides, if I say some brand "sucks", that is an opinion and certainly covered under the 1st amendment. If I put up a sign in my front yard that "Brand XYZ Sucks", I'm ALLOWED to do that, correct? Why does the web get a special set of rules?
It is closed to putting a sign that says "General Motors Sucks, this sign supported by Ford". The question isn't whether than can link to Ford's sight (I think they can), but whether they can do it in a way that suggests that Ford owns ans operates the profane website. If they just put a link to Ford.com on the page, I would say it is okay. But the sight pointed directly at ford.com (if I'm not mistaken). There is no way for an average person to know that Ford doesn't own the domain. Linking is okay, deceptive linking when it could harm a person or company is not.
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:2)
If the average person is an idiot, yes... IMO, Ford could quite reasonably have asked 2600 to add something like "This website is in no way associated with any automobile manufacturer" to the page, or face a slander suit. But Ford did not ask for that, and the grounds claimed for the injunction were trademark law, not slander. Nor can you ask for an injunction (a prior restraint on speech) in connection with slander.
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:2)
Not knowing the innards of DNS doesn't make someone an idiot. 99.99999% of the DNS entries out there are probably owned by the same people who own the IP that they point to.
IMO, Ford could quite reasonably have asked 2600 to add something like "This website is in no way associated with any automobile manufacturer" to the page, or face a slander suit
Ford could have asked 2600 to add such a disclaimer to WHAT? The domain name??? Sure, I can see that happening:
Ford: Excuse us, but could you please change that domain name to "www.fuckgeneralmotors andbythewaythisDOMAINNAMEisnotassociatedwithanyautomobilemanufacturereventhoughthe websiteitselfisfords.com". Thanks. Love, Jacques.
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:2)
Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also..'fuckgeneralmotors' is not slander. 'Scientologysucks' COULD be slander, depending on if it's opinion or fact (hey.. it DOES suck.. but that's another story).
Trademark is not there to 'prevent your name from being associated with objectionable language'. It's there to prevent others from benefiting from the use of your mark, period, or from otherwise 'diluting' your mark.
Oh.. and please note.. the only mark in dispute here is the hyperlink to 'ford.com'. THey are NOT EVEN USING THE TRADEMARK ON THE SITE. The domain name is not what's in dispute... Ford was trying to say that using the word 'ford' in the hyperlink, because it came from a site called 'fuckgeneralmotors.com' was diluting the value of their mark.
And the judge called bullshit.
This is not a slander case. It's a trademark case.
Parent
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:2)
What brilliant skills of deduction you have.
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:2, Insightful)
It helps to read the papers that were actually filed with the court -- especially this one [2600.com].
As you will see, we [in other words, my clients 2600 and Corley, and me, the lawyer who represented them in the case] have already fully adressed your argument. We have already explained -- with considerable legal authority to back up our argument -- exactly why FORD's position was completely wrong on this score, as a matter of law. And Judge Cleland (who has hardly expressed any eagerness to be a "friend of 2600" squarely agreed with 2600's argument.
That said, you are in the company of some very smart an creative people. The lawyer who argued the case for FORD, and who came up with the same argument you did, is named Tom Lee. He is a former law clerk to Hon. Clarence Thomas and teaches law (IMHO, teaches it wrong, but that's what he does) at a school out in Utah. He was also a law clerk on the Fourth Circuit (the most "conservative" of the United States Courts of Appeals).
Tom Lee has been very active for many years in the Federalist Society -- an organization that is dedicated to packing the Federal bench with ideological "conservatives." Spencer Abraham (former Senator from Michigan) -- the sponsor of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act -- was one of the founding members of the Federalist Society, and made sure that Greg Phillips, Tom Lee's law partner, was invited to testify in favor of the ACPA. Ted Olsen (the guy who argued the Bush v. Gore case for Bush) is also a big Federalist Society member and booster.
And, through Alberto Gonzalez -- who plays a big role in the Bush White House, the Federalist Society looks poised to do a lot more damage to the federal bench in years to come.
Please do your part to get the word out on some of the hypocrisy [eff.org] that the Federalist Society is pushing through the legislative process, and which hypocrisy the EFF is helping to expose.
Remember what Professor Lessig said just a couple of days ago -- "Sometimes when I read Slashdot debates, I wonder whether you guys get this connection either. . . . [T]hese debates about freedom get bogged down on these pages. And this leads me to the greatest pessimism: If you guys don't get the importance of neutral and open platforms to innovation and creativity; if you get bogged down in 20th century debates about libertarianism and property rights; if you can't see how the
You guys . . . built an architecture of value. Until you can begin to talk about those values, and translate them for others, courts and policy makers generally will never get it. . . .
We need translators. We need to translate the values of the network into terms that nontechnical people get. And we need to watch for changes in the architecture or mix of technologies layered into the network, and raise warnings about how those changes will alter the environment for innovation and creativity. As one of my heroes in the law, James Boyle, puts it, we need an environmentalism for the Internet. You are the environmental experts. You can credibly show the world how changes in the ecology of the Internet will destroy the environment for creativity, innovation, and freedom that it produced.
Will you do that? Again, I am skeptical. Rather than trying to focus this debate, or agree on ways to make others understand, you guys immediately turn these questions into irrelevant bickerings. When someone reported that I had written a book described as the "Silent Spring" of the Internet, that opened up a thread about whether in fact DDT had harmed the environment. Someday, when freedom is gone, and all we've got is the right to whisper our thoughts to those closest to us, our children will look back and ask, why did we think we had the luxury to quibble?
But if you don't want to become translators, if you don't want to write environmental impact statements, if you don't want to try to convince the North in California that if it gets taken over by the South, freedom and innovation ends, then you could do as Torvalds has recommended: give money to those who are fighting the battle, in particular, EFF. I'm on the board of EFF, so blissfully biased about to whom. But whether EFF or someone else, follow Torvalds and the other christ-figures in history: Tithe. Take the cost of Internet access (whether you pay it or not) for one year; send 10% to an organization fighting for your freedom."
Thanks for your attention.
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:2)
How would I feel if this happened to me? Just fine, thanks.
In fact, I'd consider it a free and useful service (bear with me) to roughly measure the winds of hate against my 'evil' corporation. Usually you have to pay someone to gauge public opinion for you, but here you can simply measure the change in day-today hits from pissed off people who ended up visiting an 'anti-something' site that led them to you.
Also -- and I don't know why this point hasn't been touched on much -- I would check the HTTP_REFERER sent by (most) browsers, and redirect to a propaganda page of my own that tried to change opinions. I just checked [fuckgeneralmotors.com] and apparently Ford isn't even smart enough to implement this; all their money goes to lawyers I guess.
</Devil's Advocate>
--
Re:Imagine how you'd feel.... (Score:2)
Slander is like when you spread malicious untruths about somebody. "Ford sucks" and other such phrases aren't untruths; they're opinions. (Not falsifiable/provable; just somebody's personal take on the matter.)
Look, you shouldn't have a slander lawsuit slapped on you just because at work you told somebody Fords suck, should you? And should you be able to publish that opinion?
Average person:
Preliminary injunction hilights (Score:4, Interesting)
Ford failed to prove these things, thus the injunction was denied. It's a nice finding, but the outcome of the trial remains to be seen.
One encouraging footnote in the finding, for those who don't want to read 11 pages of legalese (although it's not nearly as bad as some), reads as follows:
Also, towards the end of the finding Judge Cleland provides an excellent criticism of the implication in Planned Parenthood and Jews for Jesus that causing commercial harm is sufficient cause for a claim of infringement, pointing out that many uses that are specifically excluded by the FTDA cause commercial harm to the mark holder.
While the case is far from over, it doesn't look good for Ford.
Ah... you read the old material. (Score:2)
http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=915
Yeah, but the case was dismissed as well . . . (Score:2)
* * * *
While the case is far from over, it doesn't look good for Ford.
Yes, but its worse for Ford than you have suggested. In another ruling, issued the same day, [cryptome.org] the Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
This meant that the Defense was able to prove that, even assuming that every allegation present in the complaint was absolutely true, that the facts nevertheless failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the law -- that is, Ford doesn't have a case.
Re:Preliminary injunction hilights (Score:2)
The public sees 'the URL says 'fuckgeneralmotors.com' and the site is Ford.. Hmm.
So the banner hanging on the building is a good analogy.
The point is that, it may break some other law, libel, etc.. but it's certainly not trademark infringement.
Re:Preliminary injunction hilights (Score:2)
So, here's another one: You walk into a dealership that sells multiple brands of trucks, and you say you want a truck that would spank the crap out of any general motors product. If the dealer sold you a ford, would ford sue the dealer?
In both the linking case and the truck-buying case, the explicit language is introduced solely by the consumer. The dealer/dns service does the customer-language to physical-object translation, and neither service is under the direct control of ford.
Comments, please?
When will they learn.... (Score:4, Insightful)
When will they learn that if someone is linking to their site, they can determine that through the HTTP Referer header [w3.org] and stick in some logic to do some of their own redirection or change the dynamic content. They can surely make the link as ineffective as if the original page had made an error in the link and put in the wrong domain. Or are corporate suits just too dumb to realize they can control something like their own web site?
Re:When will they learn.... (Score:2)
And it takes less for them to have some lawyer file the paperwork for a lawsuit? Oh wait, lawyers don't have anything better to do. N/M.
But will the masses get it? (Score:2)
The cause for concern is that the human brain tends to associate things that occur together, even though intellectually we know they are separate. So although this case is a bit off target (who cares if GM sucks points to Ford), think of the case where a porno site links to yours. People intellectually know that your site has nothing to do with porno, but will associate the two anyway.
Please remember this! (Score:4, Informative)
Registrant:
Ford Motor Company (FORDSUCKS5-DOM)
330 Town Center Dr. FPS-Suite 600
Dearborn, MI 48126
US
Domain Name: FORDSUCKS.COM
Administrative Contact:
DNSmgr, Ford (DF197-ORG) dnsmgr@FORD.COM
Ford Motor Company
1303 Fairlane Circle
Allen Park, MI 48101
US
313-390-3476
Fax- 313-390-1697
Technical Contact:
DNSadmin, Ford (AD2148-ORG) dnsadmin@FORD.COM
Ford Motor Company
1303 Fairlane Circle
Allen Park, MI 48101
USA
313-390-3476
Fax- 313-390-1697
Billing Contact:
DNSbill, Ford (DF169-ORG) dnsbill@FORD.COM
Ford Motor Company
Fairlane Business Park
1303 Fairlane Circle
ITHQ-B
Allen Park, MI 48101 US
313-390-3476
Fax- 313-390-1697
Record last updated on 20-Sep-2000.
Record expires on 20-Sep-2002.
Record created on 20-Sep-2000.
Database last updated on 22-Dec-2001 22:53:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS004.FORD.COM 136.1.1.20
DNS003.FORD.COM 136.2.1.20
2600 caught wind of this and wanted to fight for our rights. They then registered fordreallysucks.com. So don't think 2600 did this just to fuck with Ford. Ford started this shit by suing anyone that used their name in a domain.
I am proud of what 2600 did. Many would not have the nuts to take on a giant sompany like Ford. 2600 forever!
They won! (Score:2, Funny)
Comedy aside, I was starting to wonder if it would happen in my lifetime (thme winning anything.)
Nobody has 'won' any rights. (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, it looks like they tried to hoodwink the judge into shutting it down based on some loosely similar precedent. The judge's ruling reads quite clearly and concisely. He even states that Ford has 'no chance of succeeding'.
But.. again, this is just the denial of the injunction.. it has no real bearing on the case itself, other than the judge feels, based on what he's been shown, that ford has no case.
Re:Nobody has 'won' any rights. (Score:2)
It's still just a ruling on the prelimenary injunction... He did NOT dismiss the case.
The fact that there is 'no chance of success' is relevant because a prelimenary injunction is granted based on chances of success.
I can see why ford would be pissed. (Score:2)
Re:I can see why ford would be pissed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I can see why ford would be pissed. (Score:2)
$cientology links, good but... (Score:2)
$cientology is continously attempting to "spam" search engines like Google in attempt to push critical sites back in the list.
SWIPO.ORG redirected to WIPO.ORG (Score:3, Interesting)
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone [uspto.gov] (please check). Conflict is impossible to avoid - surely they would have to be corrupt people not to use solution?
It is obvious a restricted TLD is required to replace the ® trademark symbol. The World Intellectual Property Organisation SWIPE domains from the lawful owner - so I got SWIPO.ORG to redirect to them.
Seen a domain name you would like to hijack? Order it now from SWIPO.ORG [swipo.org].
Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] to see the simple solution.
Re:Data Protection? (Score:2)
Re:Preliminary Injunction - wrong! (Score:2)
An injunction is granted when there is a great likelyhood of irreprerable harm and a great likelyhood of the case being won by the party requesting the injunction.