Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Courts The Internet News

Company Name in URL Not Copyright Infringement 259

Posted by Zonk from the insert-hair-jokes-here dept.
Christoph writes "CNN reports that a man's website, http://www.bosleymedical.com, criticizing the Bosely Medical Institute does not infringe the institute's copyright on its name. The man's attorney is quoted as saying that the court's decision 'is an important victory for free speech on the Internet. It makes clear that consumers can use a trade name for a company they want to criticize.' The appeals court, however, reinstated part of the lawsuit in which Bosley alleged that Kremer is violating a so-called cybersquatting law by allegedly attempting to sell the site to Bosley in exchange for removing the disparaging material."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Company Name in URL Not Copyright Infringement More

Company Name in URL Not Copyright Infringement

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe BosleyMedicalSucks.com, but this? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by me at werk ( 836328 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:29PM (#12145223) Homepage Journal
    I would think it'd be a lot easier to have BosleyMedicalSucks.com and get away with it, than BosleyMedical.com

    Time to go buy aol.ws

  • copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by latroM ( 652152 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:29PM (#12145224) Homepage Journal
    They are probably talking about the trademark law. But that's what you get when you use the term intellectual property, more confusion.

    • Re:copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @02:06PM (#12145617) Homepage
      They are probably talking about the trademark law. But that's what you get when you use the term intellectual property, more confusion.

      It's obvious that this is a trademark question. It has nothing to do with copyright, and it's only confusing if you don't know anything about intellectual property law. Seriously, sometimes /.ers sound as silly as a non-tech person talking about a "56 megahertz" dial-up connection, calling a 3.5" diskette a "hard disk", or saying that Microsoft invented the web browser.

      Listen people: if you want to be taken seriously about legal matters, stop jabbering like impassioned no-nothings and learn something about the topic first. Saying "copyright" when you're talking about trademarks is like putting an "I'm an id10t" sticker on your forehead.

      • It has nothing to do with copyright, and it's only confusing if you don't know anything about intellectual property law.

        But there is no such thing! The copyright, patent and trademark laws etc. were created for specific purposes at different times.
        • The copyright, patent and trademark laws etc. were created for specific purposes at different times.

          So what? Cairo, Beijing, and Albuquerque were created by different people at different times in different places for different reasons, but they're all "cities". They have conceptual characteristics in common, and so do patents, trademarks, and copyrights (which can be owned/bought/sold, but exist only as expressions or implementations of ideas). You can try to deny that they have any commonality that wa

        • Re:copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          First you say that there is no such thing as IP law. Then you say that a class of laws were created for specific purposes at different times.

          Some possibilities follow.

          1) You believe that that the term "intellectual property law" has a meaningful referent in the form of copyright, patent and trademark law, but believe that the grouping is not a very useful one because it obscures important differences between the term. Restated, you believe the term has meaning, but choose to advocate against using it, bec

      • Re:copyright? (Score:3, Informative)

        by PatHMV ( 701344 )
        In fairness to the story submitter, CNN got it wrong in its headline. The body of the story, however, correctly describes the court's ruling as based on trademark law, not copyright law. (You can't copyright titles.)

  • So, let the *sucks.com race begin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:30PM (#12145235) Journal
    People will be snapping up the *sucks.com domain names now, but be warned, companies will still threaten suits for trade defamation if they find disparaging remarks about them or their products on the web.

  • You keep using that word. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:30PM (#12145244) Journal
    The linked article seems to conflate copyright and trademark. I imagine this is a trademark dispute, not copyright. I don't think you can copyright anything as simple as a name.

  • WIPO handles these cases all the time. (Score:5, Informative)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:31PM (#12145248)
    This has been addressed by WIPO in their FAQ [wipo.int]. They have specific examples of when a trademark owner can take a domain over.

    • Re:WIPO handles these cases all the time. (Score:5, Informative)

      by nguyenhm ( 577058 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:38PM (#12145321)
      WIPO's decisions are pseudo-law, but are not the law (they are not a governmental body). Furthermore they are an international body. This decision by a US appellate court actually goes against the trend in WIPO case law, which had tended to favor the corporations without much recourse or chance of appeal. WIPO actually just published a casebook; seems like it may already be obsolete.
    • It's worth noting that all 3 criteria must be met for WIPO to grant a transfer: trademark, lack of legitimate interest in domain name, and bad faith registration.

      Had the site owner not offered to sell the domain, only the first one would have been satisfied, but I'd say he still has a claim on the domain based on the second criteria, which is probably why they took him to court rather than attempt WIPO arbitration.

  • Uh copyright? (Score:5, Informative)

    by oGMo ( 379 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:31PM (#12145249)

    Copyright... on a name? You mean Trademark?

    Yes, yes you do. A quick glance at the article shows they have it right. Trademark is significantly different than copyright; and this seems to me to be a significant decision, but then I'm not a lawyer or anything.

    • Re:Uh copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anm ( 18575 )
      From the article: A man can disparage a hair-restoration company on a Web site using the company's name without violating copyright law, an appeals court ruled Monday.

      They screwed it too.

  • tbh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:35PM (#12145302) Homepage Journal
    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 "microsoftsucks" but not something like "microsoftware.com". The big difference is that the second domain can be confused for a official company website.

    • Re:tbh (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Master_T ( 836808 )
      We are not allowed to do something that might confuse someone? As long as it doesn't claim to be official that is all that matters. I think it will become rather obvious that is not an official site as soon as they read how much the person hates the company in the name.

      • Re:tbh (Score:5, Informative)

        by Macadamizer ( 194404 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:43PM (#12145374)
        We are not allowed to do something that might confuse someone?

        Well, generally not -- that's the whole point of trademark law in the U.S. The test for infringement under trademark law is always "likelihood of confusion."

        In the case of "sucks" sites, though, the courts in the U.S. have generally held that the free speech rights of a consumer outweigh the rights of the trademark holder to prevent the use of "confusingly similar" domain names.
        • The test for infringement under trademark law is always "likelihood of confusion."

          Uh, huh. But the standard of proof is still intent to confuse. The test is only useful in helping to determine whether that intent exists, not whether an offense has occurred. To rule otherwise would place an unlawful burden on speech. Making people surmise all possible interpretations of their speech and its effects on the thoughts of others, before saying it, negates the concept of a right to freedom of speech.

    • Re:tbh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 )
      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.

      These two sentences conflict with each other. If you're slamming the company, isn't it going to be obvious that your site is not the company's own site? How could anyone be confused by that?

  • In other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:39PM (#12145340)
    The appeals court, however, reinstated part of the lawsuit in which Bosley alleged that Kremer is violating a so-called cybersquatting law by allegedly attempting to sell the site to Bosley in exchange for removing the disparaging material.

    Man shoots self in foot. Film at 11.

  • It seems that the dumbass who posted this has no clue and didn't even read the article. The article is talking about trademark. (... The company claimed his use of the name was trademark infringement.).

    Repeat after me: you cannot copyright a frase, but if you use it in conjunction with offering a good/service, you can trademark it. It's getting really annoying when even the article posters get the basic facts wrong.

  • Sloppy Everybody (Score:4, Informative)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @01:43PM (#12145376) Homepage Journal
    CNN reports that a man's website, http://www.bosleymedical.com [bosleymedical.com], criticizing the Bosely Medical Institute does not infringe the institute's copyright on its name.
    No, they reported that an appeals court ruling determined that the site didn't infringe Bosely's trademark. The original story reports it correctly, an ignorant CNN.com headline writer changed "trademark" to "copyright", and an equally ignorant Christoph submitted this court ruling as if it were the last word. Jeez, how could anybody follow the news recently and not know about the federal appeals process?

    I'm tempted to give Zouk a hard to for the usual Slashdot editors sin of posting a story without really reading it. But with so much sloppy thinking by Christoph and that nameless idiot at CNN.com, I guess that's kind of lame.

    • Is not redundant. I wasn't the first to point out the confusion between "trademark" and "copyright" -- but I was the first to point out who made it. And I'm the only poster so far to point out Christoph's sloppyiness about the court ruling.
  • ...because I sho' don't believe what I is seeing.

    I am really shocked that slashdotters aren't more of a "live free or die" kind of crowd.

    Remember when the Internet was the last free (by which I mean uncontrolled, not without monetary cost) outlet of information, not privy to the whims of corporations, governments, or media cartels?

    I know I sound like Tim Robbins, or some similar mid-life liberal, but we need to seriously look at what we're proposing when we say that (quotes not verbatim) "if a URL says i
    • If those of us who dig on the slashdot can't stomach a few wayward URLs, and in fact do not defend the right of computer users to do or say as they wish in cyberspace, this happy little arena will come tumbling down as fast as you can say partisan agenda.

      I remember the good old days, when the internet was new, there was no google, just webcrawler and excite. I remember when gopher was useful. And back then, there was no porn on the web, not like today. Back then if I wanted to search for breast cancer,

  • I have a question about the "cybersquatting" portion of the article. From what I understand, they can "get" you legally if you offer to sell the domain.

    I own cantarafamily.net. Say hypothetically, there was a doctor's office called "Cantara Family Medicine" and they wanted to buy my domain. Could I be brought up on "cybersquatting" charges if I offer to sell it to them (if the company wanted to be bastardly)? I would offer to sell it to something legitimate if it was a reasonable offer. All I have at that

    • Based on the decisions handed down by the arbitrating bodies, even expressing an interest in selling if they ask first can give the other party the opening to take the domain away from you on cybersquatting grounds. The only safe response is (assuming you really are using the domain for something legitimate) "Sorry, I've no interest in selling.".

    • I registered a "sucks" site for my employer, and then went researching the case law that governed the use of a such a site.

      You should perform your own research. If you want, email me, and I'll give you the summary case law I found. But overall, I can tell from the tone of the cases that courts take a dim view of any implied intent to extort people on the basis of a domain name combined with posted site criticism or squatting.

      This means that a company might be able to take you to court over your sell
  • I've lost domains in the past for using a companies product in the domain names, ex buy-widget.com. Seeing as those my sites were blank at the time, I probably could have fought to keep the domains. I would still like to know - does generating a profit on a site exclude you from rights that would allow you to keep a domain?

  • Here's the opinion (Score:4, Informative)

    by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @02:06PM (#12145616)
    The Ninth Circuit webpage has a PDF of the opinion [uscourts.gov].

  • What about in an Email (Score:5, Interesting)

    by _ph1ux_ ( 216706 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @02:41PM (#12145961)
    I have a mail server at home in which I create aliases that I give out so I know where the email address has been given from.

    For example, I created an email: dmv@[myhomedomain].com so that I could have the DMV of California email me, and I would know if I got spam that it came from them.

    I received several emails and letters from the DMV head lawer for me to "cease and dessist immediately" from using DMV as I would be infringning on their right to "defend their BRAND"

    I told him how, as a public office, I did not feel that he had a brand, and that since I was using it only for the DMV to contact me, but they were adamant that I stop using it as an email alias.

    I actually submitted this issue as an ask slashdot, but it was rejected...

    • Actually, I think that becuase you aren't representing them nor selling something as them, then you are ok.

      What I *think* they were thinking was that you could be sending emails as dmv@domain.tld -- and this would probably tick them off, as you could be causing trouble in their lands (not that I think they could do anything about it... but...)

      Generally, the reply of "The please list to me every alias or email address I can not have, so that I may purge my database. I would also like proof of you owning sa
  • it seems the judges were not without a sense of humor:

    from the 9th Federal Circuit, Court of Appeals, the summary:

    Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Michael Steven Kremer

    "Defendant Michael Kremer wes dissatisfied with the hair restoration services provided to him by the Bosley Medical Insitute, Inc. In a bald-faced effort to get even, Kremer started a website at www.BosleyMedical.com, which, to put it mildly, was uncomplimentary of Bosley Medical Insitute. The problem is that "Bosley Medical" is th

  • Rough Trade (Score:3, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @04:02PM (#12146921) Homepage Journal
    The exclusive use of a mark (like a printed word) to represent a company, product, service, etc, is covered by trademark, not copyright. And trademarks do not protect from use in representing satire, parody or criticism - as long as the mark is still used to represent the same entity. Who pays these lawyers for these ill-advised lawsuits?

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @05:35PM (#12148097)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm wearing Milkbone underware." -- Norm, from _Cheers_

Close