Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Ford vs. 2600 Judge Upholds Right To Link 109

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This discussion has been archived.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.

Ford vs. 2600 Judge Upholds Right To Link

Comments Filter:
  • hurray! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    now, if someone would show this to the morons at KPMG 87 4%2C00.html
  • odd... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @10:03AM (#2744019) Homepage
    This completely contradicts the judgement in the DeCSS case. 2600 only linked to the site to get the code..
    • Re:odd... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bocaj ( 84920 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @10:27AM (#2744059) Homepage
      Not really. The DeCSS linking thing was about copyright law, the DMCA (hissss....). Ford was sighting Trademark law. The DMCA was never in play.
      • Correct, and not only that, the linking in the DeCSS case was barred not because of its speech aspect, but because of it's "functional" aspect, in that following the link resulted in traficking in the DeCSS program, contary to the DMCA. The link in the Ford case is clearly a speech issue, in that the "functional" aspect in this case is to disparage the Ford Motor Company by providing these links from a satirical page.

  • by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @10:06AM (#2744030) Journal
    now they can buy and redirect
  • If its "only in the programming code", does that mean I could link, say "" (if it were suddenly to become available or something) to my own site, if my site does not mention a single word about McDonalds?
    • The guys at 2600 had taken a domain name which used a trademark as just a part of the domain name, and directed it to Ford's site. That's different from taking someone else's valid trademark and directing it to your own site. The main difference being that in the 2nd case, you could prevent legitimate users from finding the page that they're looking for. Take a look at this quote:

      ...[P]rogramming code, unlike the unauthorized use of a trademark as a domain name, does not inhibit Internet users from reaching the websites that are most likely to be associated with the mark holder.

      I think that if you got the domain, even though it would be funny as heck, you would probably end up having to give it back eventually.

      • Well I've learnt my lesson about posting too fast. I had it in my mind that the link was the domain name itself. I didn't realize there was an intermediary page on that linked to Ford. If this had anything to do with trademarks in domain names, it would have been GM suing.
      • Disclaimer: I'm only a law student, not yet a lawyer. But from the standards set forth in this opinion, it looks as though you could, in fact, go ahead and use for whatever you wanted, as long as you weren't harming them commercially. In other jurisdictions you might even be allowed to go further; according to that Northland Insurance case the judge cited, other courts might apply a "balance of harms" test (i.e., balance your freedom of speech against the probable or actual harm to your "victim"). Here's what that court said:

        After an insurance coverage dispute between plaintiff insurance company and defendant former insured, defendant registered two internet sites in order to showcase his complaints against plaintiff and to allow others to air their complaints. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, unfair business practices, and a claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of harms weighed in favor of an injunction. Plaintiff failed to establish a substantial probability of success on the merits; plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of confusion regarding the trademark infringement claims, and defendant's actions did not indicate a commercial intent sufficient to satisfy infringement, dilution, or anticybersquatting requisites. The public interest favored the denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction ...
  • 2600 irc server (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    come and talk about this story on the irc server.

  • I don't see how the internet could exist without links. If we had to manually type in url's for every website, I don't think anybody would get very far. Search Engines wouldn't even exist, would they?
    • I don't see how the internet could exist without links. If we had to manually type in url's for every website, I don't think anybody would get very far.

      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...

  • by rickthewizkid ( 536429 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @10:20AM (#2744048)
    Ford is now the owner of ""
  • hhmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    I belive everyone should have the right to have hyperlinks. However, I don't feel the way inwhich this redirection is done is entirely fair to ford.

    People who are not new to the web are going to be able quickly determine that this( is not ford's work. However, someone new to the web is going to say I went to 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.
    • You raise the extreme point and certainly consideration, but overall, we're better off without government interference in these kinds of links.

      If I get a GM car and trash Ford by painting something derogatory about Ford, then should either GM or Ford be able to control what I say or do?

      Besides, Ford could easily detect the incoming URL as non-standard and put up their own web page explaining the situation.

      But I guess its easier to spend $1M on a lawsuit than $5 on a technical fix.
  • Ford, that is. Doubtful GM could now try and bust them for -not- trying to do anything about it. If they hadn't tried to do anything about it, after GM possibly bringing it to their attention at some point, well, it might be more problematic. As it is now, it is sort of like Calvin 'honoring' the Chevy logo, but Ford can say 'hey, it wasn't us'.
  • by Stephen ( 20676 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @10:37AM (#2744075) Homepage
    Even if they're not violating Ford's trademark, I'm sure BT can still get them for violating their patent on hyperlinks [].
  • by Anonymous Coward

    So, does this mean I can register
    • It doesn't appear that this case addresses the rights of General Motors, which would be the precedent you're looking for. A better analogy would be the redirection of to, but even there you can't rely on this decision to protect you (from Microsoft), because this case has only been decided at the lowest Federal level, and only decisions by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (or higher) set binding national precedent. In the absence of such precedent, the Federal District Court for Western Washington would be free to ignore this decision in deciding related cases.
    • Go ahead. I dare you. I've always wanted to know where Anonymous Coward lives. :)

  • by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @10:55AM (#2744099) Homepage Journal
    If someone registered and pointed it at your website, and you had a bunch of freaks harassing you day and night for something you never did...

    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 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.

    • by ConsumedByTV ( 243497 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @11:12AM (#2744119) Homepage
      Well its not like Ford in the early days before his death printed an anti-semetic news paper or anything. [] OR that dupont supported the Nazis in ww2 and now they support GM.
      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?
      • So because Ford published this newspaper in the past people should be allowed to fuck on the corporation these days when it is publically owned?

        Nice logic there, does that means it's ok to fuck on America because they used to have slaves?

        I happen to agree with you that you should be allowed to point your domain wherever you like but I don't think it's fair of you to try and rationalize it through the nazi connection.
        • by Anonymous Coward
          Dickwad! He was demonstrating the concept
          of free speech. Henry Ford, depsite being
          anti-semitic, was afforded that right, and
          so too are 2600. The fact that the latter
          chose to exercise that right on the Internet,
          alters nothing.
    • "Seriously, to register a derogatory domain name and point it to someone else's webpage is effectively slander"

      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?
      • There isnt a meatspace equivalent unless somehow by looking at your sign people were mysteriously teleported to a Ford dealership.
      • Seriously, to register a derogatory domain name and point it to someone else's webpage is effectively slander"

        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 on the page, I would say it is okay. But the sight pointed directly at (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.

      • No, slander is an oral act; you're thinking of libel.

        i love it when you fuckers talk dirty.

    • When the average person typed and Ford's website popped up, they would have assumed that the domain name was registered by Ford

      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.
      • If the average person is an idiot, yes...

        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". Thanks. Love, Jacques.

        • Did that use to be an automatic redirect? When I've looked at it, I get a single page with one sentence containing a couple of hyperlinks -- the one saying fuckgeneralmotors going to you know where. Doesn't look like any sort of corporate web site, and there's lots of room for another sentence. But maybe rev 1.0 was different... Not that you can ask for an injunction on the basis of rev 1.0 when it's been replaced by rev 2.0.
    • Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @12:17PM (#2744263)
      Sorry.. Trademark law requires 'resonableness' on the part of the public. Trademark law was *not* created in order to prevent slander.
      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 ''. 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 '' was diluting the value of their mark.
      And the judge called bullshit.

      This is not a slander case. It's a trademark case.
    • But why the hell is the average person typing I'm far from the average internet user, and _I_ certainly have never typed that....
    • Yeah, wonderful point of view you have there. Let's build our system of law around protecting the stupidity of the most moronic portion of our civilization. Or maybe it's just that you and the people who agree with you think that the general public is a big herd of sheep that lacks you insightful nature. Quick, someone call Comedy Central and NBC, god only knows what horrible carnage has been wrought by various skits that've parodized Fedex, Pizza Hut, and the GAP over the years. By using actual company names in the production, millions of people must be convinced that the show was given official permission to portray them in this way, and that despite the negative nature of the parody, the company must for some reason be actively involved in it's own slander.

      What brilliant skills of deduction you have.

    • When the average person typed 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.

      Seriously though, if someone types in "" Could they themselves seriously be all that against profanity? Furthermore, if Ford want to do anything about it, just change all links off the main page to include, so unless 2600 is deep-linking, then nobody ever sees the FUCK stuff except on the main page. Further, if they bothered, they could have simply set-up virtual hosting on that machine and choose to display whatever they want when a request comes in for that particular domain name.

      Perhaps they shouldn't have to go to these measures, but it would be faster, cheaper and simpler to just take care of business than to whine about it.

      My $0.02
    • Well, gillbates -- I have to hand it to you because your argument shows you are a very smart and innovative thinker. I am even more impressed if it turns out that you are not a lawyer. You have made an argument very similar to the one that Ford's lawyers made.

      It helps to read the papers that were actually filed with the court -- especially this one [].

      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 [] 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 .commons was critical to the .com revolution, then what do expect from judges?

      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.
    • <Devil's Advocate>
      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 [] and apparently Ford isn't even smart enough to implement this; all their money goes to lawyers I guess.

      </Devil's Advocate>


    • When the average person typed and Ford's website popped up

      Uhh... Can you explain just *one* thingy to me, please?

      Why is the average person going to be pointing their browsers to ""? :D

    • 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:

      • The average person types f* into his browser for no reason?
      • They assume Ford themselves registered "f*" and promotes the use of profanity? I've got a low opinion of the average American intelligence, but not that low.
    • Let's get real! The "average" person would not type "" unless they were fed the URL by someone.

      Personally, I thought it was funny! No way I could or would take it as a serious action by Ford, Daimler-Chrysler or any other legitimate company.

      How many people do you know, other than geeks and freaks, that EVER surf the net using url's that start with "fuck"? It is a bad joke, in bad taste and in reality, has no effect on Ford other than an intrusive redirection of an IP address.
  • by Ethidium ( 105493 ) <> on Sunday December 23, 2001 @11:01AM (#2744105) Homepage Journal
    I am not a lawyer, and the following does not even resemble legal advise.

    First off, as some have wondered, this is a denial of a preliminary injunction, which means that the court has only considered preliminary briefs, and found that the briefs were not sufficient to force the site to be taken down while the trial goes forward. This would be done only if (as stated in the opinion):

    1) the movant [Ford] has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of the injunction.

    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:

    In the offline context, consider a graffiti vandal painting "Fuck General Motors" on a sign at Ford headquarters. While some other law may (or should) provide a remedy, it would be a stretch to conclude that trademark law had been violated. The same is true in this case.

    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.

    • In the offline context, consider a graffiti vandal painting 'Fuck General Motors' on a sign at Ford headquarters. While some other law may (or should) provide a remedy...

      Except GM doesn't own the DNS system. It's not their property. It'd be more like me passing out anti-GM leaflets on the public sidewalk in front of their headquarters.

      They don't like being talked about. Especially when the people doing the talking are anti-GM. They have money, so they sue to silence. Any mentions of property seem to fall into the category of intellectual property and bullshit. Roughly the same thing.

      • Err.. you are right in a techincal sense, but not in a public perception sense.

        The public sees 'the URL says '' 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.
        • But, besides the fact that the grafitti is on ford-owned property, the judge's analogy has another problem: the grafitti is probably poorly written and is obviously not professionally done, so the public would know that it's just grafitti and not the offical position of ford.

          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?
    • The case won't go to trial - the judge essentially said that ford has no chance of success not that they don't have a strong liklihood of success.

      The next step will be a motion for summary judgment by which is appropriate as the judge already found that no facts are in dispute. All the judge has to rule on then is weather is as a matter of law entitled to summary judgment - it appears from this order by the judge that he will have no problem making that decision.
    • Actually, it is completely over. Ford lost. Read the update on
    • 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.

      * * * *

      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, [] 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.
  • Ford Motor Company probably just wanted to keep the General Motors lawyers off their backs.

    Not sure if they expected to win such a case..
    but for saving face, they had to try something to show they weren't responsible for the mud sling.
  • I don't see why Ford had a problem here. In most cases, someone linking to your site is free publicity. In cases where you'd rather not have them link, and asking politely doesn't do the job, just configure the website to reject requests from that referrer.
    • If all they did was point DNS, it wouldn't be the referer (HTTP_REFERER) they'd be looking for, but rather the hostname (HTTP_HOST). HTTP_REFERER is set when redirecting from an existing Web site to the new site; if they just pointed DNS to Ford's IP, they're not actually redirecting at all - they just have an additional hostname that points to the Web server, in addition to
  • by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @11:57AM (#2744214) Homepage

    When will they learn that if someone is linking to their site, they can determine that through the HTTP Referer header [] 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?

    • Large Companies rather sue then play techno geek games. It's all about power, money, and control. Not to mention, a large site like that with million at stake an hour, isn't going to play with their site. Do you realize how much paper work is involes in just making a small change? like a image. It's crazy.
  • Most people who have used the Internet for some time understand that anyone can link to you, and that because they did doesn't mean you endorse their site. Many companies have threatened legal action against linkers on the grounds that they don't want to be associated with certain kinds of sites.

    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.
  • by Lan-Z ( 148249 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @12:06PM (#2744238)
    2600 stepped in when they found out someone got sued by Ford for the domain name the domain name was taken from the person sued as you can see:

    Ford Motor Company (FORDSUCKS5-DOM)
    330 Town Center Dr. FPS-Suite 600
    Dearborn, MI 48126

    Domain Name: FORDSUCKS.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    DNSmgr, Ford (DF197-ORG) dnsmgr@FORD.COM
    Ford Motor Company
    1303 Fairlane Circle
    Allen Park, MI 48101
    Fax- 313-390-1697
    Technical Contact:
    DNSadmin, Ford (AD2148-ORG) dnsadmin@FORD.COM
    Ford Motor Company
    1303 Fairlane Circle
    Allen Park, MI 48101
    Fax- 313-390-1697
    Billing Contact:
    DNSbill, Ford (DF169-ORG) dnsbill@FORD.COM
    Ford Motor Company
    Fairlane Business Park
    1303 Fairlane Circle
    Allen Park, MI 48101 US
    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:


    2600 caught wind of this and wanted to fight for our rights. They then registered 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)

    by Tranvisor ( 250175 )
    OMG 2600 won a court case! Stop the presses! The end of the world is nigh!

    Comedy aside, I was starting to wonder if it would happen in my lifetime (thme winning anything.)
  • by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @12:12PM (#2744252)
    This is simply the judge denying a prelimenary injunction that Ford tried to impose. The trial has yet to proceed.

    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.
    • When a judge says you have "No Chance of success on the merits" do you think that looks like an invitation to come back and argue. The case will either be dismissed for "failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted" or similarly subject to summary judgment in's favor.
      • Yes, that may be. If the Judge says 'no chance of success', that should tell you something. However..
        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.
  • Seeing as that 2600 page does an auto redirect to the real ford page. Not cool. Ranks right up there with spammers who forge their addresses.
  • Dang! While good news for critical sites that link to $cientology sites, it comes just after some people on ARS (like me) were suggesting changing some links to text URLs to avoid giving Co$ a free ride in search engine rankings.

    $cientology is continously attempting to "spam" search engines like Google in attempt to push critical sites back in the list.

  • by Garry Anderson ( 194949 ) on Sunday December 23, 2001 @01:11PM (#2744372) Homepage
    The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.ORG) and the United States Department of Commerce know how to solve trademark and domain name conflict. They hide the answer to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.

    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 [] (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 [].

    Please visit [] to see the simple solution.
  • So does that mean that this [] is legal?
  • A couple of people have mentioned that the 11-page ruling posted on the Courthouse Website on 20 December was "only" a "preliminary injunction ruling" -- and then these commenters gone on to suggest that there is still "a trial" in the works.

    There was a *** Second Ruling [] ***, however, in the 2600 case, bearing the same date, which John Young now has up on the Cryptome Website.

    Bottom line is that 2600 has REALLY WON BIG!!!! Judge threw out the whole lawsuit.

    Eric C. Grimm
    CyberBrief, PLC
    320 South Main Street
    Ann Arbor, MI 48107-7341
    fax 734.332.4901

  • I think it's not a coincidence that their uptime [] dropped to less than 1 day without rebooting on april 28, the day 2600 announced Ford was dragging them to court. ;)
  • What a great way to get some user-not-so-friendly words to be spoken in court...
    "In the manner of Fuck-general-motors{dot}com linking...."
    I would have loved to have been there to see the justices face.

An egghead is one who stands firmly on both feet, in mid-air, on both sides of an issue. -- Homer Ferguson