 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
No
Trademark Infringement
|
Freedom of Speech Protection
|
Protection to Gripesites
No Trademark Infringement
Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2003)
Defendant is a web designer by trade. Upon hearing the news that Taubman was building a shopping mall called "The Shops at Willow Bend,", defendant registered the domain name, "shopsatwillowbend.com," and created an Internet website with that address. The designer website advertised the businesses of the designer and his girlfriend, along with information about the mall. The website also indicated that it was an unofficial site and provided links to the builder's websites. Taubman filed a complaint claiming trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. After filing, defendant registered several complaint names which added the word "sucks" to variations of the builder's name.
 |
|
The Taubman Company |
a. the designer removed the links to the businesses of the designer and his girlfriend and thus did not use the name in connection with the sale or advertising of any goods or services.
b. the designer's disclaimer and links to the builder's sites precluded any likelihood of confusion.
c. the designer's complaint names (“sucks”), even if intended to produce economic harm to the builder, were merely expressions of the designer's opinions which were protected by his freedom of speech
No Cybersquatting: Freedom of Speech Protection for Gripesites
Grosse registered the domain name "lucasnursery.com." She then posted a web page for the sole purpose of relaying her story to the public. The web page was titled, "My Lucas Landscaping Experience." The web page included complaints about the poor landscaping job Lucas completed for Grosse. Lucas wanted to have the website removed and claimed violation of the ACPA.
The court held in favor of the defendant. The court concluded that no action of defendant fell under the harm which the ACPA tries to protect:
a. There was no dispute that the company did not have an online location, and hence defendant's creation of a web site to complain about the company's services could not have been intended to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location.
b. There was no evidence that defendant ever sought to mislead consumers with regard to the site’s sponsorship.
c. The web site explicitly stated that the site was established by defendant for the purposes of relaying her experience with the company.
d. Defendant never offered to sell the site to the company.
e. Defendant did not provide misleading contact information when she registered the domain name.
f. She had not acquired any additional domain names, which would be indicative of either an intent to sell such names to those entities whose trademarks were identical or similar, or exploit them for other uses
Accordingly,
actions similar to Grosse's do not
fall under the provisions of the ACPA. Sharing and individual's
experience with a
corporation’s service or products with others, falls under the freedom
of
speech and is protected by the First Amendment.