Specialty Technical Publishers
Joshua Brady
somitho at gmail.com
Fri Aug 20 17:07:32 UTC 2004
As I have seen the past few days, Susan seems to think quite a bit is
off topic...my personal perception of NANOG is it is a group of
network operators which talk about many things including but not
limited to those of the network operations stand point, I have even
been told that discussing email was off-topic and when has email not
been a core part of the network? I am all for Matt talking about the
litigation of this case, its a quite common thing now in the wonderful
world of the internet, so does that now not fall under rules?
Josh
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:46:49 -0700, Matt Ghali <mghali at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:57:46 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah... But, the problem here is you registered "godengatevw.com" and
> > "haywardvw.com". They'd have a much harder time fending off an en
> > pro per motion for summary dismissal if you had registered domains
> > like "godengatevwsucks.com" and "haywardvwsucks.com". Because you
> > registered domains that directly use their trademarks without clear
> > indication that they are used without permission for commentary,
> > you are in a legal gray-area (gray is the expensive color in the
> > legal world). If you used those domains to sell cars, you'd be in a
> > legal black area and you could simply settle the suit and understand
> > that you were wrong. If you had registered names that clearly weren't
> > their names, but, commentary on them, you'd be pretty much in the
> > white zone from what attorneys have told me. You still might get sued,
> > and, it still might cost you some to defend it, but, you might get
> > away with a simple en pro per motion for summary dismissal on the grounds
> > that you were making fair comment. Of course, they could charge libel,
> > in which case, you'd have to defend yourself and prove that everything
> > said was factual.
>
> Actually, their original broad injunction against me, obtained before
> I even had a chance to secure counsel, was easily overturned by us in
> an order to show cause hearing.
>
> Your perception is incorrect. It does not matter what domain name I
> legitimately register, my speech is protected regardless. The only
> time they would have a legitimate cause for grievance were if I went
> afoul of the lanham act by using "initial interest confusion" to
> divert their customers for my own profit.
>
> I really lucked out and found some excellent legal representation to
> sort out these issues for me- including the lawyer representing the
> People Eating Tasty Animals in their case against PETA.
>
> Incedentally, it turns out that neither of their business names are
> registered trademarks.
>
> > Did they ask you to hand over the domains (demand letter) and you refused,
> > or did they go straight to litigation?
>
> Straight to litigation. I was informed that they were first aware of
> the sites by their lawyer, who demanded I take down any content, or
> see them in court.
>
> > Partially. Although, you might still be able to characterize this as a
> > "SLAPP" suit. It's a stretch, but, might be worth a try. I believe that
> > entitles you to a certain amount of relief and some special handling of
> > your side of the case to make it easier for the little guy to fend off
> > injustice inflicted by the big guy.
>
> Unfortunately, a case has to be very clear cut and frivolous to
> qualify as a possible SLAPP. In other words, it has to be a strong
> possibility for a summary judgement before it even gets to judicial
> arbitration. That's unfortunate, because a SLAPP judgement would have
> allowed me to countersue for legal fees.
>
> > Anyway, this is way off NANOG topic, so, if you want to continue the
> > discussion, let's take it off the list before Susan tries to string
> > me up.
>
> It seems there's others interested in the subject, and its a situation
> that a lot of folks on the list could easily find themselves in. At
> the very least, I'd like to be in the list archives offering
> assistance and advice to anyone in the future in the same trouble.
>
> matto
>
--
Joshua Brady
More information about the NANOG
mailing list