Cyber Defamation: Gripe,it's allright...but be ready for the expensive Trademark Infringement and Cybersquatting lawsuit!
Categories: Defamation,Trademark Law,Cyber Law,Internet Law
The Internet provides a unique forum where aggrieved customers, former employees, and other members of the public can express their dissatisfaction with a company's products, services, or practices. There is an abundance of gripe websites and the addition of the suffix "sucks.com" to the name of a business is not uncommon. But companies often retaliate, filing lawsuits alleging a variety of legal causes of action including violation of trademark laws, violation of copyright laws, defamation, and tortious interference with business relationships.
If the outcome of litigation was the sole measuring standard of how gripers have faired in these suits, you could say that the gripers have done very well. As long as the griper does not benefit financially or commercially from the gripe site, attempts to shut them down are rarely successful.
The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) does not apply to forms of expression that are not part of a commercial transaction. Successful cyber gripers have convinced the courts that the main purpose of their sites is legitimate criticism rather than cybersquatting. Take for example Lucas Nursery & Landscaping v. Grosse, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to give the ACPA an overbroad meaning and refused to classify the defendant as a cybersquatter in the absence of evidence of bad faith "intent to trade on the goodwill of another's mark." Likewise, in Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California found that the defendant's registration of a domain name containing a the plaintiff's trademark plus a pejorative term did not generate a likelihood of confusion regarding the sponsorship of the site since the motivation to criticize was clear.
Cyber gripers-to-be must consider the enormous cost of defending a lawsuit against a company with sufficient motivation and vast financial resources. Lawyer fees alone can drive a cyber griper into financial ruin! Businesses must make the important business decision of whether to sue or ignore the pesky cyber griper. Don't forger what happened when Toys "R" Us sent a cease and desist letter to the operators of the website Roadkills-R-Us alleging "likelihood of confusion." Rather than folding to Toys "R" Us demands, Roadkills-R-Us created a satirical website about the litigation. Before threatening, make sure that you are in good legal standing and that you are ready to follow through.
Cyber Lawyer, I guess lawyers are trying to make it impossible for hard-working people to report the wrongs done by the powerful ones. I can start a website about my employer or about the crappy tires I bought last months (I guess I can't write the brand name, or that would be "trademark infringement"). At least the Toys R Us story gives me some hope about the status of the law, which otherwise is ridiculous. Lawyers and corporations want to win the war of attrition independent of the merits of their position. What is cybersquatting anyway?
Reply to this
In the process of building a website to notify people about my former deadbeat employer on the Internet. I guess you can call me a cyber griper. Anyway, I am looking for a good domain name. I just checked and the ___sucks.com is available. I am glad that the Internet allows me to warn others about what will come to them if they choose to work for this company.
Reply to this
The ACPA is only a tool for the corporations to shut down employees who could otherwise maintain a website for less than $4/month.
Reply to this
I have an interesting and applicable case, actually two cases. As an investigative reporter I was lucky enough to stumble across two stories contentious enough to make me the subject of two unconstitutional preliminary injunctions in two separate free states: (in Nevada) and (inspired by Indiana Federal Court litigation against the subject of a book I'm writing).
I am doing my best to keep everyone honest in this situation and harness the power of free speech and the Internet to get my message out and prevent these things from getting a hometown cooking job. I already thwarted such an effort in Vegas, and things are not so bad in Indiana after Lucille filed a complaint against the judge, who won't step down despite a clar conflict of interest.
At any rate, please read the sites and check out the MySpace offspirng as well:
and
Of course there is also (run by a guy from Norway) and
Reply to this
As the *real* victim in the lawsuit which can be accessed at
I find the article highly objectionable.
Lawsuits based on legitimate grounds are one thing, but the doctor suing me has carried this to a whole new, reprehensible level. Dr. Barry Eppley, who badly botched my face lift 8 years ago refused my every attempt at civilized, honest communication when I wanted more detailed information about my surgery than what he noted in his operative report. I suffered severe problems with breathing, swallowing, jaw closure, as a direct result of this operation.
His attitude was so deceitful and obnoxious that I put up a website which included documented evidence that he lied about having an anesthesiologist in the OR, posted my medical records and diagnostics proving my medical conditions were cause by his operation. Knowing everything was true, he never sued me during the 7 years the site has been up...until now.
He managed to do this in a blatantly criminal manner.. He **falsely** claimed I sent him email threatening to commit "public suicide" with the intent of "destroying him". His evidence was not email (because I never sent it) but a fabricated message he claims was sent through the comment section of his website.
To make a long and terrifying story short, through his lawyers, he reported this bogus "threat" to the Dept. of Mental Health in Mass. where I live. I was in the middle of making vegetable soup when 5 men in blue uniforms were at my door informing me they were going to take me to the hospital against my will.
I was subjected to removal from the safety of my home to 24 hours in the hospital ER and interviewed by a psychiatrist before I was allowed to leave. This legal (?) stunt was obviously planned well ahead of the purported "suicide threat" as the legal filings prove.
He is suing me for Trademark infringement He trademarked his name and claims I am infringing on this trademark by publishing his name.. which appears on his notes,m reports, etc. all which I have published on my website.
The story appeared in the Indianapolis Business Journal:
Reply to this