Using Trademark Law To Stop Free Speech

from the first,-we-shoot-all-the... dept

Wed, Oct 25th 2006 11:03am — Mike Masnick

The folks over at Public Citizen Litigation Group continue to fight the good fight against corporations and lawyers who are clearly misusing trademark law to bully individuals or organizations they don't like. This is the same group who we recently covered supporting a woman who dared to sell the shampoo bottle on eBay that she had legally bought, and the law firm who was accused of trademark infringement by a railway company for having paintings of various trains (which they commissioned) shown on their website. In that case, it was clearly not a trademark violation at all (you can use trademarks in art), but one where the railway firm was upset that the law firm helped in cases involving injured railway employees. It seems that same sort of thinking is at work in the latest legal issue Public Citizen is involved in. It revolves around an environmental group that created an effigy of the governor of Texas kissing a smokestack. On the smokestack were the logos of various firms accused of polluting. It's pretty clear protest speech, and hardly a violation of trademark, but don't try explaining that to the lawyers who sent the nastygram to the group. When Public Citizen's Paul Alan Levy sent a letter to the company's lawyer, re-explaining the basics of trademark law (especially the part about how it's perfectly legal to use a company's logo in criticizing that company), the lawyer simply responded to Levy by saying he "looked forward to meeting [him] personally." Why let something like the actual law get in the way of intimidation tactics?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

David, 25 Oct 2006 @ 12:05pm

Law? What law?
The law belongs to the side with the most persuasive lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sanguine Dream, 25 Oct 2006 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re: Law? What law?
  I thought the law went to the highest bidder. The only reason we havent seen anyone selling, "Rare!!! The Law!!!! Super Rare Item!!!!!" on ebay is that the law makers havent gotten quite that brazen...yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 26 Oct 2006 @ 9:00am
  
  Re: Law? What law?
  The law belongs to the side with the most persuasive lawyer
  
  i think you misspelled expensive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 25 Oct 2006 @ 12:14pm

Wow!
A texas lawyer who threatens physical violence for his clients. Anyone haave hos number ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insaniak, 25 Oct 2006 @ 12:39pm

the law...
the law is used by people who see it in black and white and defended by those who see it in grey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
steve, 25 Oct 2006 @ 1:11pm

Law
The US has the best legal system money can buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DigitalBomb, 25 Oct 2006 @ 2:48pm

Yes, thank all of you commenters for your wonderful ad hominems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fernando, 25 Oct 2006 @ 3:51pm

DigitalBomb needs a dictionary. An ad hominem attack is an attack on a particular person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TrippinLikeGod, 25 Oct 2006 @ 6:56pm

seriously
Yeah Ad Hominem is saying "It doesn't matter that you said the sky is blue because you're a moron!", it's an attempt to discredit a statement by razing the person who made it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 26 Oct 2006 @ 5:04am
  
  Re: seriously
  Maybe he's anthropomorphizing our legal system?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neal, 26 Oct 2006 @ 5:58am

I don't get it
You know, I don't see why the courts don't stomp on these lawyers. If a lawyer has had more than a couple trademark law cases then he/she knows the boundaries of trademarks and only a rare edge case is non-obvious. Attorneys should be held liable for fees and damages when they threaten or engage in litigation that someone fresh out of lawschool would see as rediculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2006 @ 1:10am

How dare you contradict me! Ill slap you silly???
So, when did 5 year olds start being able to pass the bar?
Vague threats like that are.. are... I'm at a loss for words, even most children are not that lame.

Perhaps the correct answer would be
"Yes, lets meet at the review board, then thy can sort you out properly as it's obvious that you have no business being a lawyer."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]