If People Actually Hate Your Product And Say So, That's Not A Trademark Violation
from the just-so-you-know... dept
Back in December, we wrote about a company that was selling a product it claimed would provide you with a facelift in an hour. Not surprisingly, many people weren't impressed with the results of such a product (which was advertised widely on TV) and wrote about it on such sites as InfomercialScams.com. The company behind the product proceeded to sue InfomercialScams claiming trademark infringement. There were just a few problems with this. First, having someone critique your product is not a trademark violation -- it's protected free speech. Second, even if it were a trademark violation, it would be a violation by the person writing the review, not the website service provider. It appears that the facelift-in-a-box company hasn't quite learned that lesson as it's now also threatening yet another site that has negative reviews of the product. That site has responded by pointing out that the original lawsuit appears to be a misuse of trademark law, and then also countersues claiming that the company broke the site's terms of service. The countersuit seems like a stretch from a legal standpoint (and, even if the terms of service are violated, it's not clear that it's a matter that raises to the level of a lawsuit), but it's good to see yet another site fighting back against an abuse of trademark law.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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First
These are the frivilous lawsuits that should be thrown out of court, and the company fined for wasting the courts tim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIRST!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T - SUCKS
HP - SUCKS
DELL - SUCKS
And many more -
Sue ME!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just sue Techdirt to get their name and then sue them. Problem is techdirt will probably sue me and then I'll sue you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most other companies I know, just shrug it off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most other companies I know, just shrug it off.
They are sensitive about it because it's 3 am, and they can't sleep because they have hot flashes, or something else. DON'T LAUNCH THE NUKES HILLARY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: SilverSliver
Better yet, discorporate the company. Destroy it utterly.
Too many companies simply put court fines in the "expenses" side of their balance sheet and keep doing what they were doing before.
Fines work to deter the behavior of individuals when they cause financial ruin, fines typically don't work on corporations with much deeper pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: SilverSliver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
have a little compassion
it's hard enough to find morons to scam in the middle of the night without the internets exposing their secrets all over the place. cut these guys a little slack... they're just trying to protect their god-given right to lie to people for profit.
besides, trademark is pretty much the only legal tool they have. "our crap doesn't actually work" doesn't hold much weight as a trade secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the resources and money wasted instead of being invested in r&d. It feels like there's really something wrong with the way businesses are run.
I'm sure there's legitimate cases, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot of bogus SCO's like cases. I don't know, not being a specialist in the matter may affect my comprehension on the subject.
Strange world we live in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are lawyers trying to take over the world or something? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misuse of Trademark
The Church of $cientology also uses trademark infringement claims to pull auctions from eBay for E-Meters (the $25 worth of plastic and electronics that is really just a wheatstone bridge and skin galvanometer) that the Church sells for $5500, but that they don't want any ex/non-$cientologist to be able to sell/buy.
What makes this outright abuse of trademark law is that the Cof$ allows auctions of E-Meters on eBay if the seller is a current $cientologist, and if they promise to sell it only to another $cientologist.
www.xenu.net
www.enturbulation.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A deliberate Streisand effect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ha
How can people possibly think that a product like that could work? I take that back. People drink their own urine for youth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think so Computer science professor Matt Blaze critiques a recent New Yorker profile of Michael McConnell, the man who is leading the Bush administration's charge for more warrantless wiretapping powers.......thank
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
444
[ link to this | view in chronology ]