Court Dismisses Case Against Yahoo From Woman Upset How She Appeared In Results
from the not-yahoo's-liability dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about a woman named Beverly Stayart, who had sued Yahoo over what she found when she did a search on her name. Her complaint was that some of the links advertised porn sites and possibly contained malware, and that this was a violation of her trademark and privacy rights. After the posting, we received a number of comments on that post, and more recently, received a legal letter from the woman's lawyer, demanding that we remove many of the comments or get sued. With the help of Paul Alan Levy at Public Citizen, we replied to the letter, refusing to remove the comments, and detailing our reasons why. To date, we have not been sued over this, but you may want to take our reporting on the subject with whatever caveats, given these facts.Earlier this week, the court dismissed the lawsuit against Yahoo and denied Stayart's request to refile. The court had trouble with the idea that this was a trademark claim, noting that just because she does not like how her name is shown, it does not create a trademark violation. There are two major problems: (1) she doesn't appear to be using her name in commerce in this particular field and (2) there is little to no likelihood of confusion. From the ruling:
Similarly, Stayart is not engaged in the commercial marketing of her identity, and she does not allege an intent to commercialize. Stayart alleges that her name has commercial value, but it is clear that Stayart's complaint arises from the distasteful association of her name with pornographic images, advertisements for sexual dysfunction drugs, and a sexually-oriented dating service..... Stayart cannot satisfy this requirement [likelihood of confusion] as a matter of law because her complaint explicitly disavows any association with pornographic materials, sexual dysfunction drugs, or sexually-oriented dating services (i.e., Various' website AdultFriendFinder.com). As noted above, Stayart alleges that "in no way has [she] ever engaged in a promiscuous lifestyle, or other overt sexual activities, which she and a large portion of her community and social circle consider perverse and abhorrent." Complaint, ¶ 20. This allegation contravenes the likelihood of confusion, and Stayart pleaded herself out of court on her Lanham Act claim. No one who accessed these links could reasonably conclude that Bev Stayart endorsed the products at issue.From this, it would certainly appear that the court is not at all persuaded that you can bring a trademark infringement lawsuit against a search engine based on how your name appears.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Filed Under: bev stayart, beverly stayart, search results, trademark
Companies: yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stand by for my now-standard response...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That was such a "Stayart"
Let's see how she reacts to that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Letters
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Once again....
Just because someone says something about you that you dont like
DOES
NOT
FUCKING
MAKE
IT
ILLEGAL.
Please, for the love of JESUS, get this shit through your idiotic heads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Stand by for my now-standard response...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: That was such a "Stayart"
Just so we don't get sued, maybe we can call them "Skankyarts"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bitch needs to grow the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This had never anything to do with her being "upset". The real reason can be found on her profile, or more accurately her current job description
"Manage financial and marketing aspects of Stayart Law Offices."
It was all about raising the profile of her family law firm[ link to this | view in thread ]
I thought you couldn’t trademark your own name anyway
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I thought you couldnt trademark your own name anyway
Maybe we should be impressed that people are starting to think of Google as _the_ internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I thought you couldnt trademark your own name anyway
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090823/1641525967.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lawsuit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lawsuit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lawsuit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh those nutty lawyers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: lawsuit
Judge Randa has been on the state and federal bench for 34 years. Yeah, too bad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wisconsin lawyers and judges a travesty!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]