Domain Name Registration Triggers C&D From Instagram... Which Triggers A Weirdly Wonderful Backlash Filled With Duck Drawings`
from the domain-name-fun dept
If you're going to allow the corporate finger to rest heavily on the "Release the Lawyers" button, you need to be braced for the backlash. As backlashes go, this particular incident is light on one-star reviews and widespread excoriation. But it is dripping with sarcasm masquerading as wide-eyed innocence and shows just how quickly a handful of internet denizens can make someone wish they'd never bothered trying to "right" a "wrong."
A redditor registered the domain slutsofinstagram.com, as one does when presented with the available tools and the inclination to make snap judgements for the amusement of one's self and (hopefully) others. Shortly after that, the legal department of Instagram got involved, as one does when elbowing others for trademark breathing space and possessing the inclination to host photos without worrying about third-party hecklers.
The letter notes that slutsofinstagram.com "contains" the trademarked word "Instagram." It then talks about its 30 million users and being a "worldwide leader" in photo uploading and justifiably famous for doing so.
It also points out that it must police the internet for uses/abuses of its trademark, ensuring that consumers aren't confused and its mark remains tarnish-free. Finally, the letter notes that the registrant may not be familiar with trademark law, but that's the registrant's fault and he should immediately cease all use of the Instagram trademark, disable any site at that address and not attempt to trade/sell the domain name to another party.
That bit of officiousness prompted this completely ridiculous (but in the more positive sense) response:
HiTwo pages from slutsofinstagram were attached (completely SFW):
Wow that sounds like you guys have a cool videogame. 30 million members. Holy moly! I was confused at first but you must be referring to my online fantasy series Slütsof in Stâgram. It's a really cool project I'm working on, you should check it out. It's about a magical goat and a duck princess who journey across the enchanted land of Stagram, many adventures are had…
I'm sorry if it sounds close to your company name but I don't think you own the alphabet, that would be funny imagine? Have a good day.
Soon, more images were posted, some by the site owner but many more from others, fleshing out the Stâgram world.
As the site owner notes, he has yet to hear back from Instagram. Some questions have been raised, like what kind of legal rep only signs her first name on a C&D and who the hell actually posts funny content to r/Funny? There's also a lack of clarity on the chicken-and-egg problem. Did this redditor create the site with artwork in place simply to troll Instagram, or did he actually have a more unsavory destination in mind before Instagram stepped in?
Either way, the resulting silence (if legit) is growing rather loud. The redditor apparently posted this in early August, even though it was only in the past few days that any attention has been paid to it. Instagram's purported actions have pretty much ensured this site will remain filled with hand-drawn ducks and goats (and Stâgram maps), rather than the more titillating content unwary surfers (and "Edith") may be expecting. So, in a way, it's still a win for Instagram, which won't have its name associated with the word "sluts." On the other hand, the content swiftly filling up slutsofinstagram.com definitely makes it a bit harder to legally claim this redditor should have to abandon his registered domain.
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: cease and desist, fair use, memes, slutsof, slutsof in stagram, stagram, trademark
Companies: instagram
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That said, Stagram has already been used as a shortened form of Instagram apparently, as a simple google search will bear out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Rises both hands*
Also, if this is pure trollish I award one million Internets to this sir. He trolled me as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pronounced "fah-CHEE-bo"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny but disingenuous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny but disingenuous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funny but disingenuous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny but disingenuous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny but disingenuous
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the domain owner has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The first point would easily go in Instagram's favor. The actual use of the website as something that obviously has not relation to Instagram would, however, factor greatly as a defense against a bad faith registration and show legitimate interest in the domain name. Assuming this domain actually went to a UDRP (I suspect it won't), if the domain owner actually submitted a defense I believe he'd have a very good chance of keeping the domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This unnamed redditor obviously took my idea and cleverly changed it so it would no longer violate my copyright. That bastard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(If every domain would incur a $100,000 fine, would infinite subdomains result in a $∞ fine?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the guy had made a site of actual pictures taken from Instagram, i could see how they have cause for the C&D but simply registering a domain..?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just registering a domain name that includes a trademark does not infringe unless you do something with it that makes it infringing.
(See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/domain/CaseLaw.html)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He demanded the guy transfer his domain over to him or something along those lines.
Didn't work, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But it's set up in just that way, very specifically trademarking the "typed drawing" (logo) in specific uses, presumably to make it legally enforcable. An attempt to trademark just his name itself, or to control things like domain registrations that simply use the letters "billyjoel", would stand a much better chance of getting invalidated by a court if he ever tried to protect it.
Which is why Keith Urban was SOL. The best you can hope for in those situations is that if you wave enough money at the holder, they might be convinced to sell you the domain.
Ref: Billy Joel is a registered TradeMark - Straight Dope Message Board
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Third interpretation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Third interpretation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Third interpretation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, is that how lawyers paid by FB think the law actually works?
Conduct business?
And as there was no site when you flipped out, how does one reach that conclusion?
From the legal minds who don't need the law to back up their claims, just a large war chest to run the other guy out of money to make them do what they want. (eg: "Book" lawsuits/threats)
I think this letter did way more to tarnish the mark, than anyone mocking its users online could have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DiamondWare was purchased by another company while I was working there. The website was no longer needed, so I asked my boss if I should put up a redirect to the Doctor Who website or the DW Drums website (those seemed to be what most people were looking for, according to referral data) but he didn't let me. Now Deutsche Welle has control over the domain so they finally did get what they wanted. I wonder how much money it cost them to accomplish that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same thing if DiamondWare let dw.com lie fallow, in fact, since one of the requirements for holding a domain registration is some form of use. (Or it was, back then — I haven't kept up with the rules.) Even a single-page placeholder website is sufficient, but if there were no servers reachable under the dw.com domain at all then Deutsche Welle could've applied to have the registration forfeited and turned over to them. Again, minimal cost.
Obviously, the "smart" move for DiamondWare's new parent would've been to dangle in it front of DW and find out just how much it was worth to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]