Roca Labs Issues Bogus DMCA Takedown Notices To Google To Try To Hide PissedConsumer Reviews
from the keep-digging dept
Yes, we're back again with another Roca Labs story already. Lawyer Ron Coleman alerts us to the latest ridiculous legal strategy by Roca Labs: send a DMCA notice to Google to try to hide the negative reviews of Roca Labs on PissedConsumer.com. As you know, Roca Labs is suing PissedConsumer because it hosts some negative reviews of Roca's product (a claimed "alternative" to gastric bypass surgery). The DMCA notice in question claims that thumbnails used on the PissedConsumer reviews violate its copyright, and further, that PissedConsumer violates Roca Labs trademarks by using Roca Labs in the URL for the Roca Labs reviews.The thumbnail image of Roca Labs copyrighted website that can be seen at the URL below. This thumbnail also contains the image of Roca Lab's product that was photographed by Roca Labs and all copyrights are owned by Roca Labs (original studio image is not online). Furthermore, PissedConsumer.com directly uses the name Roca Labs which is a Registered trademarked property (US Registration No. 4145897). To be more specific, pissedconsumer.com uses our company name in the URL and pages.Like many of the legal arguments from Roca Labs, these seem to be almost entirely bogus.
First, thumbnail images in this manner are almost certainly fair use -- something Google knows darn well, since it was the key defendant in the case (Perfect 10 v. Google) that established this point. Even outside of that authority, a basic four factors analysis would easily show that using thumbnails for reviews is fair use.
Second, the DMCA is not to be used for trademark claims, as the DMCA does not cover trademark.
Third, even if it did, the URLs are clearly not infringing, as a huge number of rulings concerning "gripe sites" that use the name of the company they're criticizing in their URL have found. When such sites are clearly not the originating company and there's no likelihood of confusion, such URLs are nearly always found to be non-infringing.
Either way, this seems to fit Roca's pattern of doing anything it can possibly do to try to suppress criticism of its product. It really makes you wonder why the company is so worried about letting customers give an opinion about their product, doesn't it?
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: copyright, dmca, fair use, thumbnails, trademark
Companies: google, pissedconsumer, roca labs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fits Roca's pattern?
Could Roca get that penalty of perjury thing for misuse of the DMCA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fits Roca's pattern?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snake oil scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snake oil scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Snake oil scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Snake oil scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snake oil scam
Jeebus. Can't any of you intartubes freaks do ANY research for yourselves?!?!!!11 Fneh:
https://rocalabs.com/roca-labs-reviews :
"About 185,000 results on YouTube".
We haven't slept for weeks (WEEKS!) trying to keep up with the demand for our revolutionary product (*Results may vary.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez, these guys just won't quit.
[ 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:
You stole that from me! I said pretty much exactly the same thing just this afternoon about something else, and accused Comedy Central for being behind it, but whatever, I'll SEE YOU IN COURT!!!?!1?1111
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then we came into continued attractions with Kleargear, Charles Carreon, and now we have our latest star villain, Roca Labs.
Some folks never learn and for them I give one more Will Rogers quote that seems to fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bogus DMCA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it possible...
Because that's what it looks like. It looks like some attorneys who smelled easy money and have convinced Roca to go on a scorched-earth campaign against everyone over everything, knowing that the more legal entanglements Roca gets into, the bigger the legal bill is going to be. And it doesn't matter if they win or not -- Roca's lawyers will still get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it possible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it possible...
Be careful or Roca will add you to the lawsuit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it possible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it possible...
Or they're just making some kind of stand which is unlikely to convince anyone anywhere that the CDA should be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it possible...
They offer a couple things to dissuade him to cover their behinds, then go full on, whatever word I can use without insulting all sorts of people, while making sure the checks are clearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it possible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it possible...
Wikipedia: Communications Decency Act.
As I'm not the commenter to whom you're replying, you're on your own for the rest of your question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it possible...
'Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.'
Yeah, I imagine they would love to have that little bit struck from the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seen on Techdirt's advertising
Hooray for irony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]