Starbucks says it is working with Mexico to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. It says the mugs have been removed from its shop shelves pending the discussions.
*****
A company statement says the supplier of the mugs felt it made good faith efforts to offer payment and obtain permits.
Probably NOT because of any worry about liability, but because the reason for using these images is (presumably) to make Starbucks seem sympatico with Mexican culture, and hence to appeal to a particular demographic, and the last thing Starbucks needs is to be denounced by the Mexican government as "stealing our culture."
Overbroad indeed. Even assuming that some statements posted to the site were actionable, the judge ignored section 230 (but was section 230 argued to him?) in issuing an injunction against the site host. And even worse -- a judge in New Jersey has issued orders that hosting sites on the other side of the country have obeyed, instead of insisting that the plaintiffs get orders in the Arizona and California courts. Why are GoDaddy and other companies accepting these orders?
What is worrisome about this lawsuit is that although the complaint does allege that the purpose of the marketing ploy was to imply that the teams in question had endorsed Black and Decker, it seems just as likely that Black and Decker was trying to show its fealty to the team.
Back in the 70's, anybody could make up a shirt that said New York Yankees or New York Giants on it, and then wear it or sell it. The folks wearing those shirts didn't care one whit about whether the Yankees or Giants made the shirt or had taken a cut of the shirt-makers' revenue. But MLB and NLF started filing lawsuits claiming that fans would automatically assume that the Yankees or Giants had endorsed or at least approved of the shirt sellers, and by winning a couple of cases, they created a new rule of law -- you can't sell shirts showing support for a team without paying the team off.
I'd hate to see another expansion of team owners' monopoly on displays of support for their teams.
Have you or Techdirt EVER actually been sued for quoting the yahoos that think you can't? Or do you think you've made a name for yourself, 'Suing Techdirt is one can of worms we don't want to open'.
It is important not to underestimate the impact that threats like this can have. Sure, Techdirt has a bully pulpit, has access to free legal counsel, and Mike KNOWS both his rights and the availability of counsel. But many people who get this sort of letter don't have any of the above, and they pay up rather than risking the financial impact of being sued.
There are firms that make their living just by sending out bogus threats of IP litigation, and taking a commission on the damages for which they shake down their marks.
So every once in a while, it is important to teach an object lesson. Being horsewhipped in a Techdirt post is one form of object lesson. Another is to be on the wrong end of a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling of non-infringement. Maybe this is what Zukovsky-fils requires, I dunno.
Most of the names are typographical variations on the freecreditreport.com scheme, or add state names to that name.
I didn't notice any domain names that expressly included critical words, but in isolation that would not matter if, for example, one of these names had been registered for a web site that comments on freecreditreport.com. However, the very length of the list of typosquat-type names tends to suggest what the registrant was trying to do.
A few are rather curious, though. For example, these three domain names: , , . None of these doamin names are actually about the complainant, because a review of the "freecrecitreport.com" site suggests that you cannot get your report without giving a credit card number. The site says:
IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
When you order your free report here, you will begin your free trial membership in Triple Advantage(SM). If you don't cancel your membership within the 7-day trial period†, you will be billed $14.95 for each month that you continue your membership.
I did not give them any info about myself to sign up, but presumably you have to give a credit card number for them to effectuate the monthly billing that is automatic for those who don't cancel.....
On the post: Mexican Gov't Says Starbucks Can't Use Images Of Mexican Artifacts On Mugs... Without Paying Up
But Starbucks is caving in!
Starbucks says it is working with Mexico to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. It says the mugs have been removed from its shop shelves pending the discussions.
*****
A company statement says the supplier of the mugs felt it made good faith efforts to offer payment and obtain permits.
Probably NOT because of any worry about liability, but because the reason for using these images is (presumably) to make Starbucks seem sympatico with Mexican culture, and hence to appeal to a particular demographic, and the last thing Starbucks needs is to be denounced by the Mexican government as "stealing our culture."
On the post: Court Overreacts And Orders Full Takedown Of Anti-H-1B Websites Over Contradictory Libel/Copyright Claims
Overbroad
On the post: Does It Make Sense That A Non-Official Advertiser Can't Give Away Sporting Events Tickets?
Implied endorsement by whom?
Back in the 70's, anybody could make up a shirt that said New York Yankees or New York Giants on it, and then wear it or sell it. The folks wearing those shirts didn't care one whit about whether the Yankees or Giants made the shirt or had taken a cut of the shirt-makers' revenue. But MLB and NLF started filing lawsuits claiming that fans would automatically assume that the Yankees or Giants had endorsed or at least approved of the shirt sellers, and by winning a couple of cases, they created a new rule of law -- you can't sell shirts showing support for a team without paying the team off.
I'd hate to see another expansion of team owners' monopoly on displays of support for their teams.
On the post: Poet's Son Says No One Can Quote Father Without Paying Up... Even Academic Dissertations...
Has Mike ever been sued....
Have you or Techdirt EVER actually been sued for quoting the yahoos that think you can't? Or do you think you've made a name for yourself, 'Suing Techdirt is one can of worms we don't want to open'.
It is important not to underestimate the impact that threats like this can have. Sure, Techdirt has a bully pulpit, has access to free legal counsel, and Mike KNOWS both his rights and the availability of counsel. But many people who get this sort of letter don't have any of the above, and they pay up rather than risking the financial impact of being sued.
There are firms that make their living just by sending out bogus threats of IP litigation, and taking a commission on the damages for which they shake down their marks.
So every once in a while, it is important to teach an object lesson. Being horsewhipped in a Techdirt post is one form of object lesson. Another is to be on the wrong end of a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling of non-infringement. Maybe this is what Zukovsky-fils requires, I dunno.
On the post: FreeCreditReport Wins Over 1,000 Domain Names In Dispute Process
1) freecreditreportwithnocreditcard.com
2) freecreditreportwithoutcreditcard.com>
3) freecreditreportwithoutusingacreditcard.com
On the post: FreeCreditReport Wins Over 1,000 Domain Names In Dispute Process
The list of domain names
Most of the names are typographical variations on the freecreditreport.com scheme, or add state names to that name.
I didn't notice any domain names that expressly included critical words, but in isolation that would not matter if, for example, one of these names had been registered for a web site that comments on freecreditreport.com. However, the very length of the list of typosquat-type names tends to suggest what the registrant was trying to do.
A few are rather curious, though. For example, these three domain names: , , . None of these doamin names are actually about the complainant, because a review of the "freecrecitreport.com" site suggests that you cannot get your report without giving a credit card number. The site says:
IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
When you order your free report here, you will begin your free trial membership in Triple Advantage(SM). If you don't cancel your membership within the 7-day trial period†, you will be billed $14.95 for each month that you continue your membership.
I did not give them any info about myself to sign up, but presumably you have to give a credit card number for them to effectuate the monthly billing that is automatic for those who don't cancel.....
Next >>