Noncommercial Gripesites Rejoice!
As some have noted, the Ninth Circuit ruled yesterday in Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer that there is no federal trademark infringement liability for the use of a trademark in a domain name for a noncommercial website critical of the trademark holder. The key to the court's ruling was the fact that the trademark was not being used "in connection with the sale of goods or services."
This is a very big deal (props to Public Citizen, which defended the case), as I'd say the opinion's rationale applies with equal force to the content, as well as the domain name, of a website. If that's right, then noncommercial critics are completely off the hook with respect to federal trademark and dilution claims. Free pass. Scott free.
Before you all rush off to start your own "sucks" site, here are some important caveats:
- This ruling only applies to noncommercial sites. The court specifically noted that nothing was for sale on the website in question, that there were no commercial advertisements, and that the site did not link to any commercial sites.
- You could still be in trouble for copyright infringement for copying graphics or logos owned by the trademark holder. That might be a fair use, but your noncommercial purpose is only one factor in that analysis.
- The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) might nab you if you try to use a domain name in "bad faith" to squeeze money out of a TM holder. Once again, your noncommercial purpose is only one factor the court will consider.
- Watch out for state law trademark and related claims, which may not include similar commercial use thresholds.
- And here's the big one: This ruling is only binding in the Ninth Circuit. There is another ruling from the Fourth Circuit, PETA v. Doughney, that says that anything that "prevented users from obtaining or using [the trademark owner's] goods or services" could satisfy the "in connection with the sale of goods or services" and potentially give rise to federal trademark liability. In PETA, the website in question also had lots of links to commercial websites, so maybe that's the distinguishing feature. But stay tuned, because this issue could well be on its way to the Supreme Court for resolution.
Related Updates
Who needs a DDoS (Denial of Service) attack when you have a new president? As of February 2nd, thousands of web pages and datasets have been removed from U.S. government agencies following a series of executive orders. The impacts span the Department of Veteran Affairs and the ...
Last week’s BMG v. Cox decision has gotten a lot of attention for its confusing take on secondary infringement liability, but commentators have been too quick to dismiss the implications for the DMCA safe harbor. Internet service providers are still not copyright...
EFF, Public Knowledge, and the Center for Democracy and Technology Urge The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to Protect Internet Subscribers in BMG v. Cox.
No one should have to fear losing their Internet connection because of unfounded accusations. But some rights holders want to...
Washington D.C.—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued the U.S. government today on behalf of technology creators and researchers to overturn onerous provisions of copyright law that violate the First Amendment.
EFF’s lawsuit, filed with co-counsel Brian Willen, Stephen Gikow, and Lauren Gallo White of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich...
If you only listened to entertainment industry lobbyists, you’d think that music and film studios are fighting a losing battle against copyright infringement over the Internet. Hollywood representatives routinely tell policymakers that the only response to the barrage of online infringement is to expand copyright or even create new copyright-adjacent...
Copyright Lawsuits Won’t Stop People from Sharing ResearchIn principle, everyone in the world should have access to the same body of knowledge. The UN Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone deserves the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”The reality is a bit messier. Institutional subscriptions...
Right now the FCC is considering a set of rules that would allow Internet providers to offer faster access to some websites that can afford to pay. We need to stop them.
Let’s start with the obvious: The Internet is how we communicate and how we work,...
The content lobby's narrative about the Internet's impact on the creative industry has grown all too familiar. According to this tiresome story, Hollywood is doing everything it can to prevent unauthorized downloading, but people—enabled by peer-to-peer technologies, “rogue” websites, search engines, or whatever the bogeyman of the moment is—keep doing...
In July 2009, South Korea became the first country to introduce a graduated response or "three strikes" law. The statute allows the Minister of Culture or the Korean Copyright Commission to tell ISPs and Korean online service providers to suspend the accounts of repeated infringers and block or...
The "Copyright Alert System" – an elaborate combination of surveillance, warnings, punishments, and "education" directed at customers of most major U.S. Internet service providers – is poised to launch in the next few weeks, as has been widely reported. The problems with it are legion. Big...
