Real Cybersquatting Really Sucks. Wired News Report.

3:00 a.m. May. 9, 2000 PDT. For a company just a few weeks old, Verizon Wireless sure doesn't take criticism very well.

To thwart anyone from mocking Verizon's wireless service, a lawyer registered the domain name verizonsucks.com. The lawyer is with the law firm Arnold and Porter, which represents Bell Atlantic, the company that launched Verizon with Vodaphone Airtouch.

So it should be no surprise that Verizon lawyers were not amused when hacker-zine 2600 Magazine purchased verizonreallysucks.com.

Verizon's lawyers on Friday sent a nastygram to 2600 publisher Emmanuel Goldstein.

"This letter is to inform you that your registration and/or use of these domain names infringes Bell Atlantic's valuable trademark rights in the 'Verizon' mark and violates the new Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act," warned Bell Atlantic attorney Sarah Deutsch.

That law, which Congress approved last year, prevents anyone from registering a domain name similar to a trademark if they have "a bad faith intent to profit from" that trademark.

The problem for Verizon: 2600 didn't want to "profit" from verizonreallysucks.com. They just wanted to occasionally poke fun at a large company, which means that the anti-cybersquatting law does not apply.

"Verizon intends to go after anyone who criticizes them on the Net, abusing the intent of this law to accomplish their goal. We cannot allow this. We call on INDIVIDUALS around the world to criticize Verizon on as many domain names as possible and to exercise your rights to free speech," 2600's Goldstein wrote in an open letter on his website.

Just to prove his point, Goldstein then registered another domain name: VerizonShouldSpendMoreTimeFixingItsNetworkAndLessMoneyOnLawyers.com

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,36210,00.html

-- Lynn Ratcliffe (mcgrew@ntr.net), May 09, 2000

Answers

LOL!

Besides that, Verizon is a really stupid name.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 09, 2000.

Every company gotta be named something -- pretty much stupid "coined" names are all that's left. Consider that there are 6,000,000,000 aholes running around, with a goodly number of them with business names to register.

Consider that words for company names have become a "scarce resource" just like beachfront and lakefront real estate. Or fishing grounds. Or agricultural land. Or oil. Wars start over resources.

Spay and neuter humans. (Especially wogs breeding like fricking cats, dogs, and rats.) Anyone who doesn't believe in contraceptives and abortions is a fucking idiot (literally).

-- A (A@AisA.com), May 10, 2000.

I followed this legislation fairly closely, and as I read the law, Verizon doesn't have a case. The hackers and slackers at 2600 will win. Then, for good measure, 2600 staffers should countersue Verizon for defamation (if applicable under state law), harassment (again, if applicable) and maybe even for tortious interference with business (depending on the circumstances of the case).

"This letter is to inform you that your registration and/or use of these domain names infringes Bell Atlantic's valuable trademark rights in the 'Verizon' mark and violates the new Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act," warned Bell Atlantic attorney Sarah Deutsch."

Well no, it doesn't. This woman sounds like a Scientologist, claiming "if you use our own name to criticize us, then we can sue you for trademark infringment." You know better, Counselor. Maybe 2600 staffers should sue Verizon's legal department for barratry, as well, starting with this Deutsch person. You don't see barratry suits happen very often, and they cause attorneys to sit up and take notice when they do.

"That law, which Congress approved last year, prevents anyone from registering a domain name similar to a trademark if they have "a bad faith intent to profit from" that trademark."

No proven profit intent, no grounds to sue under this statute. I knew the law was toothless when it passed. Seems the companies who want to use it as a basis for lawsuits didn't realize that.

"Verizon intends to go after anyone who criticizes them on the Net, abusing the intent of this law to accomplish their goal. We cannot allow this. We call on INDIVIDUALS around the world to criticize Verizon on as many domain names as possible and to exercise your rights to free speech," 2600's Goldstein wrote in an open letter on his website."

I agree with Mr. Goldstein. He's absolutely correct. Further, if 2600 had registered the Verizon domain name _outside_ of the US, then there's absolutely nothing Verizon could do about it.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), May 12, 2000.

Sal,
If 2600 had marketed bumper stickers that said "Verizon sucks," then I presume that the above law could have been applicable. I'd be interested in your view on whether they could then have legitimately challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, by arguing that trademark protection does not exempt an entity from criticism.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 12, 2000.

"Sal, If 2600 had marketed bumper stickers that said "Verizon sucks," then I presume that the above law could have been applicable."

Yes, precisely, David. The anticybersquatting law is a close cousin of trademark law, and under trademark law, that kind of infringment -- especially if money changes hands -- is quite actionable. I've idly followed the fellows over at 2600 for a few years, and they are either very savvy about this sort of thing, or they're smart enough to consult an attorney before pulling one of their stunts.

But in short, if 2600 had sold bumperstickers or t-shirts or the like, or had given the stickers or shirts away with subscriptions, then yes, the anticybersquatting law would have been fully applicable.

The part of the law that most of the corporations don't seem to realize is that use of a trademarked name -- even to CRITICIZE the entity that owns the trademark -- is protected expression, and has so been found by the Supreme Court. Curiously, that expression is protected even if the intent of the expression is to HARM the trademark holder and to make them LOSE money. The law hinges on a single point -- was the intent of the unlicensed user to make money or not? If there was no intent to profit, then it doesn't matter whether the trademark holder lost money because of someone elses's actions. Of course, if you happen to be an organization that is in direct competition with the organization you're criticizing, then the legal situation gets a bit dicier.

There may be cases in the future in which corporations bring defamation suits against individuals for disparaging their products or services. I know that some states actually prohibit defamation of certain agricultural products, but so far as I'm aware, no precedent yet exists for Ford or Wal-Mart or Serta or Magnavox or Nokia to sue you for saying that they had lousy products or services.

"I'd be interested in your view on whether they could then have legitimately challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, by arguing that trademark protection does not exempt an entity from criticism."

Sure, that's pretty much a legal axiom, that you can't actually criticize a company with a trademarked name without actually USING the trademarked name. Essentially, that means that such criticism is indeed under First Amendment protection. Just about any judge in the US would ask why you were wasting his time if you tried to bring forth a case like that.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), May 13, 2000.