North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Specialty Technical Publishers
As I have seen the past few days, Susan seems to think quite a bit is off topic...my personal perception of NANOG is it is a group of network operators which talk about many things including but not limited to those of the network operations stand point, I have even been told that discussing email was off-topic and when has email not been a core part of the network? I am all for Matt talking about the litigation of this case, its a quite common thing now in the wonderful world of the internet, so does that now not fall under rules? Josh On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:46:49 -0700, Matt Ghali <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:57:46 -0700, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ah... But, the problem here is you registered "godengatevw.com" and > > "haywardvw.com". They'd have a much harder time fending off an en > > pro per motion for summary dismissal if you had registered domains > > like "godengatevwsucks.com" and "haywardvwsucks.com". Because you > > registered domains that directly use their trademarks without clear > > indication that they are used without permission for commentary, > > you are in a legal gray-area (gray is the expensive color in the > > legal world). If you used those domains to sell cars, you'd be in a > > legal black area and you could simply settle the suit and understand > > that you were wrong. If you had registered names that clearly weren't > > their names, but, commentary on them, you'd be pretty much in the > > white zone from what attorneys have told me. You still might get sued, > > and, it still might cost you some to defend it, but, you might get > > away with a simple en pro per motion for summary dismissal on the grounds > > that you were making fair comment. Of course, they could charge libel, > > in which case, you'd have to defend yourself and prove that everything > > said was factual. > > Actually, their original broad injunction against me, obtained before > I even had a chance to secure counsel, was easily overturned by us in > an order to show cause hearing. > > Your perception is incorrect. It does not matter what domain name I > legitimately register, my speech is protected regardless. The only > time they would have a legitimate cause for grievance were if I went > afoul of the lanham act by using "initial interest confusion" to > divert their customers for my own profit. > > I really lucked out and found some excellent legal representation to > sort out these issues for me- including the lawyer representing the > People Eating Tasty Animals in their case against PETA. > > Incedentally, it turns out that neither of their business names are > registered trademarks. > > > Did they ask you to hand over the domains (demand letter) and you refused, > > or did they go straight to litigation? > > Straight to litigation. I was informed that they were first aware of > the sites by their lawyer, who demanded I take down any content, or > see them in court. > > > Partially. Although, you might still be able to characterize this as a > > "SLAPP" suit. It's a stretch, but, might be worth a try. I believe that > > entitles you to a certain amount of relief and some special handling of > > your side of the case to make it easier for the little guy to fend off > > injustice inflicted by the big guy. > > Unfortunately, a case has to be very clear cut and frivolous to > qualify as a possible SLAPP. In other words, it has to be a strong > possibility for a summary judgement before it even gets to judicial > arbitration. That's unfortunate, because a SLAPP judgement would have > allowed me to countersue for legal fees. > > > Anyway, this is way off NANOG topic, so, if you want to continue the > > discussion, let's take it off the list before Susan tries to string > > me up. > > It seems there's others interested in the subject, and its a situation > that a lot of folks on the list could easily find themselves in. At > the very least, I'd like to be in the list archives offering > assistance and advice to anyone in the future in the same trouble. > > matto > -- Joshua Brady
|