DOCSLIB.ORG

Beebe - Trademark Law: an Open-Source Casebook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beebe - Trademark Law: an Open-Source Casebook Beebe - Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook II. Trademark Infringement ............................................................................................................. 3 A. The Actionable Use Requirement ..................................................................................... 4 1. Defendant’s “Use in Commerce” ............................................................................. 5 Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. .......................................................................... 6 2. Defendant’s Use “in Connection with the Sale…of any Goods or Services” ......................................................................................................................... 17 Radiance Foundation, Inc. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ..................................................................... 17 B. Confusion-Based Infringement ...................................................................................... 24 1. The History of the Confusion-Based Cause of Action for Trademark Infringement ................................................................................................................ 25 a. The Early-Twentieth Century Approach to the Likelihood of Consumer Confusion ....................................................................................... 25 Borden Ice Cream Co. v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co. ........................ 25 b. The Development of the Modern Multifactor Test ............................. 30 Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp. .............................................. 31 2. Contemporary Applications of the Multifactor Test for the Likelihood of Confusion .................................................................................................................. 35 Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab ................................................................... 38 3. Survey Evidence and the Likelihood of Confusion ....................................... 52 Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ......................................................................... 56 4. “Sponsorship or Affiliation” Confusion ............................................................. 75 Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College v. Smack Apparel Co. .................................................. 83 5. Initial Interest Confusion ........................................................................................ 85 Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com ............................................................. 86 6. Post-Sale Confusion ................................................................................................... 97 Ferrari S.P.A. v. Roberts ...................................................................................... 98 7. Reverse Confusion .................................................................................................. 110 Uber Promotions, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. .................................. 111 8. Reverse Passing Off ................................................................................................ 126 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. ............................... 128 9. Lanham Act § 2(d) Confusion ............................................................................. 141 C. Trademark Dilution ......................................................................................................... 144 1. The Fame Requirement for Antidilution Protect ....................................... 149 Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC ............................................ 150 2. Dilution by Blurring ............................................................................................... 155 Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal Intern., Inc. ................................................................... 155 1 V3.0/2016-08-08 Beebe - Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc. .................................... 168 3. Dilution by Tarnishment ...................................................................................... 186 V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley .............................................................. 187 D. Cybersquatting ................................................................................................................... 201 1. The Section 43(d) Prohibition Against Cybersquatting .......................... 201 Sporty’s Farm L.LC. v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc. ................................... 201 Lamparello v. Falwell ........................................................................................ 213 2. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System ................................................................................................. 226 a. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ............................................... 226 Eastman Sporto Group LLC v. Jim and Kenny ........................................ 233 b. The Uniform Rapid Suspension System ............................................... 244 Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav ............................................................................... 246 E. Secondary Liability ........................................................................................................... 250 Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. ............................................................................ 250 Gucci America, Inc. v. Frontline Processing Corp. ................................. 267 2 V3.0/2016-08-08 Beebe - Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook II. Trademark Infringement In this Part, we consider the infringement of trademark rights under certain sections of the Lanham Act: § 32, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (likelihood of confusion with respect to registered marks) § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (likelihood of confusion with respect to registered or unregistered marks) § 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (likelihood of dilution with respect to registered or unregistered marks) § 43(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (“cybersquatting” of registered or unregistered marks) Note that the test for likelihood of confusion under § 32 is now essentially the same as the test for likelihood of confusion under § 43(a), and courts often cite to case law under one section interchangeably with case law under the other. When owners of registered marks plead likelihood of confusion, they typically do so under both § 32 and § 43(a) in the event that some defect is discovered in their registration. Such plaintiffs may also plead under both sections in order to avail themselves of the slightly broader language of § 43(a), though, again, courts typically treat § 32 and § 43(a) as essentially interchangeable. Courts have set forth the elements of a trademark infringement claim in a variety of ways. For example, with respect to a claim based on a likelihood of confusion under either or both of § 32 and § 43(a), courts have stated: “[T]o succeed in a Lanham Act suit for trademark infringement, a plaintiff has two obstacles to overcome: the plaintiff must prove that its mark is entitled to protection and, even more important, that the defendant's use of its own mark will likely cause confusion with plaintiff's mark.” Gruner + Jahr USA Publ'g v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1074 (2d Cir.1993). “To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, a party must prove: (1) that it has a protectible ownership interest in the mark; and (2) that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion.” Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). “To establish trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that it owns a valid mark; (2) that the defendant used the mark ‘in commerce’ and without plaintiff’s authorization; (3) that the defendant used the mark (or an imitation of it) ‘in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising’ of goods or services; and (4) that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to confuse consumers.” Rosetta Stone v Google Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 152 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). 3 V3.0/2016-08-08 Beebe - Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook “Both infringement and false designation of origin have five elements. To prevail under either cause of action, the trademark holder must prove: (1) that it possesses a mark; (2) that the [opposing party] used the mark; (3) that the [opposing party's] use of the mark occurred ‘in commerce’; (4) that the [opposing party] used the mark ‘in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising’ of goods or services; and (5) that the [opposing party] used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers.” Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, 313 (4th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Though the enumerations vary in their level of detail, these statements of the elements of a likelihood of confusion claim are all essentially the same. The plaintiff must prove that (1) it possesses exclusive rights in a mark and (2) the defendant has infringed those exclusive rights. Our focus in Part I was on the first of these two basic elements—whether there is a property right. Our focus in this Part is on the second of these elements—whether that right has been infringed. We begin in Part II.A by reviewing the requirement
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nominative Fair Use: Legitimate Advertising Or Trademark Infringement?
    Nominative Fair Use: Legitimate Advertising or Trademark Infringement? Louis S. Ederer Arnold & Porter LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 [email protected] Classic Statutory Fair Use: Defense to Trademark Infringement Under The Lanham Act Under the Lanham Act, the Fair Use Doctrine protects certain uses of registered trademarks from infringement claims when the use of the name, term, or device is “a use, otherwise than as a mark, of a term or device that is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe goods or services of [a] party, or their geographic origin.” 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(5)(A)-(C) (2006) (emphasis added). In other words. TARGET PRACTICE! v. = No infringement Saturday, April 23 10:30AM At Charles Cove Field 1 Nominative Fair Use: Nominative Fair Use versus Classic Fair Use • Classic fair use is where the junior user (e.g., the Target Practice advertiser) uses someone else’s mark not as a trademark (e.g., not to refer to the mega- brand Target), but merely to describe its own goods or services. • Nominative Fair Use, on the other hand, is where the junior user uses another’s trademark deliberately to refer to that party, for purposes such as: • News Reporting • Commentary • Parody • Advertising (particularly comparative advertising) 2 Nominative Fair Use: Limitations So, what happens when a party seeks to advertise its goods or services by referring to another party’s mark? Is it trademark infringement? Or legitimate advertising? 3 Nominative Fair Use: Early & Seminal Case Law New Kids on the Block v.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace
    Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition G. Peter Albert, Jr. and American Intellectual Property Law Association CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION American Intellectual Property Law Association A Arlington, VA Reprinted with permission For more information contact: bna.com/bnabooks or call 1-800-960-1220 Copyright © 2011 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Albert, G. Peter, 1964– Intellectual property law in cyberspace / G. Peter Albert, Jr. -- 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57018-753-7 (alk. paper) 1. Industrial property--United States. 2. Computer networks--Law and legislation--United States. 3. Internet 4. Copyright and electronic data processing--United States. I. Title. KF3095.A77 2011 346.7304’8--dc23 2011040494 All rights reserved. Photocopying any portion of this publication is strictly prohibited unless express written authorization is first obtained from BNA Books, 1231 25th St., NW, Washington, DC 20037, bna.com/bnabooks. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by BNA Books for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that $1.00 per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923, copyright.com, Telephone: 978-750-8400, Fax: 978-646-8600.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Citizen Copyright © 2016 by Public Citizen Foundation All Rights Reserved
    Public Citizen Copyright © 2016 by Public Citizen Foundation All rights reserved. Public Citizen Foundation 1600 20th St. NW Washington, D.C. 20009 www.citizen.org ISBN: 978-1-58231-099-2 Doyle Printing, 2016 Printed in the United States of America PUBLIC CITIZEN THE SENTINEL OF DEMOCRACY CONTENTS Preface: The Biggest Get ...................................................................7 Introduction ....................................................................................11 1 Nader’s Raiders for the Lost Democracy....................................... 15 2 Tools for Attack on All Fronts.......................................................29 3 Creating a Healthy Democracy .....................................................43 4 Seeking Justice, Setting Precedents ..............................................61 5 The Race for Auto Safety ..............................................................89 6 Money and Politics: Making Government Accountable ..............113 7 Citizen Safeguards Under Siege: Regulatory Backlash ................155 8 The Phony “Lawsuit Crisis” .........................................................173 9 Saving Your Energy .................................................................... 197 10 Going Global ...............................................................................231 11 The Fifth Branch of Government................................................ 261 Appendix ......................................................................................271 Acknowledgments ........................................................................289
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrity in Cyberspace: a Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes
    Celebrity in Cyberspace: A Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes Jacqueline D. Lipton* Abstract When the Oscar-winning actress Julia Roberts fought for control of the <juliaroberts.com> domain name, what was her aim? Did she want to reap economic benefits from the name? Probably not, as she has not used the name since it was transferred to her. Or did she want to prevent others from using it on either an unjust enrichment or a privacy basis? Was she, in fact, protecting a trademark interest in her name? Personal domain name disputes, particularly those in the <name.com> space, implicate unique aspects of an individual’s persona in cyberspace. Nevertheless, most of the legal rules developed for these disputes are based on trademark law. Although a number of individuals have successfully used these rules in practice, the focus on trademark law has led to inconsistent and often arbitrary results. This Article suggests that if personal names merit legal protection in cyberspace, it should be under an appropriate set of legal rules, rather than through further expansion of trademarks. This Article develops a new framework for personal domain name disputes based on the theories underlying the right of publicity * Professor, Co-Director, Center for Law, Technology and the Arts, Associate Director, Frederick K. Cox International Law Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. The author would particularly like to thank Professor Mark Janis whose comments on a previous paper proved to be the inspiration for this one. The author would also like to thank Professor Diane Zimmerman, Professor Mark Lemley, Professor Cynthia Ho, Professor Mark McKenna, Professor Brett Frischmann, Professor Lawrence Solum, Professor Amitai Aviram, Professor Ann Bartow, Professor Paul Heald, Professor Ilhyung Lee, and Professor B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future According to Google
    Travis: THE FUTURE ACCORDING TO GOOGLE THE FUTURE ACCORDING TO GOOGLE: TECHNOLOGY POLICY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF AMERICA'S FASTEST-GROWING TECHNOLOGY COMPANY By Hannibal Travis* 11 YALE J.L. & TECH. 209 (2009) As the fastest-growing technology company in the United States,' Google has been at the center of some of the most contentious technology policy disputes of recent years. In the federal courts, these disputes focus on the fair or noncommercial use of copyrighted work and trademarks on the Internet. In Congress, Google is leading the charge in favor of laws protecting innovative Internet companies from discriminatory or exorbitant charges by broadband and wireless infrastructure providers. It has also been a vocal opponent of excessive governmental control over Internet content. Copyright lawsuits arising out of search engines and user- generated content sites such as Google Video and YouTube have the potential to change the rules governing communication over the Internet. Similarly, trademark litigation alleging that comparative and Internet keyword-based advertising are infringing may limit the ability of technology companies and their customers to compete online. Many technology companies also believe that injunctive relief obtained by the owners of patents in comparatively minor components of complex software-enabled products may chill innovation and divert capital away from applied research. But it seems that the power of infrastructure providers to favor allied content providers has truly spooked technology leaders like Google. Meanwhile, Google, other technology and Internet companies, and members of Congress have demanded action to limit foreign governments' ability to block U.S.-based Web content from being accessed by persons present in their territory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Internet Gripe Sites Managing the Destructive Potential of “Brandsucks.Com”
    Perspectives Volume 3, Issue 6 Gripe Sites The Power of Internet Gripe Sites Managing the Destructive Potential of “BrandSucks.com” Background on Direct Navigation For any consumer, navigating the Internet can be challenging task. Given the omnipresence of search engine portals such as Google and Yahoo!, one might assume that Internet users primarily use search engines to reach their intended destinations online. However, WebSideStory’s StatMarket division (now a part of Omniture) estimated that more than 67 percent of global Internet users arrive at Web sites by direct navigation.1 This type of navigation, also known as type-in or direct search, is defined as traffic derived from a visitor arriving at a Web site by keying a word or phrase into the browser address bar rather than following a link, a bookmark, or a search engine’s results. Typically, direct navigation users type in generic terms or brand names plus generic terms. For example, a direct navigation user may type in realestate.com when looking for information on purchasing a home or may type in remaxagent.com when looking for a RE/MAX real estate agent. Even the most savvy of users can miss a keystroke and unintentionally stumble upon an unexpected site. They can be unwittingly exposed to overt schemes involving spyware, phishing or at the very least, a poor experience while searching for a product or brand site. Unfortunately, this reality often prompts brand owners to focus primarily on FairWinds Partners, LLC | Internet Strategy Consulting Page 1 of 17 2122 P Street, NW | Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology Law Quarterly Volume 3, Issue 3
    McCarthy Tétrault Co-Counsel: Technology Law Quarterly Volume 3, Issue 3 July – September 2007 Co-Counsel Co-Counsel: Technology Law Quarterly Volume 3, Issue 3 Welcome to Volume 3, Issue 3 of McCarthy Tétrault Co-Counsel: Technology Law Quarterly. In this issue of the TLQ, we highlight a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, including in online terms and conditions. Businesses that sell or make goods and services available to consumers in Canada, including over the Internet, and particularly Ontario and Québec, will want to read this article. On the software licensing front, we begin a four-part series on the Open Source Initiative, licensing models of intellectual property and the copyleft regime under the GNU General Public License. On the intellectual property side, our copyright lawyers analyze the important Supreme Court of Canada Euro-Excellence v. Kraft Canada case. Privacy continues to be a hot topic, and we’ve included two interesting pieces in the area. The first discusses the recently released privacy breach guidelines. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has prepared guidelines on how organizations subject to PIPEDA should respond to privacy breaches. Our privacy experts address the four key steps to consider when responding to a breach or suspected breach, including the contentious notification provision. The second article speaks to the OECD recommendation on cross-border privacy enforcement, which updates the OECD’s guidelines on privacy and trans-border data flows. Our lawyers examine the Canada-specific concerns and provide their insight on the key points of the recommendation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybergriping: Violating the Law While E-Complaining
    Hospitality Review Volume 26 Article 6 Issue 1 Hospitality Review Volume 26/Issue 1 January 2008 Cybergriping: Violating the Law while E- Complaining Juline E. Mills Purdue University, [email protected] Brian J. Tyrrell Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, [email protected] William B. Werner University of Nevada, Las Vegas, [email protected] Robert H. Woods University of Nevada, Las Vegas, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview Part of the Hospitality Administration and Management Commons Recommended Citation Mills, Juline E.; Tyrrell, Brian J.; Werner, William B.; and Woods, Robert H. (2008) "Cybergriping: Violating the Law while E- Complaining," Hospitality Review: Vol. 26 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview/vol26/iss1/6 This work is brought to you for free and open access by FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hospitality Review by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cybergriping: Violating the Law while E-Complaining Abstract The mee rgence of Web communications has given rise to complaint sites which serve as central forums for both consumers and employees to share their bad experiences. These complaint sites provide for cybergriping in various forms. This paper explores the concept of cybergriping and its relevance to the hospitality and tourism industry from employee and customer perspectives. Court cases in which cybergriping played a key role are reviewed, and recommendations are offered on how hospitality and tourism businesses can address the problem of cybergriping. Keywords Cybercrimes, Tourism, Cybergriping This article is available in Hospitality Review: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview/vol26/iss1/6 Cybergriping: Violating the Law While E-Complaining By Juline E.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan IT Lawyer a Publication of the State Bar of Michigan Information Technology Law Section
    State Bar of Michigan Michigan IT Lawyer A Publication of the State Bar of Michigan Information Technology Law Section http://www.michbar.org/it Table of Contents September 2012 . Vol. 29, Issue 6 Bits and Bytes from the Chair Contents . Bits and Bytes from the Chair ................1 By Charlie Bieneman, Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC . Appropriate Testing and Resolution: How to Determine Whether Appropriation Art is Transformative Greetings, everyone, “Fair Use” or Merely an Unauthorized Derivative?..............................................2 I will make my last “Bits and Bytes” a short one. I have had a . Publicly Available Websites for IT great year as Section Chair, and I am looking forward to work- Lawyers ................................................24 ing with all of you in the Section for the years to come. Thanks to everyone who has contributed and participated in the past year. We . Mission Statement Information Technology Law Section, State Bar of have a great group. Michigan ...............................................24 I hope to see everyone at our Annual Meeting and Fifth Annual . The State of Information Technology Law IT Law Seminar next week, Thursday, September 27, 2012, at the – 2011 ..................................................... 25 St. John’s Inn in Plymouth. We have a great lineup of speakers and topics, plus excellent networking opportunities at our seminar lun- . 2013 Edward F. Langs Writing Award ..37 cheon and post-seminar cocktail hour. If you haven’t yet registered, you can do so by going to the ICLE website, www.icle.org. To sign up for the center, select the “Store” tab, choose “Seminars” from the “Search” drop-down box, and then enter “information technolo- Michigan IT Lawyer is published every other gy” for your search.
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark Piracy and Dilution – from Bricks to Clicks
    TRADEMARK PIRACY AND DILUTION – FROM BRICKS TO CLICKS ROBERT W. SACOFF [email protected] Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson Presented at the IPO Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois September 16, 2003 I. From Bricks to Clicks A. The evolution from the traditional bricks & mortar manufacturing and marketing model to an online, click-through environment presents new challenges for trademark owners in protecting their valuable brands against piracy and dilution. B. What we really have today, of course, is a hybrid bricks AND clicks marketplace. C. The objectives of this presentation are to: 1. chart out the new features of today's legal, technical and marketing landscape that are most important to trademark owners; 2. identify the resulting new challenges of the click-through environment; 3. discuss how the courts are adapting traditional rules to deal with them; and 4. offer suggestions as to how you, the brand owner, can effectively meet them. II. Trademarks in the Supreme Court - The good news is, the Supreme Court has shown a high degree of interest in trademark cases in recent years. The bad news is, trademark owners have not been faring too well in the outcomes. A. Supreme Court protectionism of trademarks reached its high water mark in Two Pesos and Qualitex. 1. In the 1992 Two Pesos case, the Court found no reversible error in a district court jury instruction that allowed the jury to find the plaintiff's Mexican restaurant trade dress inherently distinctive and protectable as a trademark without proof of secondary meaning. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Travis Essay
    THE FUTURE ACCORDING TO GOOGLE: TECHNOLOGY POLICY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF AMERICA’S FASTEST-GROWING TECHNOLOGY COMPANY By Hannibal Travis* 11 YALE J.L. & TECH. 209 (2009) As the fastest-growing technology company in the United States,1 Google has been at the center of some of the most contentious technology policy disputes of recent years. In the federal courts, these disputes focus on the fair or noncommercial use of copyrighted work and trademarks on the Internet. In Congress, Google is leading the charge in favor of laws protecting innovative Internet companies from discriminatory or exorbitant charges by broadband and wireless infrastructure providers. It has also been a vocal opponent of excessive governmental control over Internet content. Copyright lawsuits arising out of search engines and user- generated content sites such as Google Video and YouTube have the potential to change the rules governing communication over the Internet. Similarly, trademark litigation alleging that comparative and Internet keyword-based advertising are infringing may limit the ability of technology companies and their customers to compete online. Many technology companies also believe that injunctive relief obtained by the owners of patents in comparatively minor components of complex software-enabled products may chill innovation and divert capital away from applied research. But it seems that the power of infrastructure providers to favor allied content providers has truly spooked technology leaders like Google. Meanwhile, Google, other technology and Internet companies, and members of Congress have demanded action to limit foreign governments’ ability to block U.S.-based Web content from being accessed by persons present in their territory.
    [Show full text]
  • Gripe Sites, Parody, and the First Amendment in Cyberspace
    Washington University Law Review Volume 84 Issue 6 January 2006 Commerce Versus Commentary: Gripe Sites, Parody, and the First Amendment in Cyberspace Jacqueline D. Lipton Case Western Reserve University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Jacqueline D. Lipton, Commerce Versus Commentary: Gripe Sites, Parody, and the First Amendment in Cyberspace, 84 WASH. U. L. REV. 1327 (2006). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol84/iss6/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Review VOLUME 84 NUMBER 6 2006 COMMERCE VERSUS COMMENTARY: GRIPE SITES, PARODY, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN CYBERSPACE JACQUELINE D. LIPTON∗ ABSTRACT The Global Online Freedom Bill of 2006 emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech on the Internet as a fundamental human right. However, the backbone of the World Wide Web, the Internet domain name system, is a poor example of protecting free speech, particularly in terms of the balance between speech and commercial trademark interests. This is apparent from the manner in which the legislature and the judiciary deal with cases involving Internet gripe sites and parody sites. The lack of a clear consensus on the protection of free speech in these contexts is troubling, and can be found in a number of recent cases involving situations such as use ∗ Professor and Co-Director, Center for Law, Technology, and the Arts, and Associate Director, Frederick K.
    [Show full text]