Court Orders Owner Of Peta.org To Give Up Domain

Kancer writes: "According to Boston.com a federal judge ordered PETA.org parody site to relinquish their Web address over to PETA.com. People just can't take a joke, People Eating Tasty Animals, now that is funny." It's actually a really crappy legal precedent. Using other people's trade names for parodies is not an illegitimate use of the name, and their site was not confusingly similar to PETA - there's no way you could mistake one for the other. The judge was ruling based on the name alone, with no consideration of the content.

Re:PETA's press release

Peta's press release says: PETA won the precedent-setting case on three grounds. First, trademark infringement-the PETA trademark belongs to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Doughney had no right to use it. Second, Doughney diluted the value of the trademark by his use of it. Third, Doughney was found in violation of the "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act," because he appropriated the distinctive and famous "PETA" mark for his own commercial benefit.

1. The first amendment always allows parody, even if someone has a trademark.
2. Diluted the value of the trademark?!? He just gave a ton of press to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He should be charging them for advertising.
3. Commercial benefit?!? How was this commercial at all? He put up a parody site.

As a vegetarian, I must say that I view PETA in an extremely bad light. All you have to do is take a look at some of the hate mail [mtd.com] this guy has received from PETA advocates to realize what scumbags they really are.

Besides that, I really think this sets a dangerous precedent. Trademarks are limited to specific things whereas domain names inevitably cross all boundaries. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [uspto.gov] PETA's trademark [uspto.gov] is for "educational services; namely, providing programs and seminars on the subject of animal rights and welfare" and "educational services; namely, providing programs and seminars on the subject of animal rights and welfare." (See also here [uspto.gov] and here [uspto.gov] or here for all trademarks with PETA in them [uspto.gov].) This trademark classification has nothing to do with computers, so what right do they have to the domain name. If this is allowed to stand it will make taking away someone's domain name much easier.

Not to mention...

... http://www.eatdifferent.com/ [eatdifferent.com]

Of course Apple isn't exactly in opposition to PETA's ideals... :)
--

Re:Parody = Fair Use

Parody is considered one of the fair use exemption to copyright law and I see no reason why trademark parodies should not be subject to the same protection.

Perhaps on principle, but in the real world, no. Trademark damages generally fall under the categories of infringement and dilution, and parody is NOT an affirmative defense for either. For example, the fellow up in Seattle who produced t-shirts that parodied the Starbucks logo as a "Corporate Whore" or something like that. Essentially, he was creating a whole new business based on public recognition of the other company's marks. Even though it was a funny parody, the fact that it was pursued in the realm of commerce of the original owner (who also sells T-shirts and coffee mugs with its mark) made it infringement and dilution.

Trademark laws are a LOT murkier than copyright laws. And unlike copyright laws, the owner is required to vigorously defend its mark, lest it go the way of "escalator" or "aspirin".
----

Re:Isn't It Ironic ...

kinnunen wrote:
So being a vegetarian is Ok, but if a person is a vegan it makes makes him an asshole who should kill himself. I see. I am not a vegan, nor am I a vegetarian - I enjoy a good burger every now and then (in McDonalds). I may not agree with the PETA ideals (or methods), but I sure as hell don't condem a group of people for having a very high respect for life.

What was the point of the message that you replied to? Think really hard.

I think you missed a certain level of sarcasm in my post, along with a heathy dose of reductio ad absurdam argument. My point being, that if you think that your life is worth the same as any other living being on the planet, the only logical conclusion is to kill yourself. Why? Because it is simply not possible for a human to live their life without destroying millions if not billions of "innocent" lifeforms in the process. Is my life worth the same as another humans? Sure. Is my life worth the same as a cat or dog? Debatable. Is my life worth the same as a worm? No. Anybody who really believes so really has no logical option but to kill themselves.

This does not mean that I think that vegan's are necessarily assholes? (your word, not mine.) Nor does it mean that I condemn people for having a high respect for life. I condemn them for having a set of beliefs which is directly at odds with their own voluntary choice to continue their life at all. People whose beliefs don't take into account that their own life by necessity continues only at the cost of other beings lives are hypocrites whose beliefs are just so much touchy feely nonsense.

Macdonald's Restaurant

Take notice, none of the following is terribly ontopic, but it's interesting.
And before i start, i would like to note that the name "MRJ" is already registered [apple.com] and MRJ-1s is going to have to surrender their mrjones.com domain.

I saw this thing on 60 minutes once.
Some tiny restaurant had opened up in the middle of scotland. LIke, one single building in the middle of a town that didn't look exactly overly urban.
They named themselves "McMunchies".
McDonalds sued the shit out of them. You can guess what for. This despite the fact that only an idiot would mistake the one for the other or think that the McMunchies resteraunt was in any way connected to McDonalds.
And that the prefix "Mc" or "Mac" is a very common traditional prefix to scottish surnames meaning "the son of" [i think].
[this post is, btw, being made by a McClure, so i have some amount of personal interest in this, seeing as it may end with my surname being owned by a corporation..]

Lord MacDonald of MacDonald, who if ANYONE can "own" the name MacDonald, "owns" it in the sense that he is the clan leader, it is his title and his family has owned it for, what, a thousand years? was rather upset by this [understandably.. McDonalds didn't feel like they had to ask _his_ permission to name their resteraunt, but then feel like the name..] and set up some sort of legal defense fund.
And then he decided to open a restaurant. He called it "MacDonalds."
So if you feel like it, you can go to Scotland and go to a McDonalds where they serve rather nice steak, pheasant, etc., in a rather old building surrounded by rolling green hills..

If anyone would like to fill in details, or if you'd like to look for yourself [google.com] or something.

Or rather look at <