If People Actually Hate Your Product And Say So, That's Not A Trademark Violation

from the just-so-you-know... dept

Back in December, we wrote about a company that was selling a product it claimed would provide you with a facelift in an hour. Not surprisingly, many people weren’t impressed with the results of such a product (which was advertised widely on TV) and wrote about it on such sites as InfomercialScams.com. The company behind the product proceeded to sue InfomercialScams claiming trademark infringement. There were just a few problems with this. First, having someone critique your product is not a trademark violation — it’s protected free speech. Second, even if it were a trademark violation, it would be a violation by the person writing the review, not the website service provider. It appears that the facelift-in-a-box company hasn’t quite learned that lesson as it’s now also threatening yet another site that has negative reviews of the product. That site has responded by pointing out that the original lawsuit appears to be a misuse of trademark law, and then also countersues claiming that the company broke the site’s terms of service. The countersuit seems like a stretch from a legal standpoint (and, even if the terms of service are violated, it’s not clear that it’s a matter that raises to the level of a lawsuit), but it’s good to see yet another site fighting back against an abuse of trademark law.

Filed Under: ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “If People Actually Hate Your Product And Say So, That's Not A Trademark Violation”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
24 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

RE: SilverSliver

“These are the frivilous lawsuits that should be thrown out of court, and the company fined for wasting the courts tim.”

Better yet, discorporate the company. Destroy it utterly.

Too many companies simply put court fines in the “expenses” side of their balance sheet and keep doing what they were doing before.

Fines work to deter the behavior of individuals when they cause financial ruin, fines typically don’t work on corporations with much deeper pockets.

chris (profile) says:

have a little compassion

they are selling crap on infomercials. as we all know, everything sold on an infomercial is a scam, the products are crap, and the target market is morons. thanks to the availability of information on the web, the pool of salable morons is shrinking.

it’s hard enough to find morons to scam in the middle of the night without the internets exposing their secrets all over the place. cut these guys a little slack… they’re just trying to protect their god-given right to lie to people for profit.

besides, trademark is pretty much the only legal tool they have. “our crap doesn’t actually work” doesn’t hold much weight as a trade secret.

Shuryno says:

I don’t know if it’s the fact that the medias are covering more the lawsuits for corporate images and trademarks, but I can’t believe how much it seems to be out of control. Everybody’s suing anyone for anything.

All the resources and money wasted instead of being invested in r&d. It feels like there’s really something wrong with the way businesses are run.

I’m sure there’s legitimate cases, but I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of bogus SCO’s like cases. I don’t know, not being a specialist in the matter may affect my comprehension on the subject.

Strange world we live in…

bmac (profile) says:

Misuse of Trademark

Slightly off-topic, but in the ballpark:

The Church of $cientology also uses trademark infringement claims to pull auctions from eBay for E-Meters (the $25 worth of plastic and electronics that is really just a wheatstone bridge and skin galvanometer) that the Church sells for $5500, but that they don’t want any ex/non-$cientologist to be able to sell/buy.

What makes this outright abuse of trademark law is that the Cof$ allows auctions of E-Meters on eBay if the seller is a current $cientologist, and if they promise to sell it only to another $cientologist.

http://www.xenu.net
http://www.enturbulation.org

MH says:

Re: Re:

Um…the courts can and they often do. But many of these lawsuits are brought because the CLIENT wants them. An attorney’s first obligation is to their client. Knowing a bit about Trademark Law, depending on the context of the “free speech”, if used in a commercial way (having a commercial website link), some courts might say TM infringement. And if not=summary judgment and it’s tossed anyway.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...