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.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
by Anonymous Coward on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 6:37am
Fist er, I mean First or F1r5t
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
First by SilverSliver on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 7:06am
First to use a name :)
These are the frivilous lawsuits that should be thrown out of court, and the company fined for wasting the courts tim.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
FIRST!!! by Anonymous Coward on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 7:10am
Fisrt to be the third! or am I the second...? I'm confused!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 7:42am
Verizon - SUCKS
AT&T - SUCKS
HP - SUCKS
DELL - SUCKS
And many more -
Sue ME!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Overcast on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 7:45am
Just makes you wonder why they are so sensitive about it....
Most other companies I know, just shrug it off.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE: SilverSliver by Anonymous Coward on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 7:48am
"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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
have a little compassion by chris on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 7:59am
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Shuryno on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:06am
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...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RE: SilverSliver by Anonymous Coward on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:06am
Alternatively, cut the problem off at source - punish lawyers who knowingly bring frivolous lawsuits, then see how many are willing to "yes man" their employer's madness :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Shuryno on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:10am
Oh, BTW, I do understand this case is really the mother of all bogus cases, it's just this made me questions about just another lawsuit ...
Are lawyers trying to take over the world or something? ;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Misuse of Trademark by bmac on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:14am
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.
www.xenu.net
www.enturbulation.org
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Four More Years on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:24am
Just makes you wonder why they are so sensitive about it....
Most other companies I know, just shrug it off.
They are sensitive about it because it's 3 am, and they can't sleep because they have hot flashes, or something else. DON'T LAUNCH THE NUKES HILLARY!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Lawyer for these companies on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:25am
I would have sued you. But you, being an Anonymous coward, didn't provide your name.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Put your money where your mouthpiece is? on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:32am
i think you're on to something...hold the lawyers accountable for bringing frivolous lawsuits. the "buck" should, perhaps, stop there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A deliberate Streisand effect? by MadJo on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:32am
Perhaps this company is actually hoping for a Streisand effect?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ha by Chronno S. Trigger on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:49am
When I started reading this post all I could think of was Facelift-in-a-can. Then I got to the facelift-in-a-box part and laughed my ass off.
How can people possibly think that a product like that could work? I take that back. People drink their own urine for youth.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Mr. Fix it on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 8:59am
I am surprised companies didn't start copyrighting "X product sucks" then started suing who ever criticized said product.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Danny on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 9:12am
pssst
Just sue Techdirt to get their name and then sue them. Problem is techdirt will probably sue me and then I'll sue you...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by MH on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 9:24am
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Mr. Fix it on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 9:46am
to my knowledge (but im not lawyer) an attorneys job is to recommend and inform his/her client on what they can/ should do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: by Anonymous Coward on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 10:31am
And just how often have you been successful getting your PHB to do the smart thing?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: by Law on Mar 5th, 2008 @ 1:24pm
Not bloody very. Anyone who tells their client the strait truth gets fired, and replaced with one of us who WILL compromise morals. It's an unfair market.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment