No, I Don't Think Anyone Believes Boycottwalmart.com Is Actually A Wal-Mart Site

Too Much Free Time

from the confusion?--what-confusion? dept

You would think, by now, that big companies around the world would recognize that it’s perfectly legal, and not at all a trademark violation, to just own a so-called “sucks site” that expresses displeasure with the way someone (or a group of people) have been treated by a company. After all, there are plenty of cases showing that it’s perfectly legal to have such a site, so long as it’s pretty clear that the site is not officially associated with the company. Considering the types of sites these are, it’s hard to believe that anyone would be confused into believing a site full of upset stories about the company is, in any way, officially sanctioned. Of course, despite years of decisions all going in this direction, WIPO screwed everything up last year when they suddenly decided that people might not know the meaning of “sucks” and therefore it might not be as obvious as we all thought. That seems to have opened up the possibility for some firms to revisit the question with sites beyond the typical “sucks” sites. Wal-Mart, for instance, apparently hoped that WIPO would also decide that people might not know what “boycott” means. Apparently, though, boycott is more well understood than sucks. Tim Lee points out that Wal-Mart has lost its case asking for boycottwalmart.com to be handed over to it. WIPO points out that there’s little likelihood that anyone looking at the boycottwalmart.com page is going to be confused over whether or not it’s owned by Wal-Mart. Of course, in trying to take over the domain name, Wal-Mart has done a nice job giving the site plenty of attention — though a quick look now suggests it’s just being used by a domain squatter looking to make money off the traffic than any group genuinely interested in, well, boycotting Wal-Mart.