Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick

Since When Is It Illegal To Just Mention A Trademark Online?

from the getting-ridiculous dept

There are some strange things happening with trademark law, and it certainly seems to go beyond the scope of what it's intended to cover. The point of trademark law is to prevent someone from passing off their goods as someone else's. It's to avoid confusion. A trademark shouldn't be considered something that you have absolute control over -- but just in situations where confusion can occur. However, that's not at all how it's being used. Instead, it's being used to stifle any kind of comment that someone doesn't like. About a year ago, we wrote about the somewhat bizarre case where the Greater Toronto Airport Authority told a silly site that posts photos of urinals (pretty much just for the hell of it) that they couldn't mention the name of the airport for no clear reason other than that the GTAA didn't like it. The owners of that site,, have now been approached again by someone who is trying to stop them from posting perfectly legitimate information. In this case, complaint is coming from the Marco Beach Ocean Resort, who is claiming that it's somehow illegal to use their name on the website. has responded by (amusingly) distorting the name enough to try to get around the request of the lawyers who contacted them. Part of the complaint seems to concern the fact that the anonymous contributor mentioned that the urinal is viewable from the lobby. Of course, courts have ruled that simply passing on content sent to you via the web or by email does not make the person or company passing on the info liable for its content. So, if the resort believes that this information is false, then it's not the fault of, but the person who sent it in to them. I asked the maintainers of the site if I could see a copy of the cease & desist, but apparently the lawyers claim that the cease & desist is copyrighted to them and that the recipient is not allowed to forward it to anyone. I wonder if that means they can't even forward it to a lawyer? So, as far as I can tell, the Marco Beach Ocean Resort seems to think that (a) they absolutely own all rights to the name beyond what the law intends (b) they can blame the most easily accessible party, rather than those who are actually responsible and (c) any cease and desist is to be some sort of "secret" cease & desist that can never be shown to anyone, which seems to go a bit beyond what rights copyright gives them. How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don't like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see (like a photo of a urinal in some random beach resort) is now seen by many more people? Let's call it the Streisand Effect.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. identicon
    rob, Jan 5th, 2005 @ 2:24pm

    No Subject Given

    Other stories I've heard (there's a great one about an enema company objecting to their trademark being used in some erotic[?] story), make me wonder what a lot of these lawyers DO all day. Sit around suerfing for porn and then sending harrassing correspondence (Uh, wat a minute...)?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    ac, Jan 5th, 2005 @ 5:27pm

    legal documents

    I remember reading that legal documents aren't subject to copyright. Weither that's true or not, I have no idea.. but it seems logical.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    jeremy, Jan 6th, 2005 @ 8:14am

    No Subject Given

    It's doubtful that it's the lawyers that are responsible for situations like these. At a bare minimum, they're not solely responsible. With communications being funneled through attorneys, they're a natural target, and there are plenty of things about the profession you could reasonably find objectionable. But it's far more likely that an employee found this, took it up the chain, and somebody high up at the resort demanded that the legal department do something about it.
    It's overly facile to blame lawyers for being litigious, when their clients are the ones driving the litigation. That copyrighted nastygram tactic is ridiculous, though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Rob Jones, Jan 6th, 2005 @ 9:14am

    Oh please.

    Many lawyers slap copyright notices on everything, thinking that if there is ever an issue, that would be another arrow in their quiver. The article doesn't say whether or not the letter just had a copyright notice attached and is just interpreting things in this way or whether the law firm sending this made an explicit statement about not releasing the letter because its copyrighted.

    No lawyer writes anything from scratch. I doubt there was enough original content in the cease and desist apart from the factual information to even be copyightable (or at least to the law firm, who probably didn't write it in the forst place). If so, then the copyright would be so thin you couls see through it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Mike (profile), Jan 6th, 2005 @ 9:49am

    Re: Oh please.

    Since I wrote this, I've seen the original letter in question (not a copy...). It's not them interpreting it wrong. The lawyer specifically wrote at the beginning of the letter that they were not to "forward, upload, copy, transmit or otherwise duplicate" the letter because it is covered by federal copyright law.

    This wasn't just a standard disclaimer placed at the bottom of a message.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Captain Ron, Jan 24th, 2005 @ 9:36am

    Re: No Subject Given

    To those think it's doubtful the laywers are responsible, I strongly disagree. The lawyers are the ones allowing this to proceed and become litigious, most likely motivated by money, and not good principles except perhaps in their delusional minds.
    So it is quite expected for lawyers to also become the targets of ridicule in situations like these.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 28th, 2005 @ 6:14pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    I agree. Oh for the day when a lawyer would advise someone against legal action because it was simply being litigous. They might not be the one calling for heads to roll every time, but they are definitly the ones creating the environment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2005 @ 10:11am

    No Subject Given

    A legal document couldn't be copyrighted, because legal documents are considered OPEN RECORDS; unless a gag order by a judge is granted. I doubt that is the case.

    As for the mentioning of a business name; it is similar to slander, you cannot publish that Coca-cola is made with harmful ingredient X when it is not. You will damage the brand name and you may be sued for damages. Oprah Winfrey was sued for defimation of the beef industry with her "reckless" and "untrue" comments but she won her case and paid nothing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Name, Oct 3rd, 2005 @ 9:09am

    Re: No Subject Given

    Let me guess. Jeremy, your a lawyer? How did I know? Aw, just a lucky guess.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Trey, Aug 27th, 2007 @ 11:39am

    Irony: Google ad on gives away resort n

    Clicked through to the story... Turns out the "Ads by Google" on the right list Marco Beach Ocean Resort as the first ad.

    They should sue Google next?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    D uhg, Sep 10th, 2007 @ 3:24pm


    If you can make a story headlines it draws attention. To your website? Want publicity? make the news! get it for free! Don't let the lawsuit become bigger than the publicity would cost you!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. identicon
    Screenshot, Oct 8th, 2007 @ 10:56am

    Re: Irony: Google ad on gives away reso

    Screenshot of the Google ad:

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Troels R, Oct 8th, 2007 @ 12:16pm

    If it were me...

    Didn't these legal departments run this through marketing?

    If I were in the PR department, I would really advice against sending a C&D against something like urinals

    You know what's gonna happen... you are going to get riduculed by a few, and they get angry or get smart, the Streisand effect will hit you.

    I couldn't find the WC from Marco, but is it that bad? the resort seems nice. Was the urinals decent or was the urinals contrary to the resorts image?

    If they were decent, this is PR-wise, similar to shoot your own foot.


    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    My2cents, Oct 13th, 2007 @ 9:03pm

    Public Citizen Litigation Group challenges C&D cop

    Last 2 paragraphs are interesting reading in a similar situation involving DirectBuy & Justin Leonard of

    There's an interesting blog (and link to their doc) at

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    citizen current, Apr 24th, 2009 @ 5:24pm

    illegal trademarks

    it is interesting the sheer power of the ever reaching law. To even mention a trademark and have that be illegal seems to be encroaching on the freedom of speech. I personally do not know trademark laws but know of a free legal advice forum This site could help you determine if it is illegal to use a trademark.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    JACK, Jun 3rd, 2009 @ 9:24pm

    hut light

    Since there was no electricity at the hut and nothing to do, we dozed off immediately before waking at sunrise to head down to the beach (which was no longer flooded, f.y.i.). A boat had dropped off the remainder of our tour group so we could kayak the rest of the way back. Plastic products made by injection molding services with low costs and supeior quality Shoring scaffolding for construction is a very useful tool. Books printed by China printing is very good quality and good prices!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Jun 6th, 2009 @ 10:07pm

    Re: No Subject Given

    "As for the mentioning of a business name; it is similar to slander, you cannot publish that Coca-cola is made with harmful ingredient X when it is not."

    But that doesn't prohibit you from merely mentioning a name. If the urinal photos were taken at a particular airport, simply saying they were is merely truthful.

    (BTW, your example would be libel, not slander. JTFR.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    NDBMobile, Sep 19th, 2015 @ 5:26am

    Enjoy our welcome package with our no deposit bonus provide directly by the owner of this online casino and completely integrated with this mobile platforms: Android , IOS Apple , blackberry research in motion , Windows 8 Remember: This bonus is only for recently registered players or new players on this Casino Mobile You should need activate this bonus

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.