Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2005/08/25.asp
Timestamp: 2017-11-23 03:17:19
Document Index: 668010944

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1114', '§ 1125', '§ 1126', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1125']

TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,201, August 25, 2005.
August 25, 2005, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 1,201.
Background. Jerry Falwell is a Baptist minister based in Lynchburg, Virginia. He is also widely known nationally through his Jerry Falwell Ministries, the Liberty Channel's television programming, Liberty University, his leadership of the Moral Majority Coalition, and his other past and present activities. Falwell holds the common law trademarks "Jerry Falwell" and "Falwell," and has registered the trademark "Listen America with Jerry Falwell." Jerry Falwell Ministries also has a web site with the URL of www.falwell.com.
Christopher Lamparello is an individual who disagrees with Falwell's interpretation of several Biblical passages in the context of homosexuality. Lamparello published his criticisms of Falwell in a web site that he created. This dispute arose because he used a variation of Falwell's name in his URL. His web site is located at www.fallwell.com.
District Court. Lamparello filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (EDVa) against Falwell seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
Lamparello is represented by a broad team of lawyers from the Public Citizen Litigation Group, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and the Georgetown University Law Center. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also supported him as an amicus curiae.
Falwell filed a counterclaim against Lamparello alleging trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2000), false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1126 and the common law of the state of Virginia, and cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). See, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
The Court reiterated the 4th Circuit's seven part test: "(a) the strength or distinctiveness of the mark; (b) the similarity of the two marks; (c) the similarity of the goods/services the marks identify; (d) the similarity of the facilities the two parties use in their businesses; (e) the similarity of the advertising used by the two parties; (f) the defendant’s intent; (g) actual confusion."
The Court then applied this test to the present case. "Lamparello’s website looks nothing like Reverend Falwell’s; indeed, Lamparello has made no attempt to imitate Reverend Falwell’s website. Moreover, Reverend Falwell does not even argue that Lamparello's website constitutes advertising or a facility for business, let alone a facility or advertising similar to that of Reverend Falwell. Furthermore, Lamparello clearly created his website intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers. Most importantly, Reverend Falwell and Lamparello do not offer similar goods or services. Rather they offer opposing ideas and commentary."
Initial Interest Confusion. On the likelihood of confusion issue, Falwell also argued the initial interest confusion doctrine. The Court of Appeals described this doctrine as new and sporadically applied, and summarized it as follows: "the Lanham Act forbids a competitor from luring potential customers away from a producer by initially passing off its goods as those of the producer’s, even if confusion as to the source of the goods is dispelled by the time any sales are consummated".
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument for two reasons. First, the 4th Circuit has not adopted this doctrine. (The 6th, 7th and 9th Circuits have.) Second, even if the Court were to "endorse the initial interest confusion theory, that theory would not assist Reverend Falwell here because it provides no basis for liability in circumstances such as these. The few appellate courts that have followed the Ninth Circuit and imposed liability under this theory for using marks on the Internet have done so only in cases involving a factor utterly absent here -- one business's use of another’s mark for its own financial gain."
"Profiting financially from initial interest confusion is thus a key element for imposition of liability under this theory." The Court of Appeals added that "This critical element -- use of another firm's mark to capture the markholder’s customers and profits -- simply does not exist when the alleged infringer establishes a gripe site that criticizes the markholder."
Cyber Squatting. The Court of Appeals also rejected Falwell's claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The ACPA prohibits use of a domain name where the holder registers a domain name that "is identical or confusingly similar to, or dilutive of" a protected mark, and has a "faith intent to profit" from its use. The ACPA provides nine factors, now codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i), that courts should consider in determining whether the holder of the allegedly infringing domain name has acted in bad faith.
The Court of Appeals relied upon several other cases. See, for example, March 5, 2004 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) in Lucas Nursery v. Grosse, which is reported at 359 F.3d 806, and story titled "6th Circuit Rules for Domain Name Registrant Who Published Complaint Web Site" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 852, March 9, 2004. See also, the April 21, 2004 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) in TMI, Inc. v. Maxwell, which is reported at 368 F.3d 433, and story titled "5th Circuit Rules in Cyber Squatting and Trademark Dilution Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 883, April 23, 2004.
PETA v. Doughney Distinguished. The Court of Appeals also cited and relied upon its 2001 opinion in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, which is reported at 263 F.3d 359. In that case the Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court judgment against a cyber squatter.
Doughney registered the domain name www.peta.org, and operated a web site that parodied a group titled "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals". He named his web site "People Eating Tasty Animals". See, story titled "4th Circuit Affirms Judgment Against Parody Web Site Operator" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 256, August 24, 2001.
Paul Alan Levy, of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, argued the case for Lamparello. He stated in a release that the 4th Circuit's opinion "is a victory for First Amendment rights on the Internet". However, the Court of Appeals interpreted and applied various statutes codified in Title 15, not the First Amendment.
8/23. President Bush announced his intent to appoint Charles Allen to be Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Allen is currently Special Assistant to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He has worked at the CIA since 1958. Prior to his appointment as Special Assistant, was Assistant Director of Intelligence for Collection. See, White House release.
8/24. The Archivist of the United States, who manages the National Archives and Records Administration, published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Electronic Records Archives. This new committee will provide advice related to the planned Electronic Records Archives (ERA). It will be comprised of twenty members appointed by the Archivist. See, Federal Register, August 24, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 163, at Page 49683.
The MPA asked for this extension of time on the grounds that it is engaged in settlement negotiations with Continental. However, Continental promptly responded to the FCC that there have been no settlement negotiations. Moreover, the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), which shares the MPA's interests, also asked for an extension, but acknowledged to the FCC that it has not communicated with Continental's counsel.
Effective date of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) VOIP service disruption order. See, the order contained in the FCC's document titled "Public Notice' [PDF], numbered DA 05-2085, and released on July 26, 2005. It requires, among other things, that every interconnected voice over internet protocol (VOIP) service provider must send every one of its subscribers an FCC mandated statement regarding E911, and that every interconnected VOIP service provider must send to every one of its customers the FCC mandated VOIP warning stickers. This order further requires that every interconnected VOIP service provider obtain acknowledgement from every one of its subscribers, and that it "disconnect, no later than August 30, 2005, all subscribers from whom it has not received such acknowledgements".