FC: 2600 wins against Ford, federal judge denies injunction

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Official PDF file of order:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/_opinions/Clelandpdf/RHC01-71685.PDF

HTML version:
http://cryptome.org/ford-v-2600.htm

---

Background:

"2600 plans hacker-caravan to courtroom showdown with Ford"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02015.html

"Ford sues 2600 Magazine over fuckgeneralmotors.com"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-01956.html

---


   
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
              FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                        SOUTHERN DIVISION
_________________________________________________________________

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

          Plaintiff,

v.                                      Case No. 01-CV-71685-DT

2600 ENTERPRISES, et al.,

          Defendants.
_______________________________/


  ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION"

The essential facts in this case are undisputed. Defendants
2600 Enterprises and Eric Corley, a/k/a Emmanuel Goldstein,1 are
the registrants of the domain name "fuckgeneralmotors.com." When
an Internet user enters this domain into a web browser, he is
automatically linked to the official website of Plaintiff Ford
Motor Company ("Ford"), which is located at "ford.com".2
Defendant Corley, a self-proclaimed "artist and social critic,"
apparently considers this piece of so-called cyber-art one of his
most humorous. Ford is not amused. Hence, the instant complaint
alleging three Lanham Act volations: trademark dilution, 15
U.S.C. § 1125(c); trademark infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1);
and unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The matter is now
before the court on Ford's "Motion for Preliminary Injunction,"
filed on April 18, 2001. For the reasons set forth below, the
court will deny Ford's motion.

[...]

                   III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, while Plaintiff
understandably may be disturbed by Defendants' acts, the Lanham
Act provides no remedy. Having failed to demonstrate any
likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its claim, Plaintiff is
not entitled to an injunction. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Preliminary
Injunction" is DENIED.

[...]



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------