IP: Prepare nukes -- The New World Order -- our rights ... Falwell goes to WIPO (!)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Hunter, Dan" <hunterd () wharton upenn edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:24:40 -0400
To: "'Dave Farber'" <dave () farber net>
Subject: IP: The New World Order -- our rights ...  Falwell goes to WIPO (!)

Dave:

I'm a panelist, so make any bias-adjustment you think appropriate, but
here's my $0.02:

(1) The First Amendment isn't really implicated here.  Even if the panelists
find for Falwell, the UDRP isn't going to shut down the site, just force it
to move to a different domain name.  So your comment adds a lot of heat to
the debate without adding much light.

(2) A number of panelists interpret the terms of the UDRP (specifically para
4.a.(ii)) to conclude that parody sites are not cybersquatting.  Though I
admit that there has been a distressing number of my fellow panelists who
have found infringement in domains like danhuntersucks.com.  (Actually, only
a few of these cases are as bad as they sound, but that's a story for
another day).

(3)  If you insist on the false dichotomy between the Bill of Rights (Good)
and WIPO (Evil), and ask who has priority, then guess what?  Evil wins.  The
Bill of Rights is a local ordinance.  It applies to a tiny percentage of the
world's population.  If you want to deal with transnational problems like
cybersquatting--and the UDRP deals with the problem, if imperfectly--then
you're gonna have to suck it up when it occasionally comes back to bite you
in the ass.

Ok, I'll head off to the bunker now. [Activate the flame shields, Scotty]

muchos smoochos

Dan.

----
Dan Hunter
Wharton School
U.Penn.

------Original Message-----

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 14:26:18 -0500
From: "David Farber" <dfarber () earthlink net>
Subject: IP: Falwell goes to WIPO (!)

So who has priority. Wipo or the bill of rights?

Dave 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Paul Saffo <psaffo () iftf org>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 11:31:51
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Falwell goes to WIPO (!)

Dave- 
A fascinating dust-up that is headed to WIPO. Note especially the response
of the parody site owner to Falwell at:
http://www.internetparodies.org/lawsuit2.html

- -p 

- --------------- 
Rev. Jerry Falwell files complaint over Web site bearing his name

Thursday, April 4, 2002
C2002 Associated Press

URL: 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/04/04/nati
onal1856EST0779.DTL


(04-04) 15:56 PST LYNCHBURG, Va. (AP) --

The Rev. Jerry Falwell claims a Web site that spoofs his views on the
Bible and his fund-raising methods violates a trademark of his name.

Falwell filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property
Organization against the owner of the site which can be accessed at
www.jerryfalwell.com and www.jerryfallwell.com.

Falwell and The Liberty Alliance -- a nonprofit organization affiliated
with Jerry Falwell Ministries -- own the site www.falwell.com.

A section of the Web site called "How to follow the Bible" has an open
letter to Falwell, referring to his citation of biblical passages that
speak against homosexuality.

It asks Falwell to explain how other passages from the Bible should be
followed: "I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned
in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?" 

The complaint, filed in November, says the parody site violates a
"common-law trademark" of his name.

In a response filed last week, the site's owner, Gary Cohn of Highland
Park, Ill., says Falwell's name isn't entitled to trademark protection
since he hasn't used it "to identify certain goods and services."

Falwell "is trying to shut down a noncommercial Internet site that makes
fun of him for blaming the Sept. 11 bombing of American landmarks on the
supposed moral decline of America, and quotes the Bible at Falwell in
the exact same way that Falwell likes to quote it at other people,"
Cohen wrote. 

The WIPO, based in Geneva, Switzerland, will appoint a three-person
panel to decide the case.

In the 1980s, Falwell sued Hustler publisher Larry Flynt over an
off-color parody in the magazine. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Flynt, saying that even extreme forms of parody are protected by the
First Amendment. 

C2002 Associated Press


------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/