ITMG381 - Week 3

You’re Name: Marti Heinz

Chapter 4

1. Should dissatisfied consumers have the right to establish gripe sties that use the trademark of the offending company in the domain name? How likely is it that consumers will be confused as to the “origin, sponsorship, or approval” of the gripe site by the offending company? Whether or not you think that confusion is likely, should a gripe site be considered to tarnish the targeted company’s trademark and thereby violate the Federal Trademark Dilution Act?

Disgruntled customers who purchase an item in a brick and mortar store have the option to go in and actually speak with someone when they are upset with their product. It is a bit more difficult for customers who purchase items from the internet. These people have only one option and that is to use the medium that they bought the merchandise off of, the Internet.

It is surprising how simple it is to set up a gripe site, “nominal fee and simple registration procedure will confer upon the cybergriper the domain name …(Lockwood)”. That is all it takes to open a portal for oneself and others to vent just as if they were standing in a brick and mortar store. While it is not considered illegal to open or set up a gripe site it is concerning to the company being complained about. It can be and has been a “cause for concern from a public relations standpoint…(Lockwood)”. Where things get a little be gray, I suppose, is that in order to sidestep any legal actions the “cybergriper” can invoke the First Amendment.

Most of the sites use a play on words for the site they are complaining about however there more than likely will be a slash and the company’s true name. It should be quiet clear that the site is not company sponsored or approved as soon as the page loads. It would be very unlikely that the site would be or could be mistaken for a company site.

I am not certain if the Trademark Dilution Act would come into play; I understand it is a new law however what I have been seeing referred to is the Lanham Act. While it is clear that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act is newer by 50 years it seems that the Lanham Act is still apparently quiet relevant still. What I did find interesting what that Lemire, advises “business owners, major corporations or others who do not wish to have “gripe” sites out there with highly visible domains – register common misspellings and the classic ‘Insert your domain here’ sucks.com yourself! (Lemire)”. While I found his advice funny it is true. If these names are owned then the cybergripers cannot own them and well, your business is that much safer in the end.

References:

Ferrera, G. R., Bird, R., Darrow, J. J., Reder, M. E. K., Lichtenstein, S. D., Aresty, J. M., & Klosek, J. (2011). Cyberlaw, text and cases. (Third ed. ed.). South-Western Pub.

Lemire, P. (2007). “Gripe Sites” Do Not Constitute Trademark Infrigement. Retreived from: http://www.coloradoiplaw.com/pdf/resources/Gripe-Sites.pdf

Lockwood, R. & Nixon, C. (2005). Trust the Leaders. (Issue 14/Winter 2005). Retreived from: http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl14/

Chapter 5

2. It is common practice for recipients of email messages to sometimes forward those messages to others. Does such forwarding constitute copyright infringement? In your answer, be sure to specify which, if any, of the exclusive rights may have been violated by the act of forwarding and whether the doctrine of fair use applies. What remedies, if any, might a successful plaintiff be able to obtain?

While this is a common practice, forwarding emails or portion of emails; I had never considered that in some situations it could be considered a copyright infringement. In Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act provides that “[c]opyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now know or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device (Shapiro)”.

There can be a copyright infringement when forwarding emails, however there is no damage done when they occur in situations such as: nonprofit classroom education, musical works, software to include making backup copies, and to create Braille versions (Ferrera). So long as the media is used for things such as those listed above, there can be no infringement case. It is when the media is used for other things, personal use, and personal gain. It is important to give credit for an idea or a concept to the appropriate person. You could relate it to writing a paper and not providing a list of work cited or references. From what I am seeing it is the same concept.

When a case of infringement is brought on the owner of the material (plaintiff) has to prove ownership of the material that is

References:

Ferrera, G. R., Bird, R., Darrow, J. J., Reder, M. E. K., Lichtenstein, S. D., Aresty, J. M., & Klosek, J. (2011). Cyberlaw, text and cases. (Third ed. ed.). South-Western Pub.

Field, T. (1999). Copyright in E-mail. [JEP] the journal of electronic publishing. Vol. 5 Issue 1. Retreived from: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text- idx?

c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0005.105

Shapiro, N. (2013) Beware That Forward Button What you Should Know About Copyright Laws in the Electronic Information Age. Retreived from: http://www.apawood.org/level_b.cfm?

content=pub_ewj_arch_s06_fwd