I generally don't take such liberties, but permit me to indulge in a bit of self-praise. Paul and Public Citizen learned about the embattled savepacifica.net sites through a pair of politech messages in February: http://www.politechbot.com/p-01728.html http://www.politechbot.com/p-01729.html
That prompted them to step in and represent savepacifica.net and its brethren from a threatened lawsuit and, well, you can read the rest below.
Too often this list, others like it, and news reports end up documenting abuses of power and censorship attempts. It's heartening to know that -- even if it's only once in a while -- freedom wins a round.
-Declan
*********
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:49:51 -0400 From: "Paul Levy" <PLEVY at citizen.org> To: <declan at well.com> Subject: Victories for free speech in Internet Trademark cases
Here are two press releases that describe in more detail two nice wins for the free speech rights on the Internet. One of them involves the threat of cybersquatting litigation by Pacifica Foundation against several different groups that created web sites with the names savepacifica.net, wbai.net and freewpfw.org. We originally connected with these clients as a result of your publicized the problem in your list. As soon as we entered the case, Pacifica started hemming and hawing about whether they were going to follow through on their threatened litigation, and this week we finally got word that they are throwing in the towel. http://www.citizen.org/press/pr-lit35.htm
Equally interesting, and maybe even more important, is the outcome in a case we have been litigating on behalf of a web site that criticizes Ricart Automotive, a large dealer in Columbus, Ohio. Litigating with the advantage of surprise against a local lawyer, Ricart obtained a preliminary injunction on a claim of cybersquatting, in a case that all of their lawyers have been touting as a leading accomplishment on their firm web sites. http://www.arterhadden.com/attypdf/JRE.pdf; http://www.keglerbrown.com/newsletters/litigation/main.html#firm But once we entered the case, they apparently lost their taste for the litigation.
So, here we are, the company has been billed nearly $100,000 (we know this because, in light of their inclusion of an attorney fee claim, the judge required them to send the defendant regular notices of how much money was being billed), and it has given up its preliminary injunction in return for a seven week window until the defendant can register new domain names attacking the company. And the web site remains up (at www.columbusconsumer.com). You have to wonder, even if they had won the case in its entirety, would the relief have been worth $100,000?http://www.citizen.org/press/pr-lit36.htm
A real cautionary tale for companies that are considering the filing of this sort of law suit.
Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
********** For Immediate Release: Contact: Paul Levy (202) 588-1000 May 10, 2001 Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741 Pacifica Backs Off Threat to Sue; Critics Can Keep Web Sites
Pacifica Foundation Had Threatened to Sue to Force Groups To Take Down Sites Until Public Citizen Intervened
WASHINGTON, D.C. In what is a point on the scoreboard for First Amendment rights, Pacifica Foundation has decided against suing to force three groups to dismantle Web sites critical of Pacifica.
The Foundation in February threatened to sue the groups, with whom it is embroiled in a controversy over the radio network. The Foundation demanded that Friends of Free Speech Radio in California, WBAI Listener Network in New York and the Free WPFW group in Washington, D.C., abandon the use of their domain names and relinquish the rights to those names by Feb. 19 or face legal action. In response, Public Citizen, which champions free speech rights on the Internet, announced it would represent the groups if Pacifica sued.
In a recent phone conversation, though, an attorney for Pacifica told Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney Paul Alan Levy that Pacific had decided not to sue. Levy today sent the attorney, Tanya Vanderbilt, of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. in Washington, D.C., a letter confirming the conversation. A copy is available at http://www.citizen.org/litigation/briefs/VandLetter.pdf.
"Companies are starting to learn that they can't bring these cases, because they're going to lose," Levy said. "The message is slowly getting out that free speech rights on the Internet are sacrosanct."
The creators of the Web sites (savepacifica.net, wbai.net and freewpfw.org) are embroiled in a controversy stemming from a conflict between Pacifica's management and station employees and members over the network's future. Pacifica had claimed that the use of the Web site domain names was a trademark infringement and could confuse people searching the Web for Pacifica's site. The foundation also claimed that the Web sites restricted Pacifica from conducting business on the Internet under its own name.
Those claims are baseless, Levy said. Trademark infringement occurs when a company's name is used in a misleading way to profit from consumer confusion, which is not the case here. Also, the First Amendment protects the kind of speech posted on the Web sites, he said.
"Pacifica threatened to bring this suit because it wanted to burden its critics with the time and expense of preparing a legal defense," said Robbie Osman, member of Friends of Free Speech Radio. "I would have hoped that before the Foundation threatened to sue, someone in the Pacific national office might have remembered that promoting fair and open debate has been at the very heart of Pacifica's mission since it was founded. By threatening this baseless suit, the Foundation has proved the most damning charge their critics have made against them."
Added Patty Heffley of WBAI Listener Network, "After observing the Pacifica Foundation up close, any positive actions they take must be viewed with suspicion. The good news here is that Pacifica isn't going to squander the listeners' money on an unwarranted suit."
###
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.
********** For Immediate Release: Contact: Paul Levy (202) 588-1000 May 10, 2001 Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741 Ricart Automotive Agrees to Settle Suit Against Web Critic
Angry Ohio Customer Free to Create Anti-Ricart Sites This Summer
WASHINGTON, D.C. Ricart Automotive has agreed to drop a lawsuit it filed against an angry customer who created two anti-Ricart Web sites to log customer complaints about the dealership.
Ricart last year sued Ohio State University graduate student Robert F. Dalton, claiming that his sites violated trademark law, and Ricart quickly obtained a preliminary injunction against any use of the word "ricart" in Dalton's site names. Under a settlement agreement entered into this week, Ricart -- which spent nearly $100,000 on the case -- agreed to drop its suit and have the injunction dissolved in exchange for Dalton agreeing to relinquish the domain names of his sites, www.ricartautoripoff.com and www.ricartauto.com.
However, Dalton retains the right to create new anti-Ricart Web sites after July 3, 2001, using the word "ricart" in any portion of the domain name (except for the two relinquished domain names) and to include the Ricart name in his Web site "meta tags," a form of Internet code used to describe Web sites in a way that helps people using search engines locate Web pages in which they may be interested. For now, Dalton has posted the information on his sites at www.columbusconsumer.com.
"Clearly this is a victory for Mr. Dalton, who has every right in the world to post his thoughts about Ricart Automotive on the Internet," said Paul Alan Levy, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group who is representing Dalton. Public Citizen has represented other Internet critics in similar First Amendment cases. "The First Amendment clearly protects the kind of criticism Mr. Dalton has posted."
Dalton created the Web sites after a dispute with the dealership over a 1997 Ford F-150 pickup truck he leased. Dalton felt cheated in the deal and has said misrepresentation were made to him about the warranty and his ability to return the truck. His site contains a wealth of information about complaints filed against Ricart with the Ohio Attorney General's Office, as well as consumer information alerting people to potential scams.
"This case was all about Ricart trying to keep damaging information about its business practices from becoming public knowledge," Dalton said. "I feel it was an honor and a privilege to convey the collective voices of Ricart's victims to a larger audience, and I am grateful for my lawyers' assistance in accomplishing that."
The case is yet another affirming the rights of angry consumers to post their gripes on the Internet. In one recent case, Alitalia dropped its case against a passenger who created a Web site to air his gripes about lost luggage. In another recent case, Pacifica Foundation decided not to carry out its threat to sue several groups that created anti-Pacifica sites.
Dalton is also represented by Columbus consumer lawyers Eric Willison and Alvin Borromeo. ###
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.
***********
------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
</backwarded>