+1 credit
| Version | Summary | Created by | Modification | Content Size | Created at | Operation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sirius Huang | -- | 1631 | 2022-11-03 01:36:11 |
Video Upload Options
Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, was a legal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concerning allegations of cybersquatting and trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the right to use the domain name fallwell.com, and provides discussion on cybersquatting as it applies to criticism of a trademark. In 1999, Christopher Lamparello created a website to respond to and criticize the anti-homosexual statements by the American Christian evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell. Lamparello's website was located at fallwell.com (note the misspelling). Believing that there was confusing similarity between the domain name and Falwell's own name, domain name, and other trademarks, Falwell and his ministries attempted to legally block Lamparello from using the mark "fallwell" and transfer the ownership of the domain name to Falwell. The initial decisions (ruled by the National Arbitration Forum in 2003 and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2004) decided in favor of Falwell, granting Falwell's claims of federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and cybersquatting. On appeal in 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the earlier decisions, ruling that there was not a "likelihood of confusion" between Lamparello's and Falwell's official site; that there was no trademark infringement based on "initial interest confusion" for sites that were non-commercial and critical of the trademark holder; and since Lamparello's site was non-commercial, there was no "bad faith intent to profit" and it was not cybersquatting.
References
- National Arbitration Forum (2003-11-20). "The Reverend Dr. Jerry L. Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Lamparello International, Decision (Case No.: FA0310000198936)". Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. https://web.archive.org/web/20110722235450/http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/198936.htm. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
- "Public Citizen Litigation Group Brief". 2004-11-17. http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/Lamparello%20Brief.pdf. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
- "David E. Sorkin - Domain Name Disputes". Sork.com. Archived from the original on 2010-01-05. http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100105232543/http%3A//www.sork.com/domain/. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
- "Web site retains rights to parody Falwell". The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 2002-06-11. http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=3140. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
- "ACLU asks court to throw out Jerry Falwell's Web site lawsuit". Associated Press. 2002-09-13. http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16954. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
- "Falwell v. Cohn, Memorandum Opinion, CA-6:02CV00040". 2003-03-04. http://www.citizen.org/documents/FalwellDismissalOrder.pdf. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
- "Lamparello v. Falwell, CA-03-1503-A (E.D. VA)". 2003-12-03. http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/Complaint%20for%20Declaratory%20Relief.pdf. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
- "ACLU Amicus Brief". 2004-11-24. http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/Falwell%20ACLU%20amicus%20brief.pdf. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
- Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005). http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/420/420.F3d.309.04-2122.04-2011.html
- Referencing the ACPA, the Appeals Court also stressed that the ACPA does not limit domain names used for the purposes of noncommercial commentary. From the 4th Circuit Opinion: "Factor IV of the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1) (B)(i)(IV), counsels against finding a bad faith intent to profit in such circumstances because "use of a domain name for purposes of . . . comment, [and] criticism," H.R. Rep. No. 106-412, 1999 WL 970519, at *11, constitutes a "bona fide noncommercial or fair use" under the statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(IV)."
- Holland, Gina (2006-04-17). "Supreme Court Won't Hear Falwell's Appeal". Associated Press.
- Broache, Anne (2006-04-17). "High court skips Falwell Web site case". CNET News. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6061976.html?part=rss&tag=6061976&subj=news. Retrieved 2010-10-20.
- "Wayback Machine" (in en). http://fallwell.com.
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001). http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/263/263.F3d.359.00-2289.00-1918.html
- Katyal, Sonia (July 2010). "Stealth Marketing and Antibranding: The Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name". Buffalo Law Review 58 (4): 795. http://www.buffalolawreview.org/past_issues/58_4/Katyal.pdf.
- Lipton, Jacqueline (2006). "Commerce Versus Commentary: Gripe Sites, Parody, and the First Amendment in Cyberspace". Washington University Law Review 84 (6): 1327–1374. Archived from the original on 2010-06-07. https://web.archive.org/web/20100607022125/http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/84-6/lipton.pdf.
- "4th Circuit Rules for Jerry Falwell's Cyber Squatter". Tech Law Journal. 2005-08-24. http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050824c.asp. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
- Goldman, Eric (2005-08-25). "Gripers 1, Initial Interest Confusion 0--Lamparello v. Falwell". http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2005/08/gripers_1_initi.htm. Retrieved 2010-10-20.
