5 ms·

The headline is a lie. They did not try to censor this website. They sent a cease and desist order to someone who registered a domain with the word "Comcast" in

The headline is a lie. They did not try to censor this website. They sent a cease and desist order to someone who registered a domain with the word "Comcast" in it. They're protecting their trademark. Anybody registering a domain such as this, regardless of content, would receive a similar letter. The author is clearly trying to manufacture a controversy to promote their political beliefs.

spacemanmatt 9y ago
Substring inclusion doesn't equate to infringement. I think you are a bit off base with your accusations against the author.
- aiyodev 9y ago
  Go and register CocaColarky.com, put up a site about how much Coca Cola sucks, and tell me how that works out for you in court.
  - spacemanmatt 9y ago
    Thanks for a perfect example. Do you propose that everyone should behave as if they fear being taken to court for frivolous suits? Coca Cola has a specific bar to meet if their claims will succeed. They're entitled to exclusive use of the term as trade dress (they own trademarks around it) but they do not control every use of the word, especially in reference or outside their market. So I'll ask: What do you think should happen in court?
pera 9y ago
What about http://fuckyoucomcast.com/ http://fuckyoucomcast.com/ for instance? the domain was first registered in 2009.
- aiyodev 9y ago
  So your point is that, because Comcast didn't protect their trademark when someone registered fuckyoucomcast.com, it's hard for them to protect it when someone registers comcastroturf.com? That's the point of trademark lawsuits. If you don't defend your trademark, you lose it. But the domains are different. "Fuck you Comcast" is a message directed at Comcast. It doesn't modify the name and nobody could confuse it with Comcast. "Comcastroturf" is a play on Comcast's name. Someone who doesn't know what "astroturf" means could mistakenly associate it with Comcast.
  - pera 9y ago
    No, that's not my point. You said: > Anybody registering a domain such as this, regardless of content, would receive a similar letter. So I provide one example showing how that's not true. Comcast sent a cease and desist claiming that Comcastroturf is "confusingly similar" to their trademark, and they mention both the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Lanham Act, which are usually applied for a domain like "comcast2017.com". > Someone who doesn't know what "astroturf" means could mistakenly associate it with Comcast. I'm not sure about that: for instance, even when most Americans don't know Latin I don't think Comcast would have any valid legal claim against someone registering a domain such as "comcastestpessima.com".
moonka 9y ago
Wasn't there a lawsuit about bestbuysucks.com that called this type of usage out as lawful?
WettowelReactor 9y ago
WIPO findings and several court cases have clearly sided with defendants for these types of sites. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1104.html http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000... http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1015.html http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000...

spacemanmatt 9y ago

Substring inclusion doesn't equate to infringement. I think you are a bit off base with your accusations against the author.

aiyodev 9y ago
Go and register CocaColarky.com, put up a site about how much Coca Cola sucks, and tell me how that works out for you in court.
- spacemanmatt 9y ago
  Thanks for a perfect example. Do you propose that everyone should behave as if they fear being taken to court for frivolous suits? Coca Cola has a specific bar to meet if their claims will succeed. They're entitled to exclusive use of the term as trade dress (they own trademarks around it) but they do not control every use of the word, especially in reference or outside their market. So I'll ask: What do you think should happen in court?

pera 9y ago

What about http://fuckyoucomcast.com/ http://fuckyoucomcast.com/ for instance? the domain was first registered in 2009.

aiyodev 9y ago
So your point is that, because Comcast didn't protect their trademark when someone registered fuckyoucomcast.com, it's hard for them to protect it when someone registers comcastroturf.com? That's the point of trademark lawsuits. If you don't defend your trademark, you lose it. But the domains are different. "Fuck you Comcast" is a message directed at Comcast. It doesn't modify the name and nobody could confuse it with Comcast. "Comcastroturf" is a play on Comcast's name. Someone who doesn't know what "astroturf" means could mistakenly associate it with Comcast.
- pera 9y ago
  No, that's not my point. You said: > Anybody registering a domain such as this, regardless of content, would receive a similar letter. So I provide one example showing how that's not true. Comcast sent a cease and desist claiming that Comcastroturf is "confusingly similar" to their trademark, and they mention both the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Lanham Act, which are usually applied for a domain like "comcast2017.com". > Someone who doesn't know what "astroturf" means could mistakenly associate it with Comcast. I'm not sure about that: for instance, even when most Americans don't know Latin I don't think Comcast would have any valid legal claim against someone registering a domain such as "comcastestpessima.com".

moonka 9y ago

Wasn't there a lawsuit about bestbuysucks.com that called this type of usage out as lawful?

WettowelReactor 9y ago

WIPO findings and several court cases have clearly sided with defendants for these types of sites. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1104.html http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000... http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1015.html http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000...