Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[eric stasik]

Last week in the Forum there was a question about Tupperware using Trademark law to silence critics who took their dispute onto the Web.

Now, in a similar situation, a Charlotte NC company is suing dissatisfied customers who took their complaint over the company's shoddy workmanship on line.

The Florida Sun-Sentinal explains:

"The complaint filed by Alvis alleges that the name of the Townsends' Web site, spraysiding.com, 'is confusingly similar' to the official Alvis site, sprayonsiding.com, as well as its trademark 'Spray on Siding.' "


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/sfl-sbgripesite14nov14,0,6645966.story?coll=sfla-business-headlines

Would the homeowners would have been safer to use the "this company name sucks" domain name, or is this sort of public criticism better to avoid altogether?

[Isaac]

In some cases, it may be safer to use the "sucks" approach simply
because there is case law supporting it.  In this case, there
are reasons to believe that the plaintiff has a weak mark in
the sense that the envelope of protection around the mark
against similar phrases is probably weak.  I noticed that the
registered mark has a significant disclaimer and that there is
a fairly recent application for a broader mark that has
what is probably a negative first office action.

As for avoiding public criticism altogether.  Perhaps that is
the more prudent course, but that is a highly personal decision, and
I am not inclined to find fault with someone feels compelled
to take a different approach.  You should be able to tell people
about a raw deal you've gotten.

[JimIvey]

Trademarks are supposed to be a handle by which good will, to the extent it exists, is attached to products/services.  I don't believe trademarks were ever intended to be a guarantee of good will -- i.e., a shield from criticism.  I really hate to see them be used this way.

The sole issue, in my mind, is whether the criticism is untrue -- as in libel.  I don't see a legitimate trademark issue here.  

If you want good will for your trademark, attach a good product or a good service to it.

Regards.