DNRC writes:
In the real world, use of Cadillac for cat food
>and Cadillac for automobiles is permitted. Yet on the Internet, that
>type of use could make you a criminal under this bill."
>
The Cadillac pet food business started before there was a federal dilution
statute (which statute had no retroactive effect). If a similar use began
today, such a use may well be found to be actionable under 43(c) of the
Lanham Act. Thus the proposed bill is not inconsistent with present law to
the extent indicated above.
>
>Recent domain name disputes further illustrate DNRC's fears.
which domain name disputes arose under NSI's policy, not under the proposed
law in question.
>Veronica.org is a domain name used to identify a website devoted to a
>baby girl named Veronica. Veronica is also a trademark or Archie
>comics. Pokey.org is a website by a 12 year old boy. It is also a
>trademark of a toy company. Ballysucks.com was used to give
>consumers information against the Bally fitness organization.
Is this a different case from the reported decision which involved not a
domain name but ballysucks in a pathname, and in which case the court found
such use to be not actionable?
"In most
>of these cases, the innocent users of an Internet domain name could
>have been charged criminally for innocent speech protected under the
>first amendment," said Bret Fausett, an attorney with the Boston law
>firm of Fausett, Gaeta & Lund. "Few of these uses would have
>constituted trademark infringement, yet they now could become illegal
>under the new bill. Perfectly legitimate non-commercial speech could
>be made criminal."
Could you please cite the part of the statute that suggests that perfectly
legitimate non-commercial speech could be made criminal? None of these
cases appear to fall under the prima facie case described in the bill.
>
>
>Even commercial speech would be adversely affected under this bill.
>"The large Internet company juno.com may have been criminally liable
>under this bill.
This seems improbable, as most of the elements of a prima facie case set
out in the bill are missing in Juno's situation.
>
