Lawsuit against FAIR

[Bsix]

Perhaps this is an interestingly similar lawsuit.

Court lets man criticize hair clinic in Web site.

This CNN story reports that one Michael Kremer is allowed to mimic a company's name as a registered URL and publish views critical of that company -- as per a 9th US Circuit Court ruling.

Kremer, who had been unhappy with the outcome of his hair restoration, used the company's name in the Web site address, www.bosleymedical.com. The company claimed his use of the name was trademark infringement.

But the appeals court disagreed, saying the Web site was not created to make a profit or to confuse Bosley's customers and potential clients. There were no links on the site to other hair-restoration providers, the court noted.

Six: One aspect of the case is still moving ahead -- the cybersquatting aspect. Kremer attempted to sell the URL to Bosley Medical...thus attempting to "profit" from cybersquatting.

Personally, I have no problem with an apologetic organization using creative and legal means to exercise it's free speech rights.

Regards,

Six

[Bertram]

TELSTAR409,

Where can I read THEIR complaint....NOT newspaper reports of their complaint?

[Bertram]

If I cannot read THEIR complaint then I will have to asssume that all preceding comments are purely based on HEARSAY!!!!!

Surely all you "lawyers" out there are not leading me astray???

Come on...show me line upon line..precept upon precept...

IF not then I can only accept that I am on one of those concentric discussions!

[Calm]

CI has read the complaint.

Confidential Informant Posted: Apr 26 2005, 03:53 PM

Having now read through the Tanner's complaint, you will be glad to know that it contains no...elipses, OR EXTENSIVE USE OF BOLDED UNDERLINED CAPITALS.......

C.I.

As far as knowing that the Tanners didn't ask for the names before filing suit, the source of that info should be pretty obvious.

[Bertram]

calmoriah,

Thank you but I am a little (maybe a lot) like doubting Thomas.....I have to read it myself!

Surely ALL those postings have not been generated by lack of or misinformed information???

Maybe CI will produce the "GOODS".

[butsam]

Very childish, according to the article's information.

However, I do not trust any news outlet in Utah to provide me an accurate picture...a week ago we saw an article that twisted depression into something *positive* for the state of Utah. If the facts are that FAIR intended to deceive (which is hard to prove), then shame on FAIR. If not, then there is nothing to fear. Who knows? Only FAIR administrators (and not many of them, I would venture to guess).

Sam

[JustChuck]

Here's a copy of the Tanner's complaint in PDF format:

Here are links to cached copies of the content in question. Note that the cached copies are shown without the original images, which were near duplicates of the Tanner's graphics:

Other domains are listed in the complaint, but based upon these three, it looks like they all have similar content. When you review the cached copies, click on the link at the bottom of the page, "Books by the Tanners," and review the resources presented on the page. This gives some insight into several items in the complaint.

Links removed by moderator because they contain detailed personal information including addressess. You may discuss the topic but do not post names and addresses. This is one of the few rules this board does have.

[Confidential Informant]

calmoriah,

Thank you but I am a little (maybe a lot) like doubting Thomas.....I have to read it myself!

Surely ALL those postings have not been generated by lack of or misinformed information???

Maybe CI will produce the "GOODS".

What goods would you like to produce, Bertram? I've read the complaint, in fact, I have a copy of it sitting around here near my desk somewhere. It's 30 pages long (excluding the attachments). As I recall, it alleges violations of three (3) federal statutes and two (2) state statutes.

As complaints go it's fairly common and not bad. It lays out what it believes to be the pertinent history and then lays out something like 5 pleas for relief (one for each statute violated).

If your are interested, the Tanners --media hounds that they are -- have posted a copy of the complaint on the Exmo board somewhere. But be warned, it isn't exactly "stimulating" reading.

However, I am very impressed by the poster above who found the Bosley Medical case as that's a case I've studied very closely the past few days. It is not kind to the Tanner's claims since much of what Mr. Kremer was doing can be fairly applied to the current case.

A couple of things about it:

1) It's bearing on this suit will be as a "secondary" authority only because Bosley is a 9th Circuit case and this case has been filed in the 10th Circuit.

2.) The case is so new (decided April 4) that it was only a assigned a recorder number in the past few days.

3) The case is Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005).

That facts in brief:

Defendant Michael Kremer was dissatisfied with the hair restoration services provided to him by the Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. In a bald-faced effort to get even, Kremer started a website at www.BosleyMedical.com, which, to put it mildly, was uncomplimentary of the Bosley Medical Institute.  (emphasis added)

"Bosley Medical" is the registered trademark of the Bosley Medical Institute, Inc., which brought suit against Kremer for trademark infringement and like claims. Kremer argues that noncommercial use of the mark is not actionable as infringement under the Lanham Act. Bosley responds that Kremer is splitting hairs.

The "killer" for the Tanner's suit is the following holding:

Like the district court, we agree with Kremer. We hold today that the noncommercial use of a trademark as the domain name of a website--the subject of which is consumer commentary about the products and services represented by the mark--does not constitute infringement under the Lanham Act.

If you ask me, that describes the Wyatt website to a tee. Does anyone disagree?

Anyone who is interested in reading the full text of the case can find it here.

Note that many of the claims that Bosley Medical made in regards to Kremer's "commerical" intent such as:

Kremer earns no revenue from the website and no goods or services are sold on the website. There are no links to any of Bosley's competitors' websites. BosleyMedical.com does link to Kremer's sister site, BosleyMedicalViolations.com, which links to a newsgroup entitled alt.baldspot, which in turn contains advertisements for companies that compete with Bosley. BosleyMedical.com also contained a link to the Public Citizen website. Public Citizen is the organization that represents Kremer in this case.

Nevertheless, the court held that:

Kremer's website contains no commercial links, but rather contains links to a discussion group, which in turn contains advertising. This roundabout path to the advertising of others is too attenuated to render Kremer's site commercial. At no time did Kremer's BosleyMedical.com site offer for sale any product or service or contain paid advertisements from any other commercial entity

And finally:

Kremer is not Bosley's competitor; he is their critic. His use of the Bosley mark is not in connection with a sale of goods or services--it is in connection with the expression of his opinion about Bosley's goods and services.

The dangers that the Lanham Act was designed to address are simply not at issue in this case. The Lanham Act, expressly enacted to be applied in commercial contexts, does not prohibit all unauthorized uses of a trademark. Kremer's use of the Bosley Medical mark simply cannot mislead consumers into buying a competing *680 product--no customer will mistakenly purchase a hair replacement service from Kremer under the belief that the service is being offered by Bosley. Neither is Kremer capitalizing on the good will Bosley has created in its mark. Any harm to Bosley arises not from a competitor's sale of a similar product under Bosley's mark, but from Kremer's criticism of their services. Bosley cannot use the Lanham Act either as a shield from Kremer's criticism, or as a sword to shut Kremer up

Now, take that last quote and replace "Bosley" with Tanners and "Kremer" with Wyatt.

IMO, the Tanners suit, under this particular statute, is DOA.

C.I.

[Calm]

B, what is being discusses by most of us is more the setup of the lawsuit than the specifics in the complaint and specific detail from the complaint are not needed.

This include:

The people involved including some personal stuff from personal experience (not hearsay therefore)

Whether or not the registering of the domains themselves was appropriate (moral as well as legal). (not hearsay)

What the actual agenda of the Tanners is based on their behaviour (the newspapers being the first people that were contacted about the lawsuit, not any of the people they were suing) and whether or not that is appropriate (morally and sensibly, it is obvious legal but may irritate the judge) (since the information is direct from the source and repeated secondhand, it is technically hearsay to repeat it, but our comments are drawn from nonhearsay)

What the implications of the actual agenda of the Tanners are (speculation, but not hearsay)

Specifics of the complaint and others in the same area of the lawa are referenced by CI, who has read the complaint and others who have examined the complaints they cite. (not hearsay again for them, but if you repeated it, perhaps it would be)

There is nothing inherently wrong with hearsay btw, it depends on how it is used. It is even admissable in court in specific circumstances.

[Bertram]

Confidential Informant & calmoriah,

Thank you for your responses.

CI the "goods" would have been the PDF download indicated by JustChuck.

However I fully support and acknowledge the decision by the Moderator!

Incidentally CI your "here" on the Bosley link is coming up "host unknown" at my end.

[Confidential Informant]

Incidentally CI your "here" on the Bosley link is coming up "host unknown" at my end.

Just Google on "Bosley Medical v. Kremer" and you'll find it.

C.I.

[xerego]

CI's link was missing a letter. Try this one.

[Saint Paul]

Here is the link -> http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2684651

Any thoughts on this. Tanners are on it again.

Is FAIR using unfair practices in running down the opposition? Can't FAIR defend the church just using facts?enter with a open mind!

[Calm]

Please demonstrate where FAIR was involved in your claim.

[Bertram]

Saint Paul,

Which church is "enter with an open mind"?

Maybe I am slow but I am having great difficulty tracing an address.

Can you enlighten me?

[Bertram]

Saint Paul,

Just had a quick trawl through your very very brief snipes.(hit and runs).

I have also been having great difficulty following your arguments and reasoning.

Did you identify your church anywhere. It would help to know this and therefore maybe where you are trying to come from or better still where you are trying to go with your brief and unedifying points?

[Avatar4321]

Here is the link -> http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2684651

Any thoughts on this. Tanners are on it again.

Is FAIR using unfair practices in running down the opposition? Can't FAIR defend the church just using facts?enter with a open mind!

Are we supposed to be defending the Church from that website? Im confused. Why would we have to "defend" ourselves against witnesses for Christ? We stand up there and boldly proclaim that Jesus is the Christ. why would anyone saying the same thing as us be something we need to defend against?

[Bertram]

Avatar4321,

I personally have no problem with anyone coming onto this site.

In fact, unless they are completely blind or totally bigotted, they are laying themselves open to hear the truth. They may surely be surprised that we do not believe what they have been brainwashed by their "leaders".

I am just surprised that most of them are ashamed to identify their affiliations.

This particular site confuses me, so much so, that I cannot find their address or which church this site or poster is attached to!

If I am wrong then maybe they can enlighten me.

[TELSTAR409]

If I cannot read THEIR complaint then I will have to asssume that all preceding comments are purely based on HEARSAY!!!!!

You may assume whatever you like.

I didn't come here to debate my opinions regarding this issue...just to express them. You don't have to agree with them.

If you want to read the complaint..then look it up the same way I did and quit whining.

[Bertram]

TELSTAR409,

I am really sorry that you approached my post in a" bulldozer" carrying a "sledgehammer". (Quotes)

If you would care to "walk in my moccasins" you might just appreciate where I am coming from!

I am 8000 miles away in a different legal jurisdiction and am not totally aux fait with your jurisprudence. If I request your help I would not expect to be abused.

Glad I am not an investigator asking you questions about your beliefs!

I have made an allowance for the time of morning when you made your response.

If you are a Lawyer, although I doubt it, would you please do not ask questions on your postings, if you do not wish to debate! You know those dogmatic statements followed by a (?).

As far as I am aware I have not, as yet, disagreed with anyone in relation to this Topic!

Regards,

Whinger.

[Calm]

Do you or do you not have access to internet? That is all Telstar likely has access to as Tel is not in Utah or within convenient driving distance. How do you think JustChuch was able to post the links in the first place?

As far as I am aware I have not, as yet, disagreed with anyone in relation to this Topic!

Perhaps not, but it appears you are condemning people for their current discussion by labeling it hearsay, etc. and implying that someone is "leading you astray".

[Dunamis]

Board slamming with website links is not allowed here. St. Paul, you are on the queue.

[Bertram]

calmoriah,

Yes I do have the Internet.....I thought that would be obvious if I am on Fair....but my computer needs INPUT in order to receive OUTPUT!

Reading concentric postings....those that lead me around in circles is not how I like to spend what little time I have left in this World!

Of course I tried to access and read for myself but unfortunately all I could raise was:

1. Tanner v United States.....

2. Tanner Et All v United States...

3. Fair v Rumsfield....

4. Tanner v OHSU...

5. Tanner v Oregon Health...

6. LDS Church v Utah Lighthouse..(OLD)

BUT NO PRESENT CASE.

NEED I GO ON..... to prove I am not totally trying.

Eventually some Members came to my rescue but the Web-sites were withheld.....I FULLY ACCEPT DUNAMIS` RULING ON THAT.

If someone sends the definitive web-site to me via a PM....and DUNAMIS approves... then that may assist me.

Until then, unfortunately, I am afraid everything I have read to date is, whether you like it or not, is HEARSAY.

Might I also reiterate, if I was hoping to learn something from this Post, some of the curt replies which I have received would have had a more timid person switch off long before now.

[Avatar4321]

Avatar4321,

I personally have no problem with anyone coming onto this site.

In fact, unless they are completely blind or totally bigotted, they are laying themselves open to hear the truth. They may surely be surprised that we do not believe what they have been brainwashed by their "leaders".

I am just surprised that most of them are ashamed to identify their affiliations.

This particular site confuses me, so much so, that I cannot find their address or which church this site or poster is attached to!

If I am wrong then maybe they can enlighten me.

I dont have a problem with it either and it would be nice if they werent too ashamed to show where they are as well.

[Calm]

Might I also reiterate, if I was hoping to learn something from this Post, some of the curt replies which I have received would have had a more timid person switch off long before now.  I highly doubt a timid person would have written your posts.

May I suggest you soften your own approach if you do not want to receive such replies.

As to Dunamis, the problem is publicly posting of personal contact information on the board, not elsewhere. If it is publicly posted elsewhere, it most likely won't be a problem (it depends on why the websites are restricted) for the link to be given privately. We have the same privacy rule over on ZLMB-no personal contact information posted unless permission is given by the individual whether or not it is in public view elsewhere.