Lawsuit threat

Here's an interesting one...

There's a website upon which exists a bulletin board surfers can register themselves on and engage in discussions with one another about porn in.

On this board, there was a thread (a few, in fact) about a particular porn star we shall call John Doe.

Now, the individual known as John Doe (which is to say, the actor whose stage name is "John Doe") registered on the board in order to interact with his fans and talk to them and made several posts under the username with which he registered on the board: JohnDoe.

Very soon thereafter, the owner of the video production company for which this model works under the alias "John Doe", and that we shall call His Video Company, sent an e-mail to the webmaster of this bulletin board threatening to sue for trademark and copyright infringement. The owner of the production company claims that his company has trademarked "John Doe" and therefore, without their permission, their model should not have been allowed to register under that name.

As a gesture of kindness, the webmaster of the bulletin board edited the model's username on the board so that it reads "JohnD" - a name and term not trademarked by anyone and quite generic.

The video company owner now says that regardless of any copyrighted terms no longer appearing in the thread and his own (probably former) model's username being changed, he can still sue for trademark and copyright infringement over any references made to "John Doe" or "His Video Company Name" in the bulletin board. That mere conversational reference and expression of opinion by bulletin board members in which the name of the model or name of the video company appear are trademark/copyright violations for which the bulletin board operator can be held liable.

It was pointed out to the video company owner that without the bulletin board owners/operators having registered the name "JohnDoe" themselves - much less for actionable commercial use or commercial engagements - and with occurrences of the alleged trademarked phrases appearing as part of discussion and conversation in the bulletin board between 3rd party registrants, there is no grounds for legal action.

In other words, say there's a discussion board on websiteA.com on which people are talking about Coca Cola and how they prefer Pepsi to Coke. Coke can not sue the bulletin board's owner for discussion about "Coke" even though "Coke" is a registered trademark and even though unflattering comments about "Coke" are being posted. Furthermore, just because someone registered with the username "CocaCola" or "CocaColaHater", Coke can not demand anything posted by that user constitutes a trademark/copyright infringement by the bulletin board owner.

Further, that although it's possible for JohnDoe model to have violated terms of some contract between himself and His Video Company, that has nothing to do with the bulletin board or the bulletin board's owners/operators, much less could it be considered a trademark or copyright violation by them.

What's your opinion on the matter? :)

BTW - there is no solicitation of legal advice taking place here. Simply an effort to use this particular incident to initiate a discussion on it and see what others' opinions might be. If lawyers were in need of being consulted, they most certainly have already been ;)

GoFuckYourself.com has a lot of stupid threads.



^^^ - GFY.com and its owners can not sue GWW over me, as a third party, having made reference to GFY in this thread and on this bulletin board in an editorial context, despite "GoFuckYourself" probably being a registered trademark of whomever.

N'est pas?

i think it's bullshit as it's being used in the course of conversation, and not as a commercial thing. i'd love to hear what chad thinks about this.

Precident was set a year or so ago that protects a forum owner from legal action taken on behalf of stuff posted by a forum member, therefore, i would say, not being a 'legal sort' that would also be true for individuals registering usernames and posting on any such forum :)

Ill see if i can dig out the case in question where this precedent was set shortly :)

Regards,

Lee

Personally, it sounds like someone has too much time on his hands.

Yep i was right..

Check the Communications Decency Act of 1996 under Section 230(c).

Quote:

---

`(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

---

Regards,

Lee

I think it's BS and this guy needs to get a life. They also need a business degree as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this model is out on his own time, promoting his name, and your production company... and all for free. :dunce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

I think it's BS and this guy needs to get a life. They also need a business degree as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this model is out on his own time, promoting his name, and your production company... and all for free. :dunce:

---

Yeah but, if the board in question doesnt have any T.O.S in place other than the 'generic' T.O.S that comes with the software, that could potentially cause problems for them :)

The CDA is very specific and, if after being notified by the company, they changed the name of the poster but, continued to mention the 'video company' they are open to potential legal action :)

The problem is proving how quick they were to act once they received the initial notification, thats one of the reasons we react quickly when someone sends us a complaint, on the other hand, if no notification was actually made, then the video company will find themselves shit out of luck ;)

Regards,

Lee

The question is about editorial commentary.

This is not a matter of copyrighted material - such as images or copy or other intellectual property. It's objection being made on the part of a trademark holder over use of a term that also happens to be trademarked.

The context and manner in which the terms are used is what's at issue.

The Bosley Medical trademark/copyright ruling by a federal court even sanctioned some pretty blatant use of a trademarked name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

The question is about editorial commentary.

This is not a matter of copyrighted material - such as images or copy or other intellectual property. It's objection being made on the part of a trademark holder over use of a term that also happens to be trademarked.

The context and manner in which the terms are used is what's at issue.

The Bosley Medical trademark/copyright ruling by a federal court even sanctioned some pretty blatant use of a trademarked name.

---

Unless the board OWNER made any comments, registered the trademarked username or, directly did something they shouldnt have done, the TM owner cant do shit to the board owner, they can however, go after the poster of the comments and the username owner.

Regards,

Lee

That would be like trying to sue a notebook manufacturer over something someone wrote in a notebook. Makes no sense at all.

Sure don't make much sense. The model posted using the video company name, and the guy who owns that trademark is upset? Geez, so then we can't tell about our favorite video outfit if its trademarked? Weird stuff..I think that even if the commentary on his trademark was negative it would still generate the curious to check his outfit out, perhaps leading to sales.

Seems odd :frown:
Ian

Common sense prevails in the end. The guy has to prove damages, of which he has none. If everything regarding this scenario is accurate, then the guy has no case, and no damages that need to be remedied, unless someone here can think of any? :toff:

Surely you can't blame the copyright owner for trying. As we all know, message boards are huge, huge revenue drivers with massive profits. Board owners like Lee are totally loaded, so the copyright holder would have lots to gain from a settlement. :rolleyes:

But enough about Andromedan laws. On Earth, the copyright owner couldn't do shit unless there's stuff we don't know about. The drama queen copyright holder would just need to learn to pick her battles more carefully.

Update - in checking with the US Trademarks and Patent office (the US being where His Video Company is based), the terms he claims are registered trademarks are in fact NOT registered trademarks.

No application has ever been submitted for "JohnDoe" and an application submitted for "His Video Company" that was submitted several years ago was subsequently abandoned and never approved by the trademark office.

I love it when people make empty threats. Until one has been sued or actually had to sue someone else (and I don't mean small claims), I don't think one really understands just how unappetizing it is to have to deal with a lawsuit, whether you're the plaintiff or the defendant.

And I love it even more when someone is claiming a threat based on something (a trademark or copyright) that isn't even registered.

In this case, I would love to see the owner of His Video Company attempt to prove damages when the messages in the thread in question are from fans, and are clearly *promoting* John Doe and, therefore His Video Company.

This recalls when someone posted a message on a board that I moderate. The message was about a fraudulent business operator (the business was clearly fraudulent; it misrepresented its purpose, its status as a corporation, and represented itself as an "independent evaluator" when it clearly was not.) The business owner sent repeated emails, each more dire than the previous one, claiming that she'd spoken to her attorney (on a Sunday evening, mind you) and that we were about to be sued into oblivion. Our policy at the time was to post all the threats we received, which served the purpose of making the threatener look all the more ridiculous.

After a few more "THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE" emails, the person vanished, never to be heard from again... and the fraudulent business vanished soon after.

I doubt that His Video Company will vanish, but I'm guessing the threats will :)

Do keep us informed...

Brian, it's your duty now to name names, or at least provide a link to the site... or the search terms to use to get the site as the number 1 result on google under those terms. It's your calling :francais:

I can't believe that this His Company guy couldn't see the positive benefits he'd reap from having "his" porn star interacting with fans. Okay, I understand getting pissed about pictures, but good lord, these are the people who are buying the DVDs - you don't want to piss off the customers.

Michael

Didn't the serpentine owner of His Video Company ever see Ed Wood??

Bela Lugosi aptly points out to Ed Wood, Jr. that any publicity is good publicity.

Useful comments from a wonderful movie.

Steve

1. If you publish something in the public domain e.g. a video from said video company, it is open to public comment without penalty unless it is libel. I believe it's called free speech. If you say for example, "I saw Tom Cruise in this movie and he was ....... and I recommend you go see it..." you are discussing a trademarked star name, but are certainly exercising your right to speech and opinion, but not subject to any trademark infringement.

2. Whoever this "studio owner" is has his head up his ass....bitching about publicity about his video line and (probably former) star? What an idiot.

3. I agree that the star is probably a former star of this studio....and the studio still thinks he owns him...

4. Did I say the "studio owner" has his head up his ass? Not registering his trademark? Smart guy.

I'd like to contribute something useful to this thread but all I can think of is...

What a dumbfuck! :wacko:

i think "What a dumbfuck!" sums the situation up pithily ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robin

I'd like to contribute something useful to this thread but all I can think of is...

What a dumbfuck! :wacko:

---

This is so bizarre that there must be more to the story.

Is it possible that the model and producers had a falling out and now they want to kill his name? Maybe he's been using "their name" elsewhere?

Maybe the producer just has it out for that particular board for whatever reason. Surfers talking amongst themselves about porn can result in some brutal reviews that end up on Google. I wonder what kind of discussion has been taking place on this board about the studio in question?

it seems to be irrelevant, since the name john doe is used in the majority of this cases by people that do not want to reveal any names. If this video company stated that they trademarked it have they present any legal documentation so far or they haven´t?
P.D: what about the tv show JOHN DOE are they planning to suit the network as well!
xoxo GMpassJC

#1 "John Doe" was an example, not the actual name.

#2 Why on earth are you reviving a thread that's almost 3 years old?

I just signed up and I I went over the past threads and this one was the one that I found more interesting !
xoxo
JC

OK, now please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Tera Patrick set a legal precedent saying that her stage name is associated with HER, and that she has the right to use it however she sees fit? :huh:

I'm no attorney, but I'm not aware of any case that would have established that sort of precedent, and there are cases where the findings have been with the creator of the name (studio, manager, etc.) A quick check of Wikipedia, for what it's worth, does not imply that there's been any settlement in the Tera Patrick case.

chadknowslaw, are you reading this? Am I right about the Tera Patrick case or am I completely off my rocker?

You know. I hate to say this. But, it's not really cool in the "board world" to revive old threads.

Better to start a new and link to it.

Drives me bananas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMPassJC

it seems to be irrelevant, since the name john doe is used in the majority of this cases by people that do not want to reveal any names.

---

We'll just have to check his ID then.

Duh -- the model was Sean Lockhart.


Very old thread. Can it die now?

Duh, Sean Lockheart/Brent Corrigan....Cobra Video, etc., but since you are reading the thread my good friend, before we let it die, am I right about Tera Patrick or am I misinformed?