Having failed to prove they are what they claim, they can be sent back to their cells as the thieves, frauds, liars, and cons they are to continue to do cold reading on rats and roaches for a number of years.

There are a number of laws dealing with those who do basically what so called psychics do, lie in order to separate people from their money, why aren’t those laws applicable to the Sylvia Brownes?

StopSylviaBrowne.com has the right to use her name or any trademarked name in regards to copyrighted materials. Per copyright law (USC Title 17, Chapter 1, §107 [Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair], Robert Lancaster is not in infringing on any rights. It seems that his website deals with the “criticism” of a trademarked name (Sylvia Browne), which is protected under this section of fair use.

4Contrary to Reverend Falwell’s suggestions, this rule does not change depending on how similar the domain name or title is to the mark. Hence, Reverend Falwell’s assertion that he objects only to Lamparello using the domain name http://www.fallwell.com and has no objection to Lamparello posting his criticisms at “www.falwelliswrong.com,” or a similar domain name, does not entitle him to a different evaluation rule. Rather it has long been established that even when alleged infringers use the very marks at issue in titles, courts look to the underlying content to determine whether the titles create a likelihood of confusion as to source. See, e.g., Parks v. LaFace Records, 329 F.3d 437, 452-54 (6th Cir. 2003); Mattel, 296 F.3d at 901-02; Westchester Media v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 214 F.3d 658, 667-68 (5th Cir. 2000); Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 1000-01 (2d Cir. 1989).

Italics in original.

6Although the appellate courts that have adopted the initial interest confusion theory have only applied it to profit-seeking uses of another’s mark, the district courts have not so limited the application of the theory. Without expressly referring to this theory, two frequently-discussed district court cases have held that using another’s domain name to post content antithetical to the markholder constitutes infringement. See Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, No. 97 Civ. 0629, 1997 WL 133313 (S.D.N.Y. March 24, 1997), aff’d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (table) (finding use of domain name “www.plannedparenthood.com” to provide links to passages of anti-abortion book constituted infringement); Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998), aff’d, 159 F.3d 1351 (3d Cir. 1998) (table) (finding use of “www.jewsforjesus.org” to criticize religious group constituted infringement). We think both cases were wrongly decided to the extent that in determining whether the domain names were confusing, the courts did not consider whether the websites’ content would dispel any confusion. In expanding the initial interest confusion theory of liability, these cases cut it off from its moorings to the detriment of the First Amendment.

Italics in original, bolding added for emphasis.

Without knowing the detail of the homedepotsucks case or other specific cases, I can’t say why they were decided how they were. But from reading this judgment, the case law is pretty solid and referring to this judgment would make a very solid defense for Robert Lancaster.

Now you may be rignt that Domains By Proxy could give in rather than deal with the hassle. Can’t speak for them. But Lancaster’s attorneys should be able to provide them with grounds to ignore and/or refute Browne. But if they bail, there are likely other servers that would host the site. I’m sure some skeptic out there has a server they would gladly offer up.

He also mentioned homedepotsucks.com as an example of a domain name critical of an organisation loosing.

My suspicion still remains that SB will get in by complaining to Domains By Proxy who could be the weak link here

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/042011.P.pdf

It is very informative of the status of trademark infringement and domain name abuse, including cybersquatting.

Briefly, Lamparello set up an website, http://www.fallwell.org, which was one letter different than the official site, http://www.falwell.org. He used the site to state that Falwell is misinterpreting the Bible in his anti-Gay campaign, and offers different interpretations and criticisms of Falwell. Falwell filed suit claiming that the domain name was a trademark infringement and that Lamparallo was also cybersquatting, reserving similar site names to make a profit off them.

The original judgement was a summary judgement that the damain name was similar enough to confuse, and awarded in Falwell’s favor but without damages because it was determined that Lamparello had no intent to profit off Falwell’s trademark – he was not pretending to be Falwell.

This Court of Appeals judgment reversed the original verdict and found for Lamparello. The judgment reviews case law and precedents for interpreting both trademark infringement using domain names and cybersquatting.

On trademarks, this court determined that evaluating a website solely by the domain name is not correct, and that the website content must also be considered. Similarity of name is not enough to cause confusion that the website is owned and approved by the original site. In particular:
1) Lamparello did not emulate Falwell’s page style or layout.
2) There was a prominant disclaimer on the main page that his page was not affiliated with Jerry Falwell or Falwell Ministries, and even provided a link to the other site.
3) The intent was not to sell ideas or materials as if he were Falwell or similar to Falwell’s, but to offer criticism of Falwell’s views.

As such, even though the domain name might cause initial confusion or accidentally mislead a few viewers, it was determined that no one would reasonably mistake the content of the site as being Falwell’s, and Lamparello was not profiting from Falwell’s trademark nor weakening the trademark.

Regarding cybersquatting, the intent of the law is to prevent people from buying up similar names and then selling them to the originator, solely to make a profit. Particular characteristics include buying up large numbers of similar domain names, not offering meaningful content, having no rightful use of the similar names (i.e. it resembles your name, etc), and especially trying to sell the name to the original without having established a rightful use. In this case, none of those criteria reflected the situation with Lamparello. He only bought one domain name, he put up meaningful content of criticism, and he did not try to sell the domain name to Jerry Falwell.

In short, the Court of Appeals found fully in Lamparello’s favor. This case is very similar to the StopSylviaBrowne situation. Indeed, it is almost identical. With this judgment as precedent, and the logic argued in the case and summarized by the judges so well, it is highly unlikely a lawsuit by Browne or her attorneys would go anywhere. Lancaster’s attorneys are correct in everything they state. She has no grounds, and at best could tie him up in litigation purely for financial affects. That would be grounds for Lancaster to be awarded damages from Browne. She has no case.

Anyways, I find it hilarious that her name wasn’t spelt right in the letter. I mean, even if a secretary typed it up, it should have at least been proofread.

I fail to see the correlation between a case involving “peta.org” (which, if judging by the name alone and not the content, could easily be mistaken for the genuine website of an organization called PETA) and a case involving “stopsylviabrowne.com”, which could in no way be mistaken for the domain “sylviabrowne.com”.

There is a world of difference between websites that have “stop” or “sucks” or “reallysucks” or similar add-ons to a trademark name, and websites that are the same URL with a different top-level domain suffix.

Also, another difference is that parody is not always given as much leeway as consumer advocates are. Sad but true.

The egg laid is too nasty to be studied scientifically. But when it’s safe to approach, rest assured that the BA and assorted others will be on the case. Good luck in law school.

And, BMurray, thank you for pointing that out – remind me never to type comments midway through a delicious cup o’ joe. Unfortunately, my error doesn’t make that website any less nausea-inducing.

J/P=?

By that precedence, SB may get Mr Lancasters domain reviked.

I checked out their website as well, and came away underwhelmed. Being in law school, I have to check out a lot of firm sites to explore internship opportunities, and these guys lay an egg.

Under “Intellectual Property Basics,” item #3: “One does not copyright a name.”

A riveting read for all – I highly recommend it.

When you linked the StopSylviaBrown.com website before, I looked over some of the documentation in the archives. I had no idea that she actually had a criminal record. The more I read, the more despicable it became.

BTW, Gary, top-drawer lesson in religion.

Can you explain this to the uninitiated?

Psychics have always been a bit of a conundrum for me. Sure, they make their money on the anguish of others, but at the most basic level so do doctors, lawyers and computer system adminstrators.

Psychics only hurt people who choose to let themselves be hurt. If I offer to kick you in the stones for $50, and you agree and pay the $50, I don’t think you have a whole lot of room to complain when you’re doubled over. Similarly, if I offer to commune with spirits for you for $500, and you agree and pay and I put on a nice show, do you have room to complain that I made it all up?

It’s been a while since I’ve poked around the gnarled troll’s site, but I bet she – like all psychics – even has a disclaimer that her work is for entertainment purposes only.

Is what she does reprehensible? Probably. Are the people she cons victims? Not really.

An argument between god and the devil had degenerated to name calling when god said, “You SOB. I’ll sue.”
The devil fell down laughing and said,” Where are you gonna find a lawyer?”

Gary 7