Free speech or cybersquatting?
Date: Tuesday July 16 2002, @12:18PM
Topic: Lawsuits and Judicial Decisions

fnord writes "Declan McCullagh's politechbot list carries the story of William Purdy, an anti-abortionist who is registering domain names similar or identical to US newspapers he considers editorially pro-choice, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, and just for good measure, Coke, Pepsi, and McDonalds. He then points the domain names to sites with domain names like and (a controversial site intending to publish the photos of women who have abortions, Declan previously covered that here). Purdy is collecting and ignoring a flood of cease and desist letters, so more courts may soon weigh in on the question posed by the title."

That question just keeps geting more complex, and the ACPA and UDRP clearly weren't born to answer it. -g

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Free speech or cybersquatting? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 14 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re: Free speech or cybersquatting?
by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday July 21 2002, @10:10AM (#7996)
User #3359 Info |
Pure and simply cyberquatting and immoral stupidity in my book.

I don't agree with it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re: Free speech or cybersquatting?
by fnord ( on Wednesday July 24 2002, @01:34AM (#8070)
User #2810 Info
Purdy has now been ordered by a US federal court to shut down his sites and transfer the domain names to the respective trademark holders. One waits to see what will happen with Will Pepsi have to continue to renew the registration in perpetuity? Purdy has also been ordered not to create more websites with names similar to the trademark holders. If Pepsi has an abortion policy, there may well be other corps out there he could find to do the same thing against. Confusingly, the judge also ordered that Purdy not put up sites that don't alert Internet users to the nature of the Web site's content within the domain name. Does that mean would be OK, or that isn't, and should instead be Purdy, who represented himself, says he will appeal. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Free speech or cybersquatting?
by fnord ( on Tuesday July 16 2002, @04:25PM (#7919)
User #2810 Info
Other than pointing his domain names to other domain names (and content), what other actual use is he making of them? I fail to see your point. So his conduct is to point to other sites. Whether or not they have content and what that means, and whether different kinds of content can mean different things, and if they can, what are they, are all questions that ACPA and the UDRP themselves don't really address. Do the resultant rulings? Somewhat, and it's all over the map so far with no end in sight.

Also, in most of the cases listed on the politechbot story the names are not identical to trademarks. -g

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: