Someone Answer Me This About the FAIR/Tanners Lawsuit...

Post by **_Trojan Tapir** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:52 pm

Here is a summary of a case from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals involving PETA:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/d ... ntID=14694

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA") sued "People Eating Tasty Animals," for their registration of the domain name <www.peta.org>, the content of which is a parody of PETA's website.

Despite the clearly satirical content of the website, the judge's ruling was based upon the fact that considering the website in and of itself (apart from its content), people would initially be confused into thinking that PETA owned the website. "Looking at Doughney's domain name alone, there is no suggestion of a parody," Judge Roger Gregory wrote. "The domain name peta.org simply copies PETA's Mark, conveying the message that it is related to PETA."

Is there any distinction whatsoever between this case and what FAIR did? FAIR registered a domain name that, in and of itself, contains no suggestion of parody, and most certainly conveys the message that it is related to the tanners, just like People Eating Tasty Animals. Although the content itself is clearly satirical, according to the analysis of the 4th Circuit Court, that shouldn't matter.

Is the law under the 10th Circuit different? Is there anything else, aside from the fact that Judge Kimball is Mormon, to explain these inconsistent rulings?

If not, it seems to me that this case should be appealed. Get it out of Zion where people can be objective about issues involving the Mormon church and let them lay the smack down on Kimball.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:56 pm

Why don't you read the opinion and find out for yourself what Judge Kimball used as his legal basis? It's in there. More authorities are cited than just the one you mention, and they don't all point to the same conclusion.

Post by **_Trojan Tapir** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Sethbag wrote:Why don't you read the opinion and find out for yourself what Judge Kimball used as his legal basis? It's in there. More authorities are cited than just the one you mention, and they don't all point to the same conclusion.

Thanks for the brilliant insight. Count me among those in your debt.