Comments on: Comments on 5642

Post number 5642

tranquileye — Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:15:05 -0800

A CNN parody site gets bigfooted. "Defendant's actions constitute a textbook case of cyberpiracy under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. CNN and its marks are suffering irreparable harm as a result of Defendant's actions, and they will continue to unless and until Defendant is enjoined." Yeah, right.

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:37:16 -0800

What's even funnier is that CNNfn will be renamed "CNN money" later this year! So the "F is beside D on the keyboard" argument is out the window.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:51:03 -0800

I liked the chart where he showed that the notoriety of his site was directly linked to CNN employees checking it out.

By: straight

straight — Fri, 02 Feb 2001 06:38:21 -0800

I thought giving the lawyer his Obi-Wan "If you sue me, my site will get more traffic than you can imagine" attitude id pretty funny too. It would be great if corporations finally understood how counterproductive these things are.

By: aaron

aaron — Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:42:36 -0800

CNN got a restraining order. All of the site is offline except for a front page that's all about the legal battle.

The lawyers are unfortunately correct, though. Under US trademark law, they have to fight any unauthorized use of their trademarks that they learn about. If they don't, they run a very real risk of losing their rights to the trademark. (This doesn't mean the arguments they're making about "cyberpiracy" aren't specious. They should have stuck to trademark law precedent.)

And I don't think this site qualifies as First-Amendment-protected "parody." This guy fully admits he wasn't out to make fun of CNN or CNNfn. He just thought it would be neat to appropriate the CNNfn trademark and site design because they're known for covering Net economy news. That's not parody, it's just stealing, even if there was no malicious intent.