All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.
WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has ruled that a website titled "People Eating Tasty Animals" is not only a bad joke, but also an unlawful one.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said this week that the peta.org domain name, registered in 1995 by a man who planned to parody the nonprofit group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was an illegal trademark infringement.
Michael Doughney's peta.org parody site lampooned vegetarianism – which the real PETA insists upon – and applauded carnivorism, dubbing itself a tongue-in-cheek "resource for those who enjoy eating meat, wearing fur and leather, hunting and the fruits of scientific research." (PETA opposes medical research on animals even in cases where human lives could be saved.)
The site's not-so-subtle mockery was red meat to PETA officials, who promptly sued, convinced a federal judge they were right, and then demanded Doughney pay them over $300,000 in attorney's fees and court costs, including photocopying, faxes, courier services, postage, travel, mileage, tolls and parking, long distance telephone calls and "miscellaneous" items.
The unanimous three-judge appeals panel denied PETA most of the fees, saying that even though Doughney violated federal law, his actions were not malicious. The panel made Doughney pay PETA only $28,671 in court costs.
In its initial filing, PETA claimed that Doughney had infringed on its trademark. But after the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act took effect in 1999, PETA successfully persuaded the district judge to apply the federal law retroactively, and the appeals court upheld the ruling.
—
Bald lies: Speaking of Net criticism, a men's hair replacement company has sued a dissatisfied customer who set up a website about his experiences with the firm.
The story goes like this: After a bad hair-transplant experience at the Bosley Medical Institute, California resident Michael Kremer launched bosleymedical.com.
The site contains documents such as a report from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office that details shady business practices, claims the company doctored photographs, and statements about false and misleading promises regarding the amount of hair customers can expect to grow back. (The company paid a fine.)
Apparently following PETA's lead, the Bosley Medical Institute sued Kremer for $8 million, claiming trademark violations and libel.
In legal documents filed this week, Public Citizen argued the lawsuit should be thrown out because Bosley sued its critic in Illinois instead of California, and that the site should be protected as an example of free speech.
"Plaintiffs cannot dispute that Kremer's website is protected by the First Amendment. Numerous cases hold that consumer commentary is core speech protected by the First Amendment," the brief says. "Many other cases have similarly treated criticisms of a company's products or business practices as speech protected by the First Amendment, although commercial speech principles applied to criticism by competitors."
—
Abortion.com: Anti-abortion activists again seem to be setting legal precedents. The last big case was the Nuremberg Files, in which a federal appeals court ruled that a list of doctors who performed abortions and their personal info was protected under the First Amendment.
This week, another court has veered in a different direction, siding with privacy over free speech.
In a case involving a news story, photograph and hospital report about a woman who had an abortion published on the Missionaries to the Unborn website, Judge George Moran ruled some of that information must be deleted.
Naturally, mirror sites have already begun to spring up. Just as the United States is a haven for some forms of political speech, the good money is on nations like South Africa offering to host anti-abortion materials – even if they violate American law.
—
Wireless sex: A sex-themed press release on the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association's website reads like a spoof, but it's entirely legitimate. We think.
Mobile Motion, a wireless Internet company, posted a statement on Aug. 15 saying that fuckedcompany.com was incorrect to report that layoffs were imminent – and that, in fact, the firm was cashing in on Net-sex.
"Mobile Motion confirmed they are hiring new employee's (sic) and are experiencing exponential growth driven primarily through their wireless location-based adult services: Strip Club Search and Escort Search," the press release said.
The idea is that customers "on a business trip" who need an, um, evening escort or the address to a strip club can get immediate satisfaction.
—
AOHell: It's hard to imagine after all the bad publicity Microsoft has received lately, but consumers reportedly hate AOL Time Warner even more.
A Gartner survey of adult Internet users reported that 17 percent of folks surveyed said they had high levels of trust in Microsoft, and only 15 percent said the same about AOL.
"AOL, which prides itself on consumer privacy and security issues, is the least-trusted company on the Web when compared with online services from banks, brokerages, credit card companies, online retailer Amazon.com, large retailers and Microsoft," Reuters, reported on Thursday.
