So you hire a lawyer for your divorce and in your opinion you have a divorce lawyer that doesn’t do all that great for you and you end up representing yourself later in the case. It just so happens this "divorce lawyer" has a name and so does one of their practicing partners. A name, as in First Name, Middle Name, Last Name that they use.
It also happens that this lawyer and their practicing partner didn’t happen to understanding the importance of owning these name as a domain name!
Well, the upset client did and registered the lawyer’s "names" as domain names and put up a one page site on each domain name stating his displeasure of services and to see what others thought of their services with the lawyer’s.
It just so happens the past client got both sites to rank on the first page on Google for the divorce lawyers matching names as search terms!
Long story short.. the divorce lawyers are suing the past client Andy Behrman for cybersquatting and trademark infringement. (PDF)
I did a trademark search using USPTO.gov and neither lawyer’s name came up with a trademark in the USPTO’s database…?
Doesn’t there have to be a trademark before cybersquatting can take place?
Cybersquatting: (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price. (Source, Wikipedia)
I do not see this!
I see this as form of freedom of speech. The domain names were available, Mr Behrman registered the domain names and explained his reason behind the site and simply asked a question I can understand he would ask after explaining his story.
I am extremely curious to learn more about the experiences of other clients of Lauri Kritt Martin or Sandra Segal Polin or to hear from people who are currently in the midst of a divorce and being represented by the Law Offices of Sandra Segal Polin.
I’m not a judge or a lawyer and each side of this lawsuit has their day in court but I do have common sense and I just see this as freedom of speech in the digital world. The domain names were available, a trademark search of the USPTO.gov database shows no trademarks for the terms of the two lawyer’s and Mr Behrman is not profiting by any advertisements on the site nor offering to sell the domain names to the lawyer’s to my understanding.
Hat Tip TheSmokingGun.com
Similar story… divorce, domain being used publicly to express… although I am not aware of a lawsuit.
Some of you may be familiar with PaleyRothmanSucks.com? Mike Mann is behind that site.
jb
Trademark is applicable with first use. If the law practice had those people’s names in or as the firm’s name, they can claim copyright.
All you need to do for a Trademark is
A) Be first to use the name commercially
B) Add a TM to your company name indicating you consider it your copyright.
With the current law taking shape, the disgruntled client is open to slander and libel if anything that is said is false.
If it’s all true, all you need are deep pockets to prove it in court.
No one wins.
Jamie Zoch
@JB,
I agree, no one wins!
~
I wonder if it would be more clear cut if the “first use” part of law wasn’t in place? Either you have a trademark filed with the USPTO or you do not. That would seem more logical to me
Andy Behrman
As the defendant in this case, I disagree that no one wins.
The loser is the law firm that sues its already injured client.
Jamie
They need money to fight it but the lawyers have no case. The content is Free Speech and no one will think that the names are connected to the real lawfirm once they read the content. Already decided several times even in appeal courts, provided the sites are non-commercial.
Sergio
if the lawyer is as bad as the client says he is, then the client probably has nothing to worry about anyway, right?
Jamie Zoch
@ Andy,
Thanks for stopping by and best of luck with the case!
Jamie Zoch
@Sergio,
Good point