ITMG381 - Week 3

Youre Name: Marti Heinz

Chapter 4
1. Should dissatisfied consumers have the right to establish gripe sties that use the trademark of
the offending company in the domain name? How likely is it that consumers will be confused as
to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the gripe site by the offending company? Whether or
not you think that confusion is likely, should a gripe site be considered to tarnish the targeted
companys trademark and thereby violate the Federal Trademark Dilution Act?
Disgruntled customers who purchase an item in a brick and mortar store have the option
to go in and actually speak with someone when they are upset with their product. It is a bit more
difficult for customers who purchase items from the internet. These people have only one option
and that is to use the medium that they bought the merchandise off of, the Internet.
It is surprising how simple it is to set up a gripe site, nominal fee and simple registration
procedure will confer upon the cybergriper the domain name (Lockwood). That is all it
takes to open a portal for oneself and others to vent just as if they were standing in a brick and
mortar store. While it is not considered illegal to open or set up a gripe site it is concerning to
the company being complained about. It can be and has been a cause for concern from a public
relations standpoint(Lockwood). Where things get a little be gray, I suppose, is that in order
to sidestep any legal actions the cybergriper can invoke the First Amendment.
Most of the sites use a play on words for the site they are complaining about however
there more than likely will be a slash and the companys true name. It should be quiet clear that
the site is not company sponsored or approved as soon as the page loads. It would be very
unlikely that the site would be or could be mistaken for a company site.
I am not certain if the Trademark Dilution Act would come into play; I understand it is a
new law however what I have been seeing referred to is the Lanham Act. While it is clear that
the Federal Trademark Dilution Act is newer by 50 years it seems that the Lanham Act is still
apparently quiet relevant still. What I did find interesting what that Lemire, advises business
owners, major corporations or others who do not wish to have gripe sites out there with highly
visible domains register common misspellings and the classic Insert your domain here
sucks.com yourself! (Lemire). While I found his advice funny it is true. If these names are
owned then the cybergripers cannot own them and well, your business is that much safer in the
end.
References:
Ferrera, G. R., Bird, R., Darrow, J. J., Reder, M. E. K., Lichtenstein, S. D., Aresty, J. M., & Klosek, J.
(2011). Cyberlaw, text and cases. (Third ed. ed.). South-Western Pub.

Lemire, P. (2007). Gripe Sites Do Not Constitute Trademark Infrigement. Retreived from:
http://www.coloradoiplaw.com/pdf/resources/Gripe-Sites.pdf
Lockwood, R. & Nixon, C. (2005). Trust the Leaders. (Issue 14/Winter 2005). Retreived from:
http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl14/

Chapter 5
2. It is common practice for recipients of email messages to sometimes forward those messages
to others. Does such forwarding constitute copyright infringement? In your answer, be sure to
specify which, if any, of the exclusive rights may have been violated by the act of forwarding
and whether the doctrine of fair use applies. What remedies, if any, might a successful plaintiff
be able to obtain?
While this is a common practice, forwarding emails or portion of emails; I had never
considered that in some situations it could be considered a copyright infringement. In Section
102(a) of the Copyright Act provides that [c]opyright protection subsists, in accordance with
this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now know
or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated,
either directly or with the aid of a machine or device (Shapiro).
There can be a copyright infringement when forwarding emails, however there is no
damage done when they occur in situations such as: nonprofit classroom education, musical
works, software to include making backup copies, and to create Braille versions (Ferrera).
So long as the media is used for things such as those listed above, there can be no infringement
case. It is when the media is used for other things, personal use, and personal gain. It is
important to give credit for an idea or a concept to the appropriate person. You could relate it to
writing a paper and not providing a list of work cited or references. From what I am seeing it is
the same concept.
When a case of infringement is brought on the owner of the material (plaintiff) has to
prove ownership of the material that is
References:
Ferrera, G. R., Bird, R., Darrow, J. J., Reder, M. E. K., Lichtenstein, S. D., Aresty, J. M., & Klosek, J.
(2011). Cyberlaw, text and cases. (Third ed. ed.). South-Western Pub.
Field, T. (1999). Copyright in E-mail. [JEP] the journal of electronic publishing. Vol. 5 Issue 1. Retreived
from: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text- idx?
c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0005.105
Shapiro, N. (2013) Beware That Forward Button What you Should Know About Copyright Laws in the
Electronic Information Age. Retreived from:
http://www.apawood.org/level_b.cfm?
content=pub_ewj_arch_s06_fwd