LegoGroupSucks.comSayNoToLegos.com
LegoGroupSucks.com
SayNoToLegos.com
January 2, 2004
Lego company sucks (yes, I'm talking about the people who make plastic building block toys). They decided to reward a long time fan by calling me a criminal and insisting I stop using my website for sharing lego creations.
Before I criticize lego for turning what was suppose to be fun into a nightmare, I want to set for the record that I am a long time fan and advocate of lego toys. Anyone who knows me can testify to my love for legos and the many times I justified the premium one pays for them. In addition I praised the quality of their work countless times. So it is with regret that I that I write this now.
Last year during my lego buying frenzy, some friends showed me the latest hit on the internet, hotornot.com, ratemypoo.com (does not exist anymore) or ratemymonkey.com. These web sites did not interest me but the idea of getting an unbiased rating on a certain subject intrigued me. It was not before long that I decided it would be great if I could share my legos with others in similar fashion. Thus it came to be that I registered two domains "rateMyLego.com" and "rateMyLegos.com".
Ironically, this enthusiasm for legos will bring the wraith of Lego down upon me.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. -William Shakespeare
Shortly after I put my fan site on the proverbial back-burner, the henchmen working for Lego decide to come after me. On Friday, January 2nd 2004, I received a cease and desist letter from a law firm representing LEGO company or "the LEGO Group". Read the letter. They inform me that I am breaking the law...
The LEGO Group considers the unauthorized use of its LEGO® mark in a domain name by anyone who is not affiliated with the LEGO Group to be a trademark infringement under the law
and they demand...
We hereby ask that: (1) you immediately and permanently cease using the domain names <www.ratemylego.com> and <www.ratemylegos.com> and any other domain names or email addresses which include as part thereof the LEGO mark(s) or any variation(s) thereof; and (2) you agree not to re-register the <www.ratemylego.com> and <www.ratemylegos.com> domain names.
And here is the big kicker:
The LEGO Group hopes that your interest will continue and that your enthusiasm will inspire others.
Ummm... hello! I WAS trying to inspire others! Does anyone else see the stupidity in this revolving logic?! I am enthusiastic about legos, I put up rateMyLego.com, which causes Lego company to have a fit, but at the same time wishing me to continue my enthusiasm, which was how this ordeal started in the first place!
As an aside.. the quote from Shakespeare above is taken out of context. In the play of King Henry VI, Part II, Dick the Butcher suggests "The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers" as a means to confiscating people's property and eliminating their liberty. Of course, I put it up top to suggest my dislike of lawyers.
Being a long time supporter of lego, I am shocked to receive a letter from them accusing me of breaking trademark laws. I do not understand why they would treat a fan in this manner. Soon after the shock, I became angry. Angry because I cannot use my web site to express my appreciation for the company who just labeled me a criminal (how's that for irony?). Angry because all I wanted to do was to have fun and share that joy with others. Angry because they wanted to destroy what I put a lot of time and effort into and what I am very proud of.
Worst of all, the letter made me feel like a criminal. Maybe it's the thirty or so attorney names on the letterhead or the thick bonded paper it was printed on but something about it makes you feel like you have already been tried, judged, and convicted. It did not help that I have no technical knowledge about trademark law and court judgements relating to internet content surely contributed to my fears.
The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender. -Vince Lombardi
Many people suggested that I change my domain name to something similar without using the word "lego" to avoid further problems. RateMyBlocks.com, RateMyBuildingToys.com, or even www.ratemynot-in-the-least-bit-trademark-infringing-building-blocks.com were some suggested alternatives. The pragmatist would recognize this is not worth fighting for. The website does not provide any income or traffic; in fact only a few select friends knew about it. Hopefully you already realized I am far from the pragmatic person. The idealist in me felt awry about giving up my creation.
Even though these names appear to be decent alternatives, they all stifle my expression by placing my website under a more generic address. To make my point clear, let us take a trivial example with someone who loves toyota cars and no other brands. He has a website called iLoveToyotas.com where he puts up pictures of all the toyotas that he has ever owned. Would it be reasonable to make that person say iLoveCars.com when he only likes toyotas and his website only contains toyotas? No, it would not. Making that person use iLoveCars.com would completely change the fundamental idea he was trying to express. He does not love cars, he loves toyotas. This is the exact reason why I have a problem with a name like rateMyBlocks.com. I am not a Mega Blok fan. I am not a K'NEX fan. Therefore, do not make me say rate my blocks.
The issue at hand is whether a trademark within a portion of a domain name constitutes a violation of trademark law. The domain name, even though refered to as a "name", is really just like a index within a card catalog at a library. Similarily, domain names may be considered a subject, person, title or some keywords that people can remember or search for. How can it be that this method of finding things can be protected by the trademark law? No one would suggest that a book indexed under the subject of "how to build legos" violates trademark laws. No one would say you must change the name of the book to be "how to build blocks".
The intention makes the crime. -Aristotle
Nominative use of trademark. Good description of nominative use
I am not trademark hating person that believes it should be a free for all where everyone can do what ever they wish with a domain name. In fact, I agree with the cybersquatting act.... [work in progress]
It is clear that nothing in trademark law requires that title to domain names that incorporate trademarks or portions of trademarks be provided to trademark holders. To hold otherwise would create an immediate and indefinite monopoly to all famous mark holders on the Internet, by which they could lay claim to all .com domain names which are arguably 'the same' as their mark. The Court may not create such property rights-in-gross as a matter of dilution law. ... Trademark law does not support such a monopoly.
The internet was not developed as a medium for companies to monopolize. In fact, it was designed as a way of sharing information. Companies and individuals alike should be given the same opportunities to express themselves on the internet. It is not a place for them to glorify themselves while ousting people who may say otherwise.
Looking through the International Trademark Association (INTA) mailing list, I found some discussion that articulates my thoughts so I quote it here. Eric C. Grimm writes:
It is perfectly acceptable (and entirely outside the
scope of trademark law) to use a mark for expressive, non-branding,
referential purposes. It is even okay (and not an issue to be dealt
with in any way under the Lanham Act) to charge money for the artwork.
Contrary to some trademark holders' (wrong) expectations, a trademark
registration emphatically does not convey a blanket monopoly right to prevent other people from making money from works that happen to make nominative reference to a mark (as oposed to using th e mark to designate the source or origin of the artwork).
Contrary to some trademark holders' (wrong) expectations, a trademark
registration emphatically does not convey a blanket monopoly right to
engage in censorship of expression deemd subjectively by the
mark-holder to be "commercially harmful" with its profit-maximization
objectives
I want to bring attention to Mr. Grimm's last few words "profit-maximization objectives" as many people I know have the notion that any use of a trademark that potentially harms or reduces a companies profits are in violation of trademark law. It is easy to see how most anything can be interpreted as harming or reducing profits. A man walking down the street who says..."pepsi is horrible" can be linked to a reduction in profits for Pepsi company. Similarily, any website that may potentially have traffic and uses the mark will potentially decrease the profits of the trademark holder. But would would anyone really say the man is violating pepsi's trademark?
If sensible domain names cannot be used by individuals, then I am afraid that the digital information age has been manipulated into another medium for large companies to expand and control their market share. As the number of trademarks continue to grow, we run the risk that most domains will contain some word that has been trademarked. If we continue to allow trademark holder to misappropriate names from those without trademarks, then the internet will not longer have a place for the individual. The time is now to stand against this hostile takeover and prove that we will not let bullies trumpt our rights of expression. Otherwise I recommend we change the web to be the "Companies Wide Web" for it would no longer be the "WORLD Wide Web".
pil·lage (pil'ij) vt.,vi. 1. to rob 2. to take by force or fraud
Companies have been bullying people under the phony intention of protecting their trademark. The trademark law does demand companies to actively protect their trademark or else risk losing it as public domain. But it appears that most companies do far more than "protecting". When does protecting turn into pillaging?
I seriously question the universal use of the trademark law and the intentions that these companies have. If the definition of trademark law was based on the actions of these companies, one would think the law states, "". But trademark law has many criterias for determining what is covered within its protection. Given that, why do companies act as if the law is a all-in-one solution to their greed? The problem lies in the fact that there are no repercussions for them to use it in such manner. Large companies have more than enough resources to retain a few lawyers. Anytime you can stop people from saying unfavorable things about your name, from using your name can only be benificial and and in turn increase profits. Without consequences, "protecting" has in many situations become pillaging. Why not, they have nothing to lose.
The company may have a legilimate claim of trademark infringment. But like in the story of the boy who cried wolf, the guardian of the sheeps cannot rely on the boy's cries for help as many of them were false alarms. Likewise, owners of domain names cannot rely on these cease and desist letters as true indications of wrong doing or trademark violation. Companies are sending these cease and desist letters as if they were candy hearts on valentine's day. How is one suppose to know if the letter was sent in good faith? Frivolous cease and desist letters are de-sensitizing the general public. Should lawyers not be looked upon to help people understand and obey the law instead of abusing it to maximize their clients profits? Like doctors, lawyers are the elite of society and like doctors, we should expect them to practice within the bounds of morality. I suspect no one would accept doctors that take orders from his HMO regardless of harm to patients. Therefore, we should not accept lawyers who threaten action regardless of the merit in their claim.
Companies who purposely use the law to try to intimidate domain holders into surrendering their names under frivolous claims are un-ethical. This sort of reverse-hijacking has become fairly common and makes it extremely difficult to distinguish companies who truely have a case versus companies who are bullying people into giving up their domains.
These people have no trouble alienating their fans for the sake of profit. Sadly I contributed to the revenue of the company and thus indirectly to the salaries of the lawyers who now try to take my domain. Instead of spending the past week having fun and building my lego toys, I am forced to waste my time protesting the company who makes the toys I love. For these reasons, Lego group sucks; along with all the other companies who try to bully good-faith domain holders out of their names.
Happy playing (just not with legos),
Chiao
www.chiaocheng.com
(Send comments to me)