How legal is it to create a "sucks" page?

Question

For example, registering the domain name "fordsucks.com" and hosting a non-commercial anti-ford page there.

Or, alternatively, if the company name is two common english words combined, e.g. "Quick Sale Inc", would "dontquicksale.com" be an infringement of Quick Sale's trademark?

Answer 1

You actually answered your own question:

"hosting a non-commercial anti-ford page there."

The trick is showing you never intended to COMMERCIALLY EXPLOIT the party's trademark right in any way.

The link and excerpt below can also give you a few more clues:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html

1.3 Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark? (“sucks cases”)

Majority view: A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. Confusing similarity has been found because the domain name contains a trademark and a dictionary word; or because the disputed domain name is highly similar to the trademark; or because the domain name may not be recognized as negative; or because the domain name may be viewed by non-fluent English language speakers, who may not recognize the negative connotations of the word that is attached to the trademark.

Relevant decisions:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale D2000-0662 , Transfer
A & F Trademark, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Justin Jorgensen D2001-0900 , Transfer
Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu D2003-0465 , Transfer
Wachovia Corporation v. Alton Flanders D2003-0596 among others, Transfer

Minority view: A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is not confusingly similar because Internet users are not likely to associate the trademark holder with a domain name consisting of the trademark and a negative term.

Relevant decisions:
Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Dan Parisi D2000-1015 , Denied
McLane Company, Inc. v. Fred Craig D2000-1455 , Denied
America Online, Inc. v. Johuathan Investments, Inc., and Aollnews.com D2001-0918 , Transfer, Denied in Part


2.4 Does a respondent using the domain name for a criticism site generate rights and legitimate interests?

This section only concerns sites that practice genuine, non-commercial criticism. There are many UDRP decisions where the respondent argues that the domain name is being used for a free speech purpose, but the panel finds that, in fact, the domain name is being used for commercial gain.
See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico D2000-0477 among others, Transfer

In the event that a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark is being used for a genuine non-commercial free speech web site, there are two main views. There is also some division between proceedings involving US parties and proceedings involving non-US parties, with few non-US panelists adopting the reasoning in View 2.

View 1: The right to criticize does not extend to registering a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the owner’s registered trademark or conveys an association with the mark.

Relevant decisions:
Skattedirektoratet v. Eivind Nag D2000-1314 , Transfer
Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh D2001-0763 , Transfer
Triodos Bank NV v. Ashley Dobbs D2002-0776 , Transfer
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, National Westminster Bank plc A/K/A NatWest Bank v. Personal and Pedro Lopez D2003-0166 , Transfer
Kirkland & Ellis LLP v. DefaultData.com, American Distribution Systems, Inc. D2004-0136 , Transfer

View 2: Irrespective of whether the domain name as such connotes criticism, the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site if the use is fair and non-commercial.

Relevant decisions:
Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc., and Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers D2000-0190 , Denied
TMP Worldwide Inc. v. Jennifer L. Potter D2000-0536 , Denied
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Paul McCauley D2004-0014 , Denied

Imposing further conditions as to domain name and use:
Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. The Covance Campaign D2004-0206 , Denied

Of course, that still won't necessarily stop the trademark holder from running you down on legal costs and all that. So assess your risks.

IANAL.

Answer 2

Good question. I'm not sure on the infringement. If the site is clearly posted that it is your opinion I cannot see it being illegal. Freedom of speech. The trademark issue may lose in court if it is closely matched to the trademark. You may be able to change the wording just enough to limit your liability and maintain the message you want to send.

Answer 3

I hate to say this, but the person who did that listing is a profound idiot. Not only has he or she listed several dozen copyrighted (pirated) songs for anyone to download, they have failed to secure their web site. This is what you get when you don't have a clue about setting up a web site, and have a total disregard for other people's intellectual property. Whatever you do, don't copy them regardless of how "cool" you think the listing is. It's a hacker's dream come true and I hope you have more sense!

Answer 4

as long as its a protest site

look up the cases of the Wachovia sucks domains. the judge said they couldn't remain because they weren't about Wachovia sucking, they were just pages that redirected to other banks I think... so I think the judge gave the domains to Wachovia.

I think there is a site called Wachoviabank-sucks.com or something like that that Wachoiva didn't get and the man is allowed to keep it because it is actually about how Wachovia Bank sucks...

....and indeed Wachovia Bank does suck.

Answer 5

I've heard of a few anti-walmart sites that use 'walmart' as part of their names. The seem to be getting away with it. I'm not taking any position on walmart, but if these sites would seem to be in the same category as what you are asking about.

Answer 6

As long as a "jury of your peers" could be easily convinced it was a parody, it would be protected speech. If you host a site that is called "NigelBrownSucks.com", and it is entirely humorless, then Nigel will doubtless sue you for libel, slander & whatever else, and he will win.