Stephen Colbert Steals Tucker Carlson's Streaming Service Name for Charity Website
www.thewrap.com
Stephen Colbert launched a website named after Tucker Carlson's new streaming service that provides easy links for people interested in donating to progressive charities.

“The only thing I don’t really get about this new platform is the name: Tucker Carlson Network. It kind of feels incomplete like, doesn’t it feel like he should have called it the Tucker Carlson network. And he really should have gotten the website ‘theTuckerCarlsonnetwork.com.’ And he didn’t. But I did,” He concluded, urging his audience to check it out.

  • @DkarmaEnglish
    28•1 year ago

    This is settled law. You’re completely wrong.
    Trademark doesn’t apply to url.

    • @TootSweetEnglish
      -5•1 year ago

      So, I must confess I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted exactly. I suspect some folks think Colbert/CBS are being blatant about infringing the trademark to the point I’ve clearly missed the joke if I didn’t catch that it was done consciously. But then some folks like you seem to think that there’s no infringement happening here.

      But I’m not sure how what you’re saying can be squared with what follows here. And I’m pretty certain all of what I’m saying below is true.

      15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) says:

      A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and registers, trafficks in, or uses a domain name that - (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; (II) in the case of a famous mark, that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar ot that mark; or (III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18 or section 220506 of title 36.

      (And then after that there are a bunch of specific examples of what the courts ought to consider when deciding whether there’s a “bad faith intent to profit from the mark.”)

      That was passed as part of the 1999 “Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.” 15 U.S.C. 1125 is solidly in the “trademark” section of the U.S. code. Full text here and more general information on Wikipedia.

      It hasn’t been tested in court much since it was passed, but the Second Court of Appeals ruled that these ACPA provisions applied in Sporty’s Farm, LLC v. Sportsman’s Market Inc. and ordered the domain name in question transferred on the basis of “dilution.” I wasn’t able to find any indication it was appealed to the Supreme Court.

      On the flip side, Lamparello v. Falwell was found not in favor of a mark/name owner. At least partially because Lamparello didn’t have a “bad faith intent to profit from the mark.” Maybe the situation with Colbert also lacks that requirement on the basis that if it’s a charity cause, then Colbert/CBS wouldn’t be “profiting.” But I’d imagine that’d be a question for the courts.

      But even if there’s some technicality that lets Colbert/CBS off the hook in this case, it seems like it can’t be said outright that trademark doesn’t apply to domains.