Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci

Last updated
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci
USDCSDNY.svg
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
DecidedMar. 19, 1997
Citation(s)1997 WL 133313
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 152 F. 3d 920 (2nd Cir. 1998) (affirming district court by summary order).
Holding
Using the name of an organization in the domain name of a website that criticizes that organization is a violation of trademark law.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Kimba M. Wood
Keywords
Cybersquatting, Lanham Act, United States trademark law

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 1997 WL 133313 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), was a court ruling at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The ruling was an important early precedent on the trademark value of a domain name on the World Wide Web, and established the theory that hosting a site under a domain name that was the registered trademark of a different party constituted trademark infringement.

Contents

Background

The American Birth Control League was founded in 1921, and changed its name to Planned Parenthood in 1942. [1] That name was trademarked in 1955. [2] Richard Bucci was an anti-abortion activist who operated a daily Catholic Radio program in Syracuse, New York. In 1996, Bucci registered the domain name www.plannedparenthood.com before the organization had the chance to do so. [2]

Bucci used the domain name for his own website, the homepage of which stated "Welcome to the PLANNED PARENTHOOD HOME PAGE!" The page included some anti-abortion and anti-birth control content, a scanned cover of the book The Cost of Abortion by Lawrence Roberge, and various links that led to more information about the book. The district court later described Roberge's book as anti-abortion as well. [2]

Planned Parenthood filed suit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking an injunction to prevent Bucci from using the domain name, and claiming trademark infringement and trademark dilution per the Lanham Act. [2]

Opinion of the court

Bucci argued that his website was intended as a parody of the true Planned Parenthood organization and its beliefs, so his use of the domain name constituted free speech that was protected under the First Amendment. The court found that due to the confusion likely to be caused by his use of "plannedparenthood" in the domain name, his free speech defense was untenable. The court held that because Planned Parenthood wanted only to restrain Bucci's usage of their trademark as a domain name, and not his actual speech, he was still free to criticize the organization in any website with a less misleading domain name. [2]

Trademark infringement

Federal trademark law makes it a violation for a party to "use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive." [3]

The court interpreted that provision broadly. Accordingly, even though Bucci was not selling anything on his website, the court held that he was in violation of the Lanham Act because he was helping Roberge "plug" his book. Second, by promoting anti-birth control information, Bucci was providing a "service" to viewers of his site. Third, because Bucci was using "plannedparenthood" in the site's domain name, people looking for that organization's services may become confused upon reaching Bucci's site; this in turn interfered with Planned Parenthood's established services. [2]

Trademark dilution

Federal trademark law also provides that the owner of a registered trademark can enjoin a party's "use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark." [4] Thus, the court ruled that Bucci's domain name reduced the trademark value enjoyed by the legitimate organization, with evidence that Bucci's actions were designed to do commercial harm to Planned Parenthood. [2]

Furthermore, with his use of the obvious name "plannedparenthood" in his site's domain name, users may mistakenly conclude that the organization was the site's owner. [2] Under Federal trademark law, a party infringes a mark if the use "is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person." [4] A business name that was likely to cause confusion among consumers with a different business was ruled to be a violation of trademark law by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1961. [5]

Conclusion

Due to the evidence that Bucci's domain name constituted both infringement and dilution of Planned Parenthood's trademark, the district court honored the organization's request for an injunction that prevented Bucci from using the domain name. [2]

Bucci appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In a brief summary order, the circuit court affirmed the district court's reasoning and upheld the injunction. [6] Bucci then appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States, but certiorari was denied. [7] Following this loss, Bucci transferred the "plannedparenthood.com" domain name to Planned Parenthood in 1999. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lanham Act</span> United States trademark law

The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub. L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept giving the owner of a famous trademark standing to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the trademark owner. For example, a famous trademark used by one company to refer to hair care products might be diluted if another company began using a similar mark to refer to breakfast cereals or spark plugs.

The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 is a United States federal law which protects famous trademarks from uses that dilute their distinctiveness, even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion or competition. It went into effect on January 16, 1996. This act has been largely supplanted by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA), signed into law on October 6, 2006.

<i>People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney</i> 2001 lawsuit over cybersquatting

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, was an important Internet domain trademark infringement decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The ruling became an early precedent on the nature of domain names as both trademarked intellectual property and free speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark</span> Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services from a particular source and distinguishes them from others. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

Cybersquatting is the practice of registering, trafficking in, or using an Internet domain name, with a bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.

<i>Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.</i>

The case Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation, 174 F.3d 1036, heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, established that trademark infringement could occur through the use of trademarked terms in the HTML metatags of web pages when initial interest confusion was likely to result.

<i>Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.</i> American legal case

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. 562 F.3d 123, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which the court held that recommending a trademark for keyword advertising was a commercial use of the trademark, and could constitute trademark infringement.

<i>Lamparello v. Falwell</i>

Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, was a legal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concerning allegations of cybersquatting and trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the right to use the domain name fallwell.com, and provides discussion on cybersquatting as it applies to criticism of a trademark.

<i>Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp.</i>

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 was a case regarding trademark infringement and trademark dilution decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling addressed unauthorized use of trademarked terms when using web search data to determine the recipients of banner ads.

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, especially in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

<i>Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.</i> Court case decided on March 8, 2011

Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 was a court case decided on March 8, 2011, where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the use of a competitor's trademark as an Internet search advertising keyword did not constitute trademark infringement. In the case, Network Automation advertised their own competing product in search queries that contained Advanced Systems Concepts' "ActiveBatch" trademark. In determining whether trademark infringement occurred, the court evaluated factors relevant to the likelihood of customer confusion outlined in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats and concluded that confusion was unlikely.

<i>Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer</i>

Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, No. 04-55962 is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, reversed and remanded the rulings of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, holding that defendant, Michael Kremer, could not be held liable for trademark infringement or dilution for his use of the Bosley Medical Group's name in creating a website that was critical of the company's business practices.

<i>Microsoft Corp. v. Shah</i> Court case in the United States

Microsoft Corp. v. Shah was an Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) case heard before the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Microsoft sued the defendants, Amish Shah and others, for, among other charges, contributory cybersquatting for encouraging others, through videos and software, to infringe on Microsoft's trademarks. The case was settled out of court in July 2011 after judge Ricardo S. Martinez denied Shah's motion for dismissal. Legal observers suggested that, if upheld, the case would prove notable for the court's expansion of the ACPA liability to include contributory cybersquatting.

Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that, under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, a claim of trademark dilution requires proof of actual dilution, not merely a likelihood of dilution. This decision was later superseded by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA).

<i>Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.</i> U.S. court decision

Rosetta Stone v. Google, 676 F.3d 144 was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The Court overturned a grant of summary judgment for Google that had held Google AdWords was not a violation of trademark law.

David Robert Daleiden is an American anti-abortion activist who worked for Live Action before founding the Irvine, California-based Center for Medical Progress in 2013.

<i>Taubman Co. v. Webfeats</i>

Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770, 778 was a United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit case concerning trademark infringement under the Lanham Act due to the unauthorized use of a domain name and website. The appellate court held that Taubman's trademark infringement claim did not have a likelihood of success and that the use of the company's mark in the domain name was an exhibition of Free Speech.

<i>Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.</i>

Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. 109 F.3d 1394 is a copyright lawsuit where the court determined if a copy of an original work’s artistic style, plot, themes, and certain key character elements qualified as fair use. Penguin Books published a book titled The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice that use the artistic style, themes and characteristics of Dr. Seuss books to tell the story of the O. J. Simpson murder case. Dr. Seuss Enterprises accuse the publisher of copyright and trademark infringement.

References

  1. ↑ Kathryn Cullen-DuPont (August 1, 2000). Encyclopedia of women's history in America. Infobase Publishing. p. 11. ISBN   978-0-8160-4100-8. Archived from the original on June 18, 2013. Retrieved November 28, 2011.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 1997 WL 133313 (S.D.N.Y., 2000).
  3. ↑ 15 U.S.C.   § 1114.
  4. 1 2 15 U.S.C.   § 1125.
  5. ↑ Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).
  6. ↑ Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 152 F.3d 920 (2nd Cir. 1998) (affirming district court by summary order).
  7. ↑ Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 525 U.S. 834 (1998) (denying certiorari).
  8. ↑ Network Solutions, WHOIS search on plannedparenthood.com.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.