Tomorrow's Cyber Law class includes a discussion of domain names as an example of the internationalization of legal regimes in relation to the Internet. While running through my final preparations (read: while procrastinating by catching up on my blog reading), I wandered smack dab into the Lyrical Legal Satyricon. And there, posted on the page, were two filings in a proceeding by Glen Beck (yes, that Glen Beck) to have the domain name "www.glenbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com" stricken from the domain name system. While I could go on and on (and, as my students will soon learn, and on some more) about the nature of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, I won't. I will look briefly (no pun intended) at the two filings.
Beck (through his lawyers) argues that the domain name uses his trademark, and as such, should be canceled. Some of the filing's arguments are logically questionable. First comes the description of an earlier panel decision in "Hollenbeck Youth Center" (domain name disputes are handled through arbitration panels for a variety of reasons not relevant here), where the panel held that a protest site was registered in bad faith (one of the requirements for cancellation) because "no indication was given that the domain name resolves to a protest site rather than that of the complainant." Beck goes on to argue that the Hollenbeck situation is similar to the one he is confronted with.
When you look, though (and close looking is not required), you see that there is little to no resemblance between the two cases. The disputed domain name in the Hollenbeck Youth Center decision was "hollenbeckyouthcenter.org." It had been used by the HYC as its own domain name, but at some point they failed to re-register it, and it then expired and was registered by the respondent (who used it to direct traffic to a different domain name that was critical of the HYC). The factual conclusion is fairly straightforward: Someone who followed what they knew (or thought they knew) was HYC's domain name could easily end up at respondent's site.
I cannot fathom how that is similar to the domain name www.glenbeckmurderedandrapedayounggirlin1990.com in relation to Beck's trademark, "Glen Beck." Yes, the disputed domain name incorporates Beck's mark, but it does more than that. And no one, and I think it's probably true to the absolute here, no one would think they are going to a Glen Beck owned/operated/approved site when they click on that link or type in that URL. There is no similarity between the two cases in that regard at all. So when looking at the filing, I wasn't sure exactly where the complainant was going.
In contrast, the response does a wonderful job of making the case for a critical attack on someone who is quite capable of launching his own attacks (and of using the power of technology to do it). I could quote at length from the response, but I'll just give you a taste, and then send you over to the Legal Satyricon to read the rest for yourself:
The raw materials of the Glenn Beck Raped and Murdered a Young Girl in 1990 meme (hereinafter, the “Beck Meme”) are twofold. The meme is a parody of from Glenn Beck’s own argumentation style mated with a Gilbert Gottfried routine performed during the Comedy Central Roast of “comedian” Bob Saget. During Gottfried’s speech, he kept repeating (in his trademark nasally voice) that there were rumors that Bob Saget had raped and killed a girl in 1990. Gottfriend admonished listeners to stop spreading this rumor – which had never existed in the first place. As there is no more sure fire way to destroy a joke than to explain it, much less in legal papers, the Panel is asked to view this short video of the performance. The humor equation is simple: (Outrageous Accusation) + (Celebrity) + (Question Why the Celebrity Does Not Deny the Accusation) = (Confirmation of the Falsity of the Accusation + Laughter)
After citing an example where Beck uses the technique explicitly, the filing goes on to argue that the use of the domain name in this way is legitimate (and supportive of its continued existence), and even important as an issue of freedom of expression. I really do recommend that you read the whole thing for references to the UK's "moron in a hurry test" and a bevy of other arguments that, from a domain name standpoint, are both pointed and, well, funny.
Comments