View Publication - PolicyArchive

Examples of Weak IP ClaimsThe examples below illustrate the range of IPclaims that that we thought were weak, oftenbecause the terms in dispute were not verydistinctive or because we saw little likelihoodof confusion. Of course, the outcome of eachcase, had it gone to court, would have dependedon more detailed evidence. Nevertheless, theexamples are instructive. In many cases, theyshow IP owners trying to monopolize the use ofcommon English words.• In January 2004, Time Warner sent a letter toWeb Inceptions, Inc., which operated a site called“PrivateLessons.Info.” Time Warner claimedexclusive ownership of the trademark “PrivateLessons” and demanded that Web Inceptionsimmediately cease all use of the term. 159 Whenwe searched for PrivateLessonsInfo, it was stillbeing operated by Web Inceptions, with aheadline stating that the domain name was forsale. 160• In December 2004, the dating site Match.comsent a cease and desist letter to a company thathad registered the domain name “springfieldmatch.com.”A visit to the targeted site yielded apage that read: “Coming Soon – Springfield-Match.com,” which by its romantic typefacesuggested that this would indeed be a datingsite, and that its creators were not deterred byMatch.com’s letter. 161• In August 2004, ZC Investments, which doesbusiness as the Canyon Ranch resort, demandedthat Taylor Canyon Ranch in Arizona stop usingthe term “Canyon Ranch.” 162 Although there areplenty of ranches with canyons in America, sothat the likelihood of confusion seems remote,this demand was apparently successful – wecould not find a Web site for Taylor CanyonRanch in 2005.• In July 2004, Scholastic, Inc. complainedthat RedHouseBooks.com infringed its “RedHouse” trademark. Scholastic contended thatsince 1981, it had been using the term RedHouse for its catalogs of books, posters, andother products. It demanded a transfer of thedomain name, delivery, “for destruction,” ofall documents on which “RedHouseBooks.com” appeared, and a detailed accounting of allsales and revenues. 163 As of mid-2005, however,RedHouseBooks.com was still active, sellingfirst editions by modern authors, “famous andforgotten,” and out-of-print books on socialmovements of the 1960s. 164• In December 2004, “MassMutualSuks.com” received a cease and desist letter fromMassMutual. Despite the letter’s threats of legalaction, MassMutualSuks.com was still online in2005, although it was simply a placeholder. 165• The Muzak company had more success witha cease and desist letter to muzak.smoe.org, eventhough the site had nothing to do with elevatormusic. In response to the letter, muzak.smoe.orgchanged its URL to www.smoe.org. The ownerexplained: “if you’re wondering – yes, there is areason why we changed our series’ name. It hasto do with a certain concern which supplies elevatormusic to the masses, and a cease and desistletter we received therefrom. Ain’t legalitiesgrand?” 166Time Warner claimedexclusive ownership of thetrademark “Private Lessons”• Finally, the Intel Corporation claimed thata group called PROgressive INTELLigenceviolated its trademark by using the term “PRO-INTELL” on its Web site. Intel’s letter hada conciliatory tone, and invited negotiationsover reasonable use of “Prointell.” The letterexplained that “we are … obligated by law toprotect our mark; otherwise we risk losing ourtrademark rights.” 167 The PROgressiveINTEL-Ligence site is still up, with a disclaimer that it“is not sponsored by, affiliated with, or related toIntel Corporation in any way.”Examples of Strong orReasonable Fair Use Defenses• In February 2004, Chick Publications, Inc.wrote to a Web hosting company demandingthe removal of religious parodies from “www.Brennan Center for Justice 33