Ah... But, the problem here is you registered "godengatevw.com" and
"haywardvw.com". They'd have a much harder time fending off an en
pro per motion for summary dismissal if you had registered domains
like "godengatevwsucks.com" and "haywardvwsucks.com". Because you
registered domains that directly use their trademarks without clear
indication that they are used without permission for commentary,
you are in a legal gray-area (gray is the expensive color in the
legal world). If you used those domains to sell cars, you'd be in a
legal black area and you could simply settle the suit and understand
that you were wrong. If you had registered names that clearly weren't
their names, but, commentary on them, you'd be pretty much in the
white zone from what attorneys have told me. You still might get sued,
and, it still might cost you some to defend it, but, you might get
away with a simple en pro per motion for summary dismissal on the grounds
that you were making fair comment. Of course, they could charge libel,
in which case, you'd have to defend yourself and prove that everything
said was factual.
Actually, their original broad injunction against me, obtained before
I even had a chance to secure counsel, was easily overturned by us in
an order to show cause hearing.
Your perception is incorrect. It does not matter what domain name I
legitimately register, my speech is protected regardless. The only
time they would have a legitimate cause for grievance were if I went
afoul of the lanham act by using "initial interest confusion" to
divert their customers for my own profit.
I really lucked out and found some excellent legal representation to
sort out these issues for me- including the lawyer representing the
People Eating Tasty Animals in their case against PETA.
Incedentally, it turns out that neither of their business names are
registered trademarks.
Did they ask you to hand over the domains (demand letter) and you refused,
or did they go straight to litigation?
Straight to litigation. I was informed that they were first aware of
the sites by their lawyer, who demanded I take down any content, or
see them in court.
Partially. Although, you might still be able to characterize this as a
"SLAPP" suit. It's a stretch, but, might be worth a try. I believe that
entitles you to a certain amount of relief and some special handling of
your side of the case to make it easier for the little guy to fend off
injustice inflicted by the big guy.
Unfortunately, a case has to be very clear cut and frivolous to
qualify as a possible SLAPP. In other words, it has to be a strong
possibility for a summary judgement before it even gets to judicial
arbitration. That's unfortunate, because a SLAPP judgement would have
allowed me to countersue for legal fees.
Anyway, this is way off NANOG topic, so, if you want to continue the
discussion, let's take it off the list before Susan tries to string
me up.
It seems there's others interested in the subject, and its a situation
that a lot of folks on the list could easily find themselves in. At
the very least, I'd like to be in the list archives offering
assistance and advice to anyone in the future in the same trouble.
matto