Speculation abounds that, in the likely event that Donald Trump loses his Presidential bid, he will do the next best thing: start a TV network.
One possible sticking point: the domain name trump.tv (much like trump.org) is not owned by Donald Trump. Right now if you go to trump.tv, you’ll be redirected to trump.org, where you will see this message:
It reads:
This site is not owned by nor affiliated with Donald Trump or any of the trademark holder(s) of the Trump name.
Vote NO to Trump
He wasn’t even organized enough to purchase this domain (or www.trump.tv) at public auction, and he wants to run the U.S.A.?
Days after I won this domain at public auction I received a letter from Trump attorneys threatening to sue me for trademark infringement for purchasing this domain.
Guess who still owns the domain… not that guy!
A Whois search reveals that trump.tv is registered to Chris Thurman in Bridgeport, Connecticut. If, in fact, representatives of Trump did threaten to sue Thurman, there’s not much chance they would succeed.
Precedent
A similar case, Lamparello v. Falwell, was tried in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit back in 2005. You can read the Fourth Circuit’s opinion here.
In that case, Lamparello had created a website, falwell.com, which Lamparello used to criticize the Reverend Jerry Falwell’s stated opinions on homosexuality. Like Thurman, Lamparello did not use his site for commercial purposes. Falwell sued for trademark infringement and cybersquatting and lost on both counts.
Trademark Infringement
Regarding the trademark infringement claim, the Fourth Circuit stated:
Reverend Falwell’s mark is distinctive, and the domain name of Lamparello’s website, www.fallwell.com, closely resembles it. But, although Lamparello and Reverend Falwell employ similar marks online, Lamparello’s website looks nothing like Reverend Falwell’s; indeed, Lamparello has made no attempt to imitate Reverend Falwell’s website. Moreover, Reverend Falwell does not even argue that Lamparello’s website constitutes advertising or a facility for business, let alone a facility or advertising similar to that of Reverend Falwell. Furthermore, Lamparello clearly created his website intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.
Most importantly, Reverend Falwell and Lamparello do not offer similar goods or services. Rather they offer opposing ideas and commentary. Reverend Falwell’s mark identifies his spiritual and political views; the website at www.fallwell.com criticizes those very views. After even a quick glance at the content of the website at www.fallwell.com, no one seeking Reverend Falwell’s guidance would be misled by the domain name — www.fallwell.com — into believing Reverend Falwell authorized the content of that website. No one would believe that Reverend Falwell sponsored a site criticizing himself, his positions, and his interpretations of the Bible.
Likewise, Thurman’s websites don’t look anything like a Trump product. They have no gold, are devoid of the finest Italian marble, and are certainly not the greatest websites of all time. Like Falwell, Trump is unlikely to have created a website to mock himself. It’s unlikely that any reasonable person encountering these sites would be led to believe that they were directly connected with Trump in any way. Therefore, Trump’s trademark infringement claim would fail.
Cybersquatting
In order to pursue a claim for cybersquatting, one must show bad faith intent to profit from a domain name which is identical or confusingly similar to, or derivative of, a trademark.
The Fourth Circuit noted that “Lamparello clearly employed www.falwell.com simply to criticize Reverend Falwell’s views.” Lamparello had included a link on his site to a book for sale on Amazon. However, the Fourth Circuit stated that:
The use of a domain name to engage in criticism or commentary “even where done for profit” does not alone evidence a bad faith intent to profit…, and Lamparello did not even stand to gain financially from sales of the book at Amazon.com.
And, of course, there was no likelihood of confusion with Falwell’s trademarks. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit simply found, as in prior cases, that Lamparello had created a “gripe site,” a practice which does not rise to the level of cybersquatting.
Thurman’s sites, trump.tv and trump.org, likewise seem to be gripe sites. There’s no bad faith intent to profit. There is, as of this writing, no commercial activity on the sites at all. There’s no likelihood of confusion.
Trump can threaten to sue all he likes, but if he does go after Thurman, his chances of success are pretty close to zero.
Photo credits: iStock.com/scarletsails
