NotTheBBC

Risky domain and copyright

[Asia_Expat]

A little background info. I spend much of my life in a country that has very questionable freedom of speech issues (not China). For a long time, I have had in the back of my mind an idea I always wanted to put into action. It would be a hobby site of sorts, probably writing daily witty and incisive accounts on local political issues and current affairs blah blah blah.
Lets say, for arguments sake, I live in Burma (i do not) and the main english language newspaper is called the BurmaRag.com (does not exist).

I want to call my website NotTheBurmaRag.com

Now, the main risk I would be taking is my freedom, or my permission to stay in the country, due to the strict censorship laws. However, I am reasonable confident I can be low key enough to avoid problems (famous last words probably). However, what of the copyright/trademark infringement issues? I know there are many threads about that here... but I figure they apply to biggies like ebay and cocacola for example. What about little blogs in the middle of nowhere that claim they are 'NotTheBurmaRag.com'?

What issues do you predict?

[buckworks]

Laws about trademark infringement apply to little folks as well as big companies. If you're doing something that infringes, don't count on getting away with it just because you're "small".

[Asia_Expat]

Sure, you're right of course and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. However, does claiming you are 'not' the Burma Rag constitute trademark infringement, or would it be considered as being similar to 'The Unofficial imaginary dedication site'?

[edited by: Asia_Expat at 4:05 am (utc) on April 16, 2007]

[amznVibe]

I'd have a moderator remove the domain name immediately
or you risk finding it registered tomorrow by some lurker.

[Asia_Expat]

Everything in my OP is fictional.

[buckworks]

You need to check with a lawyer who is well-versed in the trademark laws of the country in question.

Your use of the word "not" wouldn't cancel out the fact that your blog's identity would be based on someone else's name. That's likely courting trouble for trademark reasons, and I see problems with it on the marketing side, too. Better for your blog to develop its own identity instead of piggybacking on someone else's.

Also, remember that if you were challenged in court, it could cost a lot to defend yourself even if you won. Do you have the resources for that?

The ancient wisdom applies: "Choose your battles carefully." It sounds as though you'll already be sticking your neck out with the content of your blog ... think your core goals through carefully and stay out of other battles that would distract from your primary purposes.

[Webwork]

One more adversary = the other news source.

One more force to take your off mission.

Perhaps one big voice to bring heat in your direction.

Seems a bit unimaginative, too.

If you want to do something positive or be a voice for postive change this doesn't strike as the path. This is negative from the get-go, from the very choice of web address.

[Asia_Expat]

Acknowledged... thanks all for the advice.

[jtara]

Your use of the word "not" wouldn't cancel out the fact that your blog's identity would be based on someone else's name.

But, in the U.S., at least, the trademark law is designed to protect the public and the trademark holder from others causing "confusion as to origin or source". It is NOT a "copyright" on a word or phrase, giving the holder exclusive use of the word or phrase.

Including "not" clearly avoids confusion as to origin or source.

That is not to say that the law might not be different in other countries, or that a trademark holder might not bring legal action or make threats anyway.

If the subject of your site is criticism of this particular newspaper, or to provide an alternative to it's viewpoint - particulary in the case of a monopolistic outlet - then the site name certainly clearly states what the site is about - and, barring any legal issues - might be among the best site names you might devise.

Certainly, this turn of phrase is and has been used COMMONLY in satire and criticism in U.S. media, including on popular T.V. shows, etc.

Disclaimer: NOT a lawyer...

(IMO, others here who ARE lawyers have given good, lawerly advice - which is to steer you on the path of least legal liability. This may or may not be your primary motovation or concern, though.)

[Asia_Expat]

OK... well lets take U.S. law as the benchmark for this discussion. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are protections built into copyright law for satirical and humour purposes. Surely this would fall into that category?

[Webwork]

Trademark and copyright are two very different beasts. "Fair use" for satire often includes an element of "not for profit". Fair use is also fact sensitive. You might make use of a trademark image, in the context of fair use, but that seems to be a bit of a different creature than employing the trademark in your website name. It might even be do-able as part of your website name IF you are very sophisticated in your approach, don't appear to be using the trademark in an effort to profit off the mark, and on and on . .

We haven't hosted a "is this legal" thread in awhile and now I remember why. For most part we "don't do legal" because you - or anyone else - aren't going to get a usable answer here, especially talking in generalities. Since we have a policy against discussion specific domain name and specific details of the website it's all a bit of a failed mission from the start. Critical analysis not only requires expertise but also all the critical facts. Even if it wasn't already against the TOS and Charter to get into specifics it simply wouldn't be in your best interest to be posting potentially inculpating facts and statements in a public forum that could be used against you in later litigation.

Bottom line is that it's going to be the content that matters far more than the website name, isn't it? Focus on the content. I'm sure you'll have enough legal issues - such a libel - to deal with just based on what is posted or written on the website about "the other company".

[edited by: Webwork at 10:15 pm (utc) on April 16, 2007]