Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> CL&P Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Consumer Law
: CL&P BlogApparently, Citizens United doesn't believe in free speech for the anti-corporate side
By Paul Levy
by Paul Alan Levy
Citizens United, fresh from its Supreme Court victory giving corporations the right to bankroll election campaigns, has sent a trademark demand letter to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, complaining that a Facebook page entitled "Citizens United Against Citizens United" infringes its trademark. Apparently, Citizens United is worried that members of the public might come to the page and think that the organization "Citizens United" is attacking Citizens United, the landmark Supreme Court decision that it won.
Although we haven't seen this issue litigated in the context of Facebook, Citizens United's demand flies in the face of the many decisions holding that an Internet gripe site (or fan site) may use the trademark of the subject of the discussion as its domain name. Under Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005), that's even the rule in the Fourth Circuit, where Citizens United is located. How can they possibly hope to win a case like that?
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's argument would seem to be even stronger, because it is using "Citizens United" in its descriptive sense, and not as a mark. It seems doubtful that Citizens United the conservative group can prevent a group of citizens who are united to support or oppose a particular proposition from referring to their effort as Citizens United For X or Citizens United Against Y. (Otherwise, many groups that would have to change their names). It is especially hard to understand how any confusion about source could be expected to result from labeling a campaign "Citizens United Against Citizens United."
Interestingly, Citizens United asks Wisconsin Democracy Campaign to destroy all documents bearing the Citizens United trademark. If that demand were extended to the Supreme Court, could it succeed in wiping the Citizens United decision off the books?
Full post as published by CL&P Blog on March 15, 2010 (boomark / email).
Parody is a Protected Form of Speech
Targets of criticism seek to shut down Internet sites that poke fun
Ortho Evra Patch Risk
Ortho Evra Side Effects
Have you or a loved one suffered from Ortho Evra side effects?
Ortho Evra Side Effects
Free Speech
Canterbury agrees to pay $60,000 settlement in civil rights lawsuit.
Indianapolis
alleging the city's police are overly aggressive against the homeless in violation of the protection of free speech and unreasonable searches guaranteed in the US Constitution.
ValueClick
allegedly violated consumer protection laws by promising ‘free’ goods that where not actually free.
United Airlines Discriminates Against Blind Passengers
United Airlines Discriminates Against Blind Passengers
DLP
Ohio State to Receive $42 Million in Corporate Taxes Settlement
NCAA Sued for Conspiracy and Anti-competitive Practices Related to Athletic Scholarships
NCAA Sued for Conspiracy and Anti-competitive Practices Related to Athletic Scholarships

What next after Citizens United
Citizens United and Compelled Speech
Supplemental Briefs in Citizens United
Shaping Up to Be a Big Free Speech Clause Term at the Supreme Court








