November 13th, 2007

My Avis Trademark Dispute Featured in Great Britian

My dispute with Avis, in which they asked that I take down their logo from this post back in September, has now gone international. It has been featured in the online journal The Register, published by Pinsent Masons, which is one of the largest British law firms and part of the Global 100.

Thus far, I have not heard back Avis them regarding my response, and the logo remains in place. I presume that, notwithstanding their attorney’s assertion that it was I that was ignorant of the law, they have stopped their efforts knowing that my use of the logo was proper.

 

October 30th, 2007

Are Bloggers Journalists?

The first reported decision on the subject of bloggers as journalists has been rendered. This is important due to statutory protections that may exist for journalists.

In BidZirk v. Smith, a pro se blogging defendant beat back a lawsuit from an eBay listing company that alleged, among other issues, trademark infringement due to use of the mark by Smith of BidZirk on his blog. Smith responded by saying he could use the mark as a journalist. The decision and analysis are at the Citizen Media Law Project and is also written up by Eric Goldman and Marc Randazza. Since I’ve now been threatened by Avis over use of its logo on my blog, this has become of interest to me.

[The issue of the blogger-journalist also presented itself in another context recently when Howard Bashman refused to remove a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had been published by the court, then placed on the blog How Appealing, and that the court sought to recall.]

US District Judge Henry Herlong, Jr., sitting in the District Court for South Carolina, wrote the following with respect to bloggers as journalists:

Even if Smith has infringed BidZirk’s mark, the court finds that this infringement is excused by a statutory defense. Under §1125(c)(4)(C), no “forms of news reporting and news commentary” are actionable under §1125. These terms are not defined in the Lanham Act. Further, there is no published case deciding whether a blogger is a journalist.

However, in determining whether Smith was engaged in news reporting or news
commentating, the court has applied the functional analysis suggested by commentators and the Plaintiffs in their memorandum in support of a preliminary injunction, which examines the content of the material, not the format, to determine whether it is journalism. See David L. Hudson, Jr., Blogging; (Pls.’ Mem. Supp. Preliminary Injunction Ex. 34 (Hudson on Blogging).). In addition, the court has considered the intent of Smith in writing the article. The court agrees that not all bloggers are journalists. However, some bloggers are without question journalists. See CNN BLOGS: YOUR SAY .

Upon review of the content of the article, the court finds that Smith’s use of the BidZirk mark in the article was in the context of news reporting or news commentary. The article posted by Smith concerning the Plaintiffs is written for the purpose of conveying information to the public. In the four installments of the article, Smith describes his experience with BidZirk in great detail. (Pls.’ Mem. Opp’n Summ. J. Ex. 2 (Article).) In addition, Smith addresses the positive and negative aspects, in his opinion, of dealing with a an eBay listing company, such as BidZirk. (Id.) Further, Smith provides a checklist for using an eBay listing company and tips for selling items on eBay. (Id.) Smith felt that what he learned from his experience with BidZirk would be helpful to others in dealing with an eBay listing company. The fact that Smith reports negatively about his experience with BidZirk does not dictate that the article’s function or intent was not news reporting or news commentary.

There is no evidence that the sole purpose of the article was to denigrate BidZirk.
follows:

This is my story as experienced by me personally. I have dealt with a company called BIDZIRK, in my home town. I have also visited several competitors. In doing extensive Google research, I have found that my problems are almost universal . . . but that only larger clients really complain. At the end, I will offer a checklist for you to use when choosing a listing company that includes questions you may not have thought of before.

(Pls.’ Mem. Opp’n Summ. J. Ex. 2 (Article).) Smith engaged in background research and provided consumers with a checklist for use in selecting a listing company. Smith’s article evidences his intent to report what he believed was a newsworthy story for consumers. Based on the foregoing, no genuine issues of material fact exist and BidZirk’s Lanham Act claim fails as a matter of law.

This post may be a substantial deviation from New York personal injury law, but it seems to be a worthwhile one.

Links to this post:

don’t bidzirk me
following on the heels of the future of reputation, dan solove’s cautionary tale of the internet, comes eric turkewitz’s post on bidzirk v. smith. this case involved an ebay reseller’s attempt to crush an unhappy customer who posted
posted by [email protected] (SHG) @ November 01, 2007 3:13 AM

 

October 29th, 2007

Dear Avis (A Public Response To Your Trademark Complaint On My Blog)

To: Fred Grumman, Associate General Counsel, Avis Budget Group, Inc.

Dear Mr. Grumman:

I had used an Avis trademark on September 17th to discuss a decision holding the Graves Amendment unconstitutional. That amendment, which I believe Avis fought for, granted immunity to car rental and leasing companies from state laws that would hold them vicariously liable when the renters/lessors were negligent and injured someone.

On October 23rd you wrote to me on behalf of Avis in the comments section of that post, to complain about my use of the Avis trademark, which is shown here in the upper, right corner.

So here is my response. I do it publicly, since that is how you chose to contact me.

In writing this blog and engaging in citizen-journalism, I often use the trademarks of companies when discussing their news. That seems to be a pretty clear First Amendment right.

In your letter to me you sought to trump my First Amendment right when you wrote:

We have the greatest respect for your right to express your opinions on your blog, but that does not include the right to use Avis’ trademark as you have done in this particular piece.

Understandably, trademark law is not within your area of expertise. Therefore, we trust that this was done out of ignorance and not based on an intent to misuse our mark to the benefit of your personal injury practice.

We ask that you remove it immediately and refrain from any similar use in the future.

Having thought about the issue, and discussed it privately with some, and seen public comment from others (see the comments section here, as well as at Trademark Law, 43(B)log, and Bill McGeveran), I am at a loss to figure out exactly how your trademark claim trumps my free speech rights. Since, as you believe, trademark law is not within my area of expertise, and that I am simply ignorant, perhaps now is the time for you to set forth exactly how and why I should surrender my constitutional rights to your company.

So send me a proper cease and desist letter. Set forth for me with specificity your claims of legal superiority. You now have the opportunity to demonstrate your expertise and analysis in this arena since I, as you indicate, am simply too ignorant to know it myself.

Until you do that, however, I will assume your threat is an empty attempt to bully and intimidate. And so, the mark remains on my original post.

Yours,

Eric Turkewitz
(Just a simple personal injury attorney, not a trademark law guru)

P.S. I note that your trademark is now popping up on other legal blogs, so you might want to consider sending cease and desist letters to other attorneys as well.

Links to this post:

ladybugs on my mind
[sccl] i did not go to bed planning to think — much less write — about ladybugs today. but a segment of naturewatch, which was playing in the background on my local public radio station this morning has placed that famous genus of

posted by David Giacalone @ November 13, 2007 12:46 PM

ding dong – avis calling
it’s turning out to be a bit of an ip week… bill mcgeveran reports on avis, the car hire people, and their utterly unreasonable legal letters to blogger eric turkewitz (of the ny personal injury blog, mentioned in my blawg review

posted by Daithí @ October 30, 2007 1:22 PM

avis contests law blogger’s fair use of logo
last month, law blogger eric turkewitz of the new york personal injury law blog published this post about a judicial decision overturning a federal statute that’s relevant to liability of rental car companies.
posted by William McGeveran @ October 29, 2007 2:07 PM

 

October 23rd, 2007

Avis Tells Me Cease And Desist on Use Of Its Logo

Was my use of the Avis logo last month a violation of its trademark? I need to know because Avis hit me today with a cease and desist demand, asking that its logo be taken down from the old post.

The particular logo at issue, reproduced here at the right so you know what I’m discussing, was placed in my September 17 posting regarding a federal court decision: Car Rental Immunity Law Held Unconstitutional By Federal Judge. The law at issue had been the subject, I believe, of intense lobbying by the major car rental and leasing companies who had succeeded in getting immunity from vicarious liability slipped into a massive transportation bill at an early morning House-Senate conference. So when it was ruled unconstitutional, I thought that using the logos of Avis and Hertz was fair use in the context of the discussion.

Not so, says Fred Grumman, Associate General Counsel at Avis Budget Group, Inc. In a comment he left online earlier today regarding the logo, he wrote:

We have the greatest respect for your right to express your opinions on your blog, but that does not include the right to use Avis’ trademark as you have done in this particular piece.

Understandably, trademark law is not within your area of expertise. Therefore, we trust that this was done out of ignorance and not based on an intent to misuse our mark to the benefit of your personal injury practice.

We ask that you remove it immediately and refrain from any similar use in the future.

Now I will concede I am not the world’s greatest expert on trademark law, but it seemed perfectly fair to use in the context of major car rental companies lobbying for a law that was tossed out and is now headed to a federal appeals court. And I didn’t see how my use of the logo would cause confusion in the marketplace since I don’t rent or lease cars to anyone. While it is true some attorneys may have sidelines, like perhaps hair replacement, I most assuredly am not in the car business.

And so this post is an opportunity to seek some friends to help me grapple with the issue. Since my blog is not the only one that needs to wrestle with intellectual property issues and where lines get drawn, it seems ripe for public discussion. I am hopeful that someone, perhaps from this list (or elsewhere), might have a few opinions on the subject:

(Eric Turkewitz is most definitely not in the car rental business.)

Update, 10/29/07: Dear Avis (A Public Response To Your Trademark Complaint On My Blog)

Links to this post:

eric turkewitz of new york personal injury law blog [lexblog q & a]
eric turkewitz, the new york attorney and founder of the turkewitz law firm, is the featured interview subject for today’s lexblog q & a. aside from his legal work, eric also runs a blog, the new york personal injury law blog,

posted by [email protected] (Rob La Gatta) @ February 21, 2008 2:49 PM

eric turkewitz of new york personal injury law blog [lexblog q & a]
eric turkewitz, the new york attorney and founder of the turkewitz law firm, is the featured interview subject for today’s lexblog q & a. aside from his legal work, eric also runs a blog, the new york personal injury law blog,

posted by [email protected] (Rob La Gatta) @ February 21, 2008 2:49 PM

Blogging is Not Defamation
There is an interesting post over at the Kentucky Law Review blog. Interesting to bloggers that is. Turns out the court has looked at trademarks and bloggers but very few suits have been filed against bloggers.

posted by The Principal @ October 31, 2007 7:16 PM

ding dong – avis calling
it’s turning out to be a bit of an ip week… bill mcgeveran reports on avis, the car hire people, and their utterly unreasonable legal letters to blogger eric turkewitz (of the ny personal injury blog, mentioned in my blawg review

posted by Daithí @ October 30, 2007 1:22 PM

avis contests law blogger’s fair use of logo
last month, law blogger eric turkewitz of the new york personal injury law blog published this post about a judicial decision overturning a federal statute that’s relevant to liability of rental car companies.

posted by William McGeveran @ October 29, 2007 2:07 PM

berkman@10 in tech…nicolor
berkman alum william mcgeveran blogged about logos today over at info/law, the blog he shares with derek bambauer and tim armstrong, also berkman alums. and with perfect timing, bill has queued us up to display the new berkman@10 logo!

posted by @ October 29, 2007 9:38 AM

Avis tries harder…
but to do what is not entirely clear. As I picked up from the Trademark Blog, it appears that a lawyer representing Avis has told a legal blogger that he has no “right to use Avis’ trademark as [he did] in this particular piece.

posted by Rebecca Tushnet @ October 28, 2007 8:12 PM

avis contests law blogger’s use of avis logo in law blog article
in september, the new york personal injury blog reported on a court decision in which a federal judge held that a 2005 federal law that abolished vicarious liability for car renting and leasing companies. it illustrated the article with

posted by Marty @ October 28, 2007 1:34 PM

is this infringement?
read this and come back to post your opinion:
posted by marcorandazza @ October 24, 2007 1:17 PM

 

October 11th, 2007

More on Dozier v. Public Citizen, and Potential Legal Malpractice

In my Friday round-up I briefly wrote about the lame attempt of the Dozier law firm to claim copyright infringement if any part of their cease and desist letter was published. Public Citizen had published the letter on behalf of the recipient, as fair use, and challenged Dozier to sue them. I followed up with a fuller post on Tuesday (Don’t Post This Letter On The Internet!). While not what I usually write about, the sheer audacity of it caught my interest.

As a result of Dozier’s claim of a copyright infringement for publishing any part of their cease and desist letters, The Streisand Effect seems to be taking hold, and others are now writing on the issue. Additional links follow, of which the first, by leading copyright attorney William Patry, is particularly enlightening on how he thinks Dozier misused the copyright claim in their letter:

But rather than let the issue fade away, as I think would have been wise, Dozier has now published more on the subject at their own website here, as well as by making nasty remarks in the comments section here. Those comments first acknowledged that they had no U.S. authority for their position and then sought to change the subject by saying a personal injury attorney should keep his nose out of this. Blaming the messenger, while a fairly old and traditional tactic for distraction, obviously ignores the issue.

The publication of the new letter by Dozier will, of course, lead to yet more discussion not only of the issue, but of their client DirectBuy and the original allegations that the company was a scam. It was those allegations Dozier had apparently been trying to squash. Here is the first I have seen in response to that new letter, though I suspect other responses may follow:

I can only think of two reasons for Dozier to publish such a letter on their site: The first is sheer folly, since it draws yet more attention to the charges against the company they wish to defend.

The second is more troublesome. Is Dozier simply trying to create more controversy, and thus more links to their website and hopefully more business? That will surely be one result of publishing a letter to Public Citizen on their website instead of reaching out to them privately. But this would also raise very troubling issues regarding attorney ethics and legal malpractice since this is seems to me clearly detrimental to their client. I prefer the first explanation — that it is sheer folly and not an ethical breach — though a savvy Internet based business must surely anticipate the repercussions to their client of additional commentary on the subject.

In either case, I think a legal malpractice claim could theoretically be made against Dozier for taking a bad situation and making it worse, in the event DirectBuy is harmed by their counsel’s conduct. But only time will tell on that.

Links to this post:

2007 dozier internet law google rankings – week 7
dozier continues to throw cash at spam advertising — doorway pages, theory pants, and the rest — in order to prevent googlers from finding out information about the company. still, the fact that some of the spam pages are very,

posted by [email protected] (Dan tdaxp) @ November 28, 2007 12:00 PM

2007 dozier internet law google rankings – week 6
2007 dozier internet law google rankings – week 6. its hard to find much good to say about dozier internet law. no, seriously. my blog dedicated to the company’s cases, dozier internet lawsuits, is stalled because i can only find one

posted by [email protected] (Dan tdaxp) @ November 21, 2007 12:33 PM

More unethical behavior from Dozier Internet Law
Sadly my attention has been drawn away from the Dozier Internet Law vs The Free World battle online, and as a result seeing my Google ranking drop a bit over the last 5 weeks (weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) for related queries I decided I needed

posted by Brendan @ November 21, 2007 1:35 AM

2007 dozier internet law google rankings – week 5
this week’s poll, like most bcs weekly polls this year, is anything but stable. five pages dropped out of the top 15, including 3 of the top 15, and including — #2 ranked cybertriallawyer.com. while dozier’s main page is still #1,

posted by [email protected] (Dan tdaxp) @ November 14, 2007 10:54 AM

2007 dozier internet law google rankings – week 4
this week’s poll is a tale of stability. of the top 10 entry, only two are not holds. the biggest gainer is plagiarism today, which is apparently enjoying the popularity of a mention on writing thoughts. “pt” jumps 7 points to #6,

posted by [email protected] (Dan tdaxp) @ November 07, 2007 7:53 AM

2007 dozier internet law google rankings – week 3
this weeks poll includes the story of an upset worthy of boston college. after seeing their findlaw entry fall a point and a press release fall out of the top 25 midweek, dozier rallied to maintain the status quo by beginning of morning

posted by [email protected] (Dan tdaxp) @ October 31, 2007 4:21 PM

dozier: the cybertrolllawyer firm
a magyar “internetjogászokról” szoktam rendszeresen szépeket irogatni ide, de közel sem magyar sajátosságról van szó. külföldön is megjelentek már egy ideje az internetspecialisták, akiknek sokszor lövésük sincs az egészről.

posted by Caracalla @ October 19, 2007 3:02 PM

practical blawgosphere: the dozier demand scam
while this has floated around blawgs as the joke of the week, i wanted to make sure that my amigos in the practical blawgosphere were alerted to the dozier demand scam, as noted by my good buddies, the turk at new york personal injury

posted by SHG @ October 14, 2007 4:45 AM

Dozier Internet Law: Running an extortion racket?
When thinking about the ongoing dispute over the unprofessional actions of Dozier Internet Law… I think back to an old Monty Python episode and the the army protection racket sketch: Dino: Oh see my brother’s clumsy colonel,

posted by Brendan @ October 13, 2007 1:49 AM

law firm web sites, links and legal malpractice
we read a blog blurb from eric turkowitz at his new york personal injury blog which caught our eye and interest. he discusses a unique warning letter by the dozier internet law firm, and the potential legal malpractice consequences.

posted by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone @ October 12, 2007 8:14 AM

nastygram: don’t you dare post this nastygram on the web
ted has briefly mentioned (oct. 8) the recent doings of an outfit called dozier internet law, whose cease and desist letter to a consumer-complaint site not only demanded that the site take down certain statements about dozier’s client,

posted by @ October 12, 2007 1:06 AM

dozier reponds
our post about dozier internet law’s cease-and-desist letter to a consumer-review site, which threatened a copyright infringement claim if the letter were posted on the internet, generated a lot of commentary on this blog and around the

posted by Greg Beck @ October 11, 2007 6:19 PM

lawfare and public participation (does dozier know better? should it?)
posted by dan tdaxp. i am confused. what happened at first at least made sense. three blogs (i-blog, i-ratings, i-scams) criticize directbuy. directbuy hires a lawyer, dozier internet law. a lawyer sends a threatening letter (excerpts,

posted by @ October 11, 2007 12:52 PM

lawfare and public participation (does dozier know better? should it?)
posted by dan tdaxp. i am confused. what happened at first at least made sense. three blogs (i-blog, i-ratings, i-scams) criticize directbuy. directbuy hires a lawyer, dozier internet law. a lawyer sends a threatening letter (excerpts,
posted by @ October 11, 2007 12:52 PM