Wolfgang Staehle on Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:41:21 +0100 (MET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> The Mattel Crackdown |
A few weeks ago, a scattershot intimidation attempt by lawyers for Mattel, Inc. caused numerous sites featuring the Mattel trademark doll BARBIE to shut down or alter their sites significantly. THE THING received the following letter on October 28: ---quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM DUNNEGAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 720 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019 October 21, 1997 Mr. Wolfgang Staehle THE THING International 601 West 26th Street New York, NY 10001 Re: Barbie Trademark Dilution Dear Staehle: I am an attorney for Mattel, Inc. As you may know, Mattel owns the trademark BARBIE, as well as numerouis federal registrations for that mark. The BARBIE trademark has been used consistently since at least 1959. In connection with that use, Mattel and its licensees have sold billions of dollars of merchandise. BARBIE is therrefore an extraordinarily valuable and famous trademark. I am writing because Mattel has learned that you are sponsoring the following page on the Internet. http://www.thing.net/~gh/artdirect/homey.html There can be no doubt that this page unlawfully dilutes the BARBIE trademark in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1125(c). In addition to pursuing whatever additional rights it may have under law, Mattel demands that you (i) immediately take whatever steps are necessary to remove this page from the Internet and (ii) confirm to me in writing within 5 business days that you have done so. We await your response. Sincerely yours [signed] William Dunnegan ---end quote--------------------------------------------------------------------------- The site in question is the work of NY artist G.H. Hovagimyan and clearly qualifies as a parody. It is interesting that Mattel decided to go after the ISPs first and not after the authors and owners of the pages. Note how they try to insinuate that the ISPs "sponsor" these pages. This not-so-subtle attempt to hold providers liable scared Interport (a local NY service provider) into demanding the removal of a personal website from one of its users. ---quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phillip Kim Subject: Personal Web Site To: napier (The Distorted Barbie) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Mr. Mark Napier 451 East 14th St Apt #12H New York, NY 10009 16 October 1997 Dear Mark, My name is Phillip Kim, and I am Vice President of Interport Communications Corp. We recently received a letter from Mattel, Inc.'s attorney which claims that a section of your Web site which you maintain on our service is an infringement on Mattel's BARBIE copyright. The address of the Web page is: http://www.users.interport.net/~napier/barbie/barbie.html This is the first time Interport management has been made aware of the content of this particular Web page. Interport is not qualified to verify Mattel's claim and has absolutely no opinion on whether Mattel's claim is true or not. Regardless, Interport is in a position of potential liability; Internet Service Providers have been found liable for the copyright infringements of their users in past court cases. Again, we make no statement that a copyright infringement exists. However one may agree or disagree with this existing environment, Interport is compelled to act accordingly in a manner which limits our liability. We hope that you would appreciate our position and, as such, voluntarily remove the Web page from the Internet until the issue is resolved between Mattel, Inc. and yourself. Interport must have the Web page removed as of Wednesday 22 October 1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 212.989.1128 ext 205. Mattel's attorney, should you wish to contact him, is: William Dunnegan Attorney at Law 720 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10019 212.397.7000 I have sent this letter via regular mail which also includes a copy of Mattel's letter. Thank you for your prompt attention to the matter, and I apologize for any inconvenience it may cause you. Sincerely, Phillip Kim Vice President Interport Communications Corp. ---end quote--------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know about any specific court cases in which Internet Service Providers have been found liable for alleged or actual copyright infringements of their users. If anyone can provide me with information about similar cases I would appreciate it. I would tend to think that with the CDA rejected there is no ground for such a law suit. Providers simply can't be held liable for everything that goes over their servers. THE THING responded to the lawyer arguing that they should settle the matter with the artist first and provide clear proof that the pages are against US law. G.H. Hovagimyan defended himself in a letter to Dunnegan claiming "fair use." As of today, November 22, 1997, neither G.H. Hovagimyan nor THE THING has heard back from the lawyer. You can read the Napier story at Hotwired: http://wwww.hotwired.com/surf/97/43/index4a.html Or you can read the discussions on THE THING's messageboard "New Stuff": http://www.thing.net Both sites offer zipped versions of Napier's and/or Hovagimyan's site to set up as mirror sites. Just to give Mattel's lawyers a good run for their money! An just for the fun of it try out the "Klaus Barbie" doll (requires shockwave): http://www.artcomic.com/shock75.html Apparently the Art comics syndicate received an identical letter from Dunnegan. -- Wolfgang Staehle <wolfgang@thing.net> --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@icf.de and "info nettime" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@icf.de