District Court or Circuit Court - Essay Example

In December 2003, Christopher Lamparello (Plaintiff) brought suit against the Rev. Jerry Falwell (Defendant), in order to regain the use of his website, www.fallwell.com. The argument of the defendant was on the basis that his website, while being used as a “gripe site”, did not in any way harm or infringe on the website set up by the Plaintiff, and therefore he should be allowed to continue to operate it (Lamparello v. Falwell, 2004). Mr. Lamparello sued the Rev. Falwell and his conjunctive ministries first in the actions taken involving the District Court in the case of Lamparello v. Falwell. However, it should be noted that Rev.

Falwell had brought a complaint alleging that Mr. Lamparello was guilty of trademark infringement, which Rev. Falwell alleged was intellectual property that protected his website, as he had at least one registered trademark, even though it was not on the domain name www.falwell.com or www.fallwell.com (Atkinson, Sorkin, & Gold 2003). Rev. Falwell also stated that he had legal rights in the name “Falwell” which included “Listen America with Jerry Falwell”, a popular show, as well as a pending trademark on the name “Jerry Falwell”.

He therefore requested relief in the form of www.fallwell.com being transferred from Mr. Lamparello to his ministries and control, on the grounds of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and cybersquatting (Atkinson et. al. 2003). Mr. Lamparello filed suit in the Eastern District Court of Virginia, accusing Rev. Falwell and his ministry of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in violation of the Anticybersquatting Protection Act (Lamparello v. Falwell, 2004). This suit was filed in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, commonly known as UDRP, which states that “most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration” (Internet corporation for, 2011).

The District Court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that there was a likelihood of confusion based on the “distinctive and strong” presence of the Defendant’s trademark. The District Court also found trademark infringement was evident as the Defendant was able to prove that he did, indeed, have a registered trademark, and he had used that trademark. The appeals court, however, overturned the findings, stating that there was no trademark infringement or false designation of origin since Mr.

Lamparello did not intend to make money from his website, and used it only for “noncommercial” purposes (Lamparello v. Falwell, 2005). The Circuit Court further stated that there was no likelihood of confusion, since the two websites looked nothing like each other, and most importantly, did not offer similar goods and services (Lamparello v. Falwell, 2005). Indeed, the Circuit Court stated, they were widely differing on their opinions and viewpoints, and it possibly did not help Rev. Falwell’s argument that he also conceded, during oral arguments, that those viewing the content at www.fallwell.com were unlikely to confuse the two websites (Lamparello v.

Falwell, 2005). After careful review of these two cases, both the original that was heard in the District Court and the appeal, I find myself agreeing with the Appeals Court, and not the District Court. Though originally the District Court found in the case of Lamparello v. Falwell that trademark infringement was evident, as well as likelihood of confusion, I disagree. While it can be contended that “fallwell” and “Falwell” are indeed very similar in spelling and sound the same, Mr. Lamparello made no claims that his site was intending to, in any way, scam or use the name of Rev.

Falwell to do anything other than disagree with his viewpoints. Disagreeing and having opinions contrary to what another person thinks are not against the law to the best of my knowledge. It would have been easier to agree with the District Court if, in the case of Lamparello v. Falwell, Mr. Lamparello been using the website of Rev. Falwell to make money, or to make it seem as though he was allied with Rev. Falwell in some way. Since the advent of the internet becoming widespread, opinions from more and more people have been able to reach farther and farther into the corners of the world. Mr. Lamparello was simply expressing his opinion.

Also, it should be noted that Mr. Lamparello had a disclaimer on the front page of his website, stating explicitly that he was not involved in any way with Rev. Falwell, or his ministries. Mr. Lamparello even provided a link to the appropriate website for Rev. Falwell, should people have landed at the wrong website by mistake. He did not ask for advertising revenue for this service, nor did he make any claims that he was helping the Rev. Falwell direct more traffic to his website. He also attempted to make no money from the website www.fallwell.com; again, he was only using it to express his opinions, which, as stated before, is not a criminal action; if it were, more people than Mr.

Lamparello would be facing the court system. While it is possibly in bad taste to use the internet to shout one’s opinions to the world, Mr. Lamparello deserved to retain the domain name and the right to operate it, as the Circuit Court stated.Sources:Atkinson, T., Sorkin, D., & Gold, E. (2003, November 20). National arbitration forum. Retrieved from http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/198936.htmInternet corporation for assigned names and numbers: uniform domain name dispute-resolution policy.

(2011, September 05). Retrieved from http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htmLamparello v. Falwell, 360 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Va. 2004). Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005)