NRA behaving like HCI and CPHV against progun site?

[Mike Irwin]

After having studied the patent and trademark laws for a number of years, one thing is abundantly clear -- there is still quite a dischord between cyberspace and the traditional registration of trademarks, special marks, registered marks, etc., as they apply to "traditional" forms of media.

Courts have yet to definitively rule on this subject in a consistent manner that applies nationwide.

NRA is taking a position that many other companies have also taken -- that cyberspace use of marks owned by the originating company for traditional media use should also apply to cyberspace use.

The courts, Congress, and international treaties on copyright and trademark are going to be sorting this out for many years.

"Does anyone know the NRA's policy on licensing their marks?"

Yes, at least the basics. NRA is fairly selective in licensing use of its mark. Affiliated state R&P leagues, business dealings, and like-kind organizations.

About 20-25 years ago NRA informed dozens of groups that were using NRA tradmarked logos and phrases without permission and without licensing of the exact same thing, and for the same reasons.

Tam, point 11 in Liberty's lawsuit....

Another case where courts have fallen on both sides of the coin. In such cases courts often reflect on the concepts that the words or phrases are attempting to convey, whether they constitute "more" that the simple sum of the words involved.

By strict application of that point of the lawsuit, virtually NO mark would be valid unless it was new, unique, and totally made up.

National Rifle Association could be used by anyone, for any purpose.

But by applying the conceptual imagry that goes with the phrase National Rifle Association, you've got something that is much much bigger than 3 English language words strung together.

And it's got a lot more penasch than Sluzzigheks Glkalkdirk Fughlaizzatiddy, which might be the replacement if marking words or phrases is outlawed.

Funny thing of it is, I wish both sides in this issue luck. They're both doing "the good work."

But I'm personally of the opinion that a completely new form of media should NOT completely negate 200+ years of copyright law in this country simply because it's the first medium of communication that is literally available to anyone very cheaply.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"So, hypothetically speaking, it would be okay for John/az2 to use "CPHV.com" to lampoon, satirize, and denounce CPHV, but if Mike G. uses "armedcitizen.com" to do anything but toady up to the NRA, then that'd be illegal?"

No, and that's not what Jim said. Or even remotely close to what he said. He's talking about issuing licenses to "friends or friendly organizations" for the use of your property, which is quite a bit different from what happened with CPHV.COM.

What Jim said, and what I'm certain he means, too, is that you have to be VERY careful when you issue licenses to your friends to use your marks. It can be a double-edged sword, because your friends may not always be your friends.

 

[Art Eatman]

I've read all this, and went off and thought about it. I'm not really interested in the law. I think it's a moral issue, one of right and wrong and ethics.

The NRA has had "The Armed Citizen" for a heckuva long time. I see it as wrong for somebody claiming to be pro-RKBA to glom on to that name for a website without the approval of the NRA.

And so I won't go to that website, which is about all the protest I can do...

Art

 

[Tamara]

No, and that's not what Jim said. Or even remotely close to what he said.

Yes, Mike, it is. May I direct your attention a few posts up, where Jim said:

PARODY is one of the exceptions, and why HCI was and is wrong.

...and I mused aloud that all Mike G. would have to do is something lampooning the NRA on his site, and then (by Jim's reasoning) the NRA wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but as long as he was nice to them on his site and didn't lampoon them, then they could screw him.

You know, the more I think about this, I think the NRA's just rec'd their last $ from me.

Tell me what they're doing that's better or different in any way than what the Brady bunch did to John/az2. Is the NRA going after El Jefe next? Probably, as he's got thearmedcitizen.net...

 

[Jim March]

Mike, you pegged it.

As an example:

There used to be "NRA Member's Council" chapters in several states. These were grassroots organizations with meetings of ordinary NRA members electing their own chapter officers.

This system allowed local activists to go into a city council meeting or whatever bearing the "NRA brand name" and all that this implies.

Well in most states, the meetings and online MC discussion areas turned into gripefests. The sort of "bash Fairfax" stuff that sometimes breaks out on TFL .

Fairfax ended the charters for all of the state MC programs except California. There, using somewhat hardball techniques, MC management forced the state system into a "positive activism ONLY" mode. It wasn't pretty, it was often "not very nice", but it worked and we have that system in California and nowhere else. And it DOES get a whole lot done - if local activists want to do non-NRA-directed stuff, fine, they can operate under some other "brand name" without problems. But if they use the NRA brand, they have to follow the rules.

Given this history, do y'all think Fairfax is going to let somebody they don't know operate an online discussion forum under an NRA brand?

Right.

Anyways. That's what's really going on.

 

[Tamara]

...but it worked and we have that system in California and nowhere else.

Fat lot of good its done y'all...

 

[Jim March]

That ain't funny, Tamara. It's a borderline insult. Given that the entire state gov't (Governor and legislature) has been run by radical Dems for four years, the fact that we've shot down more grabber bills than have passed is nothing short of incredible.

We've got it bad enough without being mocked by those outside the state.

 

[George Hill]

The people over at The Firing Line should realize that we are all helping to promote the NRA. But they are showing their ignorance to the law in their statements made on this thread: The Firing Line Plus, the people over at Keep And Bear Arms should understand the law also! A great example would be that of CPHV.COM They were embroiled in a legal battle with the Citizens to Prevent Handgun Violence over this exact same thing, and WON!

With the help of TFL's founder Rich L. I think guned.com needs to do some more fact checking before they start tossing out lines about understanding anything.

 

[El Rojo]

Very interesting. So the NRA screwed up and didn't register the name, or they simply figured they could use international trademark laws to protect it if and when someone tried to take it. I understand what Mike Irwin is saying in that the NRA is trying to establish a case of contest against their use of the name, should they suddenly sell it to a parody site for some odd reason. However, it sounds sort of like a last ditch effort and the question remains why thearmedcitizen.net has not been targeted? This is something interesting to see how the courts might decide. The only sick thing about that is the only people that are going to win in court are the money grubbing lawyers. Makes you sort of wish this thing could be handled between men with honest reasoning and compromise. Anyone ask the NRA why they are more concerned with one website than the other?

Mike Smith of Guned.com. Your broad generalizations of TFL members and your insult of "Lets get it together TFL" were not very persuasive to your cause and effort. It seemed more like you were telling the general TFL membership that we were incompetant and you seemed rather arrogant. Seeming as our member Tamara was defending your actions and the original poster brought this all up in the first place proves your broad generalizations completely false. I would suggest in the future if you wish for me to more clearly see your point, don't make generalizations and don't attempt to insult me. Your attitude does your website no service. Good luck with your attempt to rally all of the pro-gun sites together with arrogance and scorn. It seems to be absolutely failing so far.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I understand what Mike Irwin is saying in that the NRA is trying to establish a case of contest against their use of the name, should they suddenly sell it to a parody site for some odd reason."

Actually, that's not what I'm saying, Rojo.

What I am saying is that if you own a mark on a phrase, logo, term, picture, whatever, you have to control how it is used.

Say for example I own the trademark on a cartoon character. All of the money I make from this character is donated to a particular charity.

You decide that you like it, so you're going to use it to promote your own line of children's books, and by coincidence you ALSO donate all of the profits to the same charity.

We're sympatico, correct?

No, not really. Even though our interests are the same, the fact that you're using something that I own has to be addressed so that I protect my ownership of that intellectual property.

If I were to say to myself "Ah, it's OK, he's doing good work with the logo," and I don't protect my ownership by notifying you that you're in violation of my intellectual property rights, I can lose my interest.

Say I don't do anything, let you use the character, and never get anything either to you or from you in writing that shows that I've protected my interests.

Now say 5 years later, a pornographer uses the logo to promote his/her porn business and videos.

I don't like that, so I issue a cease and desist order, but the porn merchant doesn't. So I haul him to court. In court it is conceivable that the issue of your using the character could come up.

When it becomes known that in 5 years I haven't informed you of your violation of my property rights, and took no steps to prevent you from using my property, or license your use, the porn merchant could make a very compelling case for my having abandoned my interests in my property.

Even though you and I have similar interests and aims in using the logo, it's now been usurped by someone using it for a purpose completely contrary to my original intentions.

As I noted, it doesn't matter if the person using your intellectual property is your friend or your enemy, you have to defend your property against all comers, either through cease and desist, or through licensed usage agreements. Money doesn't even need to change hands in a licensed use agreement.

That's what NRA is doing, it's trying to protect its rights to a marked logo using traditional copyright laws recognized by the majority of the world's nations.

But the situation is a lot cloudier, simply because the Internet is a new medium, and the laws haven't caught up yet. Some courts have ruled that traditional copyright laws don't apply to internet trademarks -- that it's a first come first served, no matter how old, famous, or valuable the mark. The cybersquatting law was designed to address at least part of that.

Doing damage to your enemy is great. I'm all for that.

But when you do damage to your friend while trying to combat a common enemy, that's not so great.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"and I mused aloud that all Mike G. would have to do is something lampooning the NRA on his site, and then (by Jim's reasoning) the NRA wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but as long as he was nice to them on his site and didn't lampoon them, then they could screw him."

Likely not.

The general tenor of the few on-point court cases that I know about have been that the organization doing the lampooning has to have a set slate/agenda of issues that are at odds with the organization being lampooned.

I'm really sorry that you're now viewing NRA as the big, bad, ogre on this issue.

But again, I ask you...

Do you REALLY want to possibly see a column in the Million Mom March newsletter call "The Armed Citizen"? And all because NRA didn't act to protect its marks?

Here, let this whet your whistle...

"John Smith was having a really bad day. After losing his job, being indicted for raping his 4 angelic daughters and beating his wife to a bloody pulp, this slaughtered of woodland creatures and owner of 70 death machines -- previous convicted for numerous felonies -- began drinking heavily. Later that evening, he exercised his "rights" by viciously slaughter his entire family and 3 members of the Podunk Municiple Police Force with an horrifically powerful, fully automatic AK-47 assault rifle carbine that he was able to buy from a vending machine outside of the town nursery school. Police said the rifle, firing rounds capable of slicing through a car lenghtwise, is the type favored by international terrorists because it is easily concealed in a pocket and is completely undetectable on airport x-ray machines. Said Chief Roscoe Skootums of the Podunk PD, "These here weapons kill 7,000 police officers and 200,000 Americans every year. There's no reason why ANY American should own a gun for any reason. The Armed Citizen should be locked up."

That's something I really look forward to in an anti-gun, anti-rights publication. And to think that it could be prevented by something as simply as NRA protecting its intellectual property.

 

[El Rojo]

Very good post Mike Irwin. Thank you. Any ideas why the NRA haven't made a big deal about the other site? Do you think they have too? Can they be selective or will their selectivity hurt them in a court of law?

Should companies have to buy up every possible domain variation of their name in order to protect their trademark seems to be a good question here.

I do see Tamara's black and white point that many think it is great that someone spoofed CPHV, but if Mike G doesn't relenquish his domain, he is somehow wrong. I understand the point of working for us and against us, but at the same time, according to law it is either right or it is wrong. And I think that is the hypocrisy Tamara is pointing out. As someone bought the CPHV parody site, Mike G has the same right to buy thearmedcitizen site. However, does an acronym apply the same as a registered trademark like "The Armed Citizen"? Was this already explained and I missed it? If I understand Mike Irwin, the name "The Armed Citizen" is a registered trademark of the NRA and that any use of it what so ever is an infringement of international copyright law. Including in a web domain. As he also pointed out, the law is not solid here yet so we remain in limbo until they decide to decide it.

So to sum up, Tamara is saying the law is the law, what is right for one should be right for another. "Turnabout is fairplay." What the others are saying is the CHPV example was much more vague and didn't involve a specific trademark covered by copyright laws as is covered in this case. Mike Smith is saying that the internet law says whoever buys a domain, owns the domain regardless, you idiots. And then you have a few who say if we are all on the same side why fight over it, which could actually apply both ways. As long as the non-NRA sanctioned site doesn't misrepresent The Armed Citizen, why not let them use it. Then a few say if there is even a chance that the non-NRA site could be used against our cause, why keep it as once you let these things go unchecked, it is hard to stop them. There is no easy way around this one until the courts decide this whole copyright vs. Internet domain issue as far as I can see it.

 

[GUNED.COM]

The Lovely NRA

Read this and wonder why we keep getting more gun laws:

+++++ The Million Moms March and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have encouraged people to take advantage of the project.

"Delaware Million Moms applaud the distribution of gun locks," said Karen Fischer, President of the New Castle County Million Mom March. "It is critical for gun owners to reduce the risk of gun injury or death to their family and friends if they choose to have a gun in the home. Keeping a gun locked up reduces risk."

The National Rifle Association also supports the project. ++++

Before I give you the link, I want to let you know I checked the ATF Rules on this, and of course with the NRA and NSSF endorsing this 'Lock Giveaway', it is now a felony in the State of Delaware to have a gun unlocked in your home:
ATF Delaware State Laws Sec. 53a-217a Criminally negligent storage of a firearm: Class D felony. Also, many other felonies: ATF

http://guned.com/pages/oldcomments/comment12.htm

To argue over a “Domain Name” is kinda silly isn’t it?

 

[GUNED.COM]

Apology

I do apologize for sounding rude to any in this forum, but I am very short on subjects sometimes. I need to let you all know, I am doing more than my part to better our firearm heritage which you should try to do also.

I am a target for all kinds of whacos, including some in our own backyard of supposed “Pro Gun” people. I am running for elected office. I am trying to secure a position “Inside” so I can help turn the gun laws around. And you know what? I have received VERY LITTLE support from the gun community. Don’t you think we should be ashamed of that?

I have received NO MONEY from the NRA or any other so called “Pro Gun” group, except my local second amendment organization, Members of GUNED™ -(Trade Mark), and my friends and family. Less than $1,000 dollars.

My adversary has raised over $50,000 from big business, unions, banks, and just about every other place you can think of. If he wins, he has publicly stated that he will raise taxes, and will go with his Democommunistic party to apply more gun laws.

So excuse me for being short.

Here is my political site if you want to help: PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
www.mikewsmith.com

 

[Jim March]

Well now you've taken to the sort of NRA bashing they expect of independent internet forums, and exactly why they won't let it happen under their own brand name.

In the Delaware gun lock scenario, you've got cause and effect totally garbled, PLUS you've mis-represented what the law is.

It is NOT a requirement that guns be locked up to prevent their use as self defense tools, as in England's laws. Instead, it's a rule that if kids get a hold of a gun and screw up with it, the parents are responsible. Which isn't all that bad - fast-action bedside handgun safes cost far less than a decent handgun these days. And if the parents believe they've trained their kids well enough NOT to screw up, fine, they can leave 'em unlocked with no penalty if a responsible 12yr-old uses one in legitimate defense.

The gun lock program was a PR tool. Worked pretty good, too. It's a shame that such is needed in "sheeple zones" like Delaware, but it is.

So you're flaming away at the NRA the first time you get pissed, without cause, exactly as they feared, justifying their actions to date.

Nice goin', slick.

 

[John/az2]

It would seem to be a simple thing to me.

Would it be equitable to both parties, AND satisfy the trademark laws to simply extend a license for $1/year for the name's use to the website owner with the provision that the license is good only while the website it promotes the responsible use of firearms?

Why does the NRA have to "own" it?

The case could be made that there has been plenty of time to snatch up the websites "thearmedcitizen" and all its extensions. Would the fact that they did not, be a compelling enough argument that the NRA was not interested in protecting its trademark?

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Any ideas why the NRA haven't made a big deal about the other site? Do you think they have too? Can they be selective or will their selectivity hurt them in a court of law?"

They may be pursuing other sites, or may not know about other sites.

Yes, they have to. Selectivity in something like this is DEADLY. It's virtually a guaranteed way of losing exclusive rights to your intellectual property.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Why does the NRA have to "own" it?"

Good question, one that I can't answer.

 

[El Rojo]

Sorry Mike. I don't understand. "Put up or shut up"? Are you saying that you are the only candidate worth supporting so if I don't put up, I need to shut up? Maybe people don't agree with some of your positions for a reason or they don't want to support you and have it come back to bite them.

Sorry, but you are just coming off so rude and arrogant on here, I sort of see why you are not getting much support. Example, "I am doing more than my part to better our firearm heritage which you should try to do also." If you are doing more than your part, then stop. I don't want you to overexert yourself. You would be better off saying, "I am doing as much as I possibly can for the 2nd Amendment, are you?" That makes it more of a personal challenge rather than a "I am doing way too much, you slackers ought to do more".

I mean I really admire you for running for office. That is great. I actually admire your no nonsence attitude. However, the brash outsider campaign might not get you too far. You have to play the game a little to win. Sorry, that is the rules of politics. You would have to be in a extremely heavy republican district to get away with just telling it like it is in a "put up or shut up" manner. If you don't pipe down and appeal to both sides, you might not win and as you can see, you might not get much financial support. I am not telling you to compromise on your issues and stance. You just need to know how to appeal to both sides. Winning elections is about coming a little to the middle and getting the most votes. It is unfortunately not about "speaking you mind".

If I were in your district I would probably vote for you because you were better than nothing. However, as I pointed out, your arrogance and abrasiveness has really turned me off in all other ways. Good luck with your campaign and no hard feelings. Never take politics personal. Yeah as a PRK resident I know how bad anti-gun legislation gets, but you do what you can do and sometimes your fellow neighbors are just morons. Ranting about it doesn't do much. Running for office does, but you can't keep ranting.

 

[orlando5]

Seems to me that someone had a cute idea that they wanted to try out and unfortunately ran afoul of the legitimate laws safeguarding trademark ownership and wants to throw a tantrum about it.

If I read it right they had plenty of time to register it. I do not see why they are coming back and crying about it like little girls. The fault lies with the NRA and not with this guy. It is either laziness or stupidity that got the NRA into this mess. The NRA should take full reasonability for their actions and they should just get over it.

BTW I don't like hypocrisy either.

This junior attorney fella has either forgotten, is unaware, or is simply ignoring the fact that on June 15, 2000, when the NRA registered the domain of http://thearmedcitizen.org, the .com version of the domain was available. It was not for nearly a year and a half later that the domain, http://thearmedcitizen. com, was registered and the site for Online Data for the Informed Armed Citizen was created.