SHOULD JIMROB SUE THE DETROIT FREE PRESS???

Detroit Free Press ^ | 6-24-02 | dfu

[doug from upland]

While doing some research this morning regarding fuel cell info and the state of Michigan, I came across this abomination. What gives the Detroit Free Press the right to use something that applies to us and what we do best? They can't get away with it -----

Check out www.freep.com

[1Old Pro]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

[Khepera]

Why should we stoop to using the tactics of the left? If Jim where to sue them what would it prove? I think it would just aggravate retaliation suits and muddy up the success of FreeRepublic. Their use of Freep.com does nothing to free republic.com since they are quite different in their intent and purpose.

[doug from upland]

Ummmmmmm. It was a joke.

[B Knotts]

FREEP THEM!!!! :-P

[Airborne Longhorn]

...and thanks for providing the Joke-o'-the-Day!!

[TomGuy]

Uh...maybe you should check the history before calling the attorneys. Per VeriSign Whois, the following information is registered:

Domain Name: FREEP.COM
Created on..............: Thu, May 16, 1996

Domain Name: FREEREPUBLIC.COM
Created on..............: 22-SEP-1996


Similarities in names is common due to the name limitations on web addresses. Unless a name is registered, the courts have tended to discount such claims. For example, Coke may have a legitimate claim on .net, .com, etc., but unless they specifically registered all .dots, they don't have much of a court chance. Even parody sites can use "very close" nomenclature. Check whitehouse.com vs whitehouse.gov.

If you get really concerned, you should check out www.freeper.com -- when the kiddies aren't around the pc screen.

[doug from upland]

I profusely apologize for not including this in the humor section.

[Larry Lucido]

I'm worried that the Free Press will sue us for organizing "Freeps" of public officials, or calling ourselves "Freepers." Maybe we better come up with alternative descriptors, just in case. Any ideas?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

That is interesting. Especially since www.freepress.com points to the very same page. They can't say they used freep because freepress was already taken. Hmmmmm.