Hate Site Questions

[xvxmatthewxvx]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for reading. The website isn't a hate site, but I can't think of the right word just this minute. The website I just registered is ihatebell.ca

Bell Canada is a telephone, satellite, home phone, and wireless provider. Just like the other 3 big companies in this business in Canada, all bad.

I know Canadian law isn't the same as American but its very similar about some issues. I hate them, so I decided I would really enjoy developing a website about this as I have alot of opinions, and its an easy site to build. So its ideal for me.

I have already heard that for example "bellsucks.ca" would not be allowed as its badmouthing or defaming them or something along those lines. But I HATE is an opinion so its allowed. Is that true?

Also is banner ads allowed on such sites? I am concerned about if there is any law that says making profit is not allowed. I would not sell anything, just banner ads. Or is banner ads allowed, but making anything more than server and hosting costs illegal? I want to be sure about this.

Second, is copyrighted images and logos defamed considered "fair use"? Would I be allowed to edit in a not so flattering way Bell mascots and logos?

I really would like to know. As www.ihaterogers.ca seems to do this and they get away from it. I tried to email him but the email addresses provided on the site are dead.

Does anyone have any experience or knowledge on this subject?

Big thanks.

 

[DebX420]

It should be alloweed - sounds to me as though Canada is a communistic party... If they attempt to shut you down, take em to court. Down here in the US we have the freedom of speech as is our constitution. But just see - Im sure I hate Rogers is basically what I hate Canada Bell... But just see how it goes

 

[xvxmatthewxvx]

Thanks for the reply.

Of course we have freedom of speech except for on 2 issues that I'm aware of. Which I completely disagree with. But thats another topic.

I know what you mean about Canada being communistic. Our laws are set up so that you can get away with alot of crap here in some ways more than the US. Canada is a bit more anti big business than the US so I believe it should be safer in a way more than a similar site about a US company.

Do you think google banner ads would be allowed on a site such as this? I ask cause ihaterogers.ca doesn't have them. Rogers and Bell are 2 of the big 3 companies in this business in Canada and they all provide the same services.

 

[DebX420]

Thanks for the reply.

Of course we have freedom of speech except for on 2 issues that I'm aware of. Which I completely disagree with. But thats another topic.

Do you think google banner ads would be allowed on a site such as this? I ask cause ihaterogers.ca doesn't have them. Rogers and Bell are 2 of the big 3 companies in this business in Canada and they all provide the same services.

Possibly, if the Google ads are advertising somethign like other Canadian phone businesses, I would say yes. But it just depends on the content of the ads.

 

[xvxmatthewxvx]

Sorry for keep replying so much. Not trying to be annoying.

Do you mean if the ads advertised Rogers or Telus or another company in the same business it WOULD be illegal or it would NOT be illegal? I wasn't clear on what you last said.

Thanks

 

[DebX420]

Haha. It wont be illegal either way you go, but if you're down talking the company, and have ads for them on your site, it kind of makes it pointless :P If you can choose your ads [IM NOT SURE HOW GOOGLE ADS WORK] I would suggest avertising other companies that do the same sort of business.

But say you down talk Sony with a site, Ihatesony.com and then on the ads, it talks about buying PS3s and Sony TVs, it contradicts what the site's about, know what I mean?

 

[xvxmatthewxvx]

Got it. Last question for you if you don't mind.
Are you absolutely sure about this? I will still ask other's opinions. (Nothing personal, just better to be safe than sorry)

Looking forwards to the threat letters! Will be the highlight of each day!

 

[DebX420]

Yea, I mean freedom of speech covers this too I would suppose, but, if you got the extra money, to be 100% sure, I would buy like iahtebellca.com or something, since .coms are world wide

EDIT: Did a quick reveiew of your post, only thing you will have some problems with is the logos and mascots, you could easily make or find someone to make a mock version of their logo or mascot

 

[xvxmatthewxvx]

Yeah exactly. Thanks again.

But for now the .ca is perfect as its a Canadian company and its safe to say pretty much only Canadians will be searching this. So for Google Canada users it will be right up there in the search results.

Ok thanks for your advice! Appreciated. I'll give you some rep points although rep points from me don't mean much.

Thanks.

 

[Ronald Regging]

These types of sites have usually been protected in UDRPs, but not always... And there is at least one case where it says that the right to freedom of speech trumps any claims of commercial usage...

However, companies still like to come after people for making these types of sites. So it's not really an issue of whether or not you have the right to do it, it's an issue of whether or not you have the means to defend that right.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Is it really that important to weigh your disdain with the Bell company vs PPC revenue. "Suck" sites have been protect free speach. But if the purpose of teh suck site is for commercial gain (and can be proven), then it may be viewed as a site just to generate revenue (IE- looking for a loophole to make money, but hide behind "Free Speach" arguements).

 

[IAmAllanShore]

UDRP at WIPO is not your only concern, of course, but it is interesting reading:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html

1.3 Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark? (“sucks cases”)

Majority view: A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. Confusing similarity has been found because the domain name contains a trademark and a dictionary word; or because the disputed domain name is highly similar to the trademark; or because the domain name may not be recognized as negative; or because the domain name may be viewed by non-fluent English language speakers, who may not recognize the negative connotations of the word that is attached to the trademark.

Relevant decisions:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale D2000-0662, Transfer
A & F Trademark, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Justin Jorgensen D2001-0900, Transfer
Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu D2003-0465, Transfer
Wachovia Corporation v. Alton Flanders D2003-0596 among others, Transfer

Minority view: A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is not confusingly similar because Internet users are not likely to associate the trademark holder with a domain name consisting of the trademark and a negative term.

Relevant decisions:
Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Dan Parisi D2000-1015, Denied
McLane Company, Inc. v. Fred Craig D2000-1455, Denied
America Online, Inc. v. Johuathan Investments, Inc., and Aollnews.com D2001-0918, Transfer, Denied in Part