A one person UDRP panel just rejected the complaint of the national fast food company Chick-fil-A, on the domain name chickfilafoundation.com.
Jason Selvig and Davram Stiefler, two Brooklyn-based comedians and social commentators, owned the domain and operated it as a parody website against the fast food company, that was thrust in the national spotlight this year for its stance against gay marriage.
The complaint was filed by Chick-fil-A’s parent company, CFA Properties, Inc. CFA Properties, Inc. which owns and operates Chick-fil-A, the Atlanta-based fast-food chain.
The complaint was filed in September with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) against the owners of the website ChickfilaFoundation.com, claiming that the website’s domain name was confusingly similar to the Chick-fil-A trademark, and was registered and used in bad faith.
The Brooklyn based law firm of Lewis & Lin defended the domain holders.
“ChickfilaFoundation.com is a website featuring satirical videos, parodies and written content intended to critique the controversy surrounding Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s stated opposition to gay marriage. ”
“The website contained a “coupon” for a free chicken sandwich to customers renouncing their homosexuality:
“Trade your Homosexuality for a FREE Original Chicken Sandwich!”
The site also included “messages” from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Chick-fil-A’s President and CEO, Dan T. Cathy.
According to David Lin, lead attorney for the website owners, the domain name is perfectly legitimate parody. “The whole point of parody websites is to lead readers to briefly think that the website is perhaps coming from the company, and then realize that the message is a larger criticism and social commentary,” says Lin. “Chick-fil-A’s trademark doesn’t mean they have a right to silence legitimate commentary about their brand.”
“While trademark law protects corporations from infringement, corporations can’t use trademark law to squelch free speech made through parody and satire, which is what is occurred in this case,” says Lin. The World Intellectual Property Organization agreed: “The Panel is not persuaded here that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name has been shown to be for purposes of capitalizing on Complainant’s trademark.”
Lin continues, “This case is a prime example of a huge corporation trying to bully those who speak out against its business practices. The website owners engaged in legitimate, protected free speech about Chick-fil-A’s stance on gay marriage. Chick-fil-A should be ashamed of their efforts to silence lawful criticism.”
The decision give a detailed analysis of what qualifies as a parody site.
…