Legal issues of a website such as [businessname]sucks.com
<p><em>What kinds of legal issues do websites such as [businessname]sucks.com have in terms of copyright infringement, libel and defamation, and/or other issues?</em></p>

<p>Let's say there is a website called [businessname]sucks.com. (See my example of walmartsucks.org below)</p>

<p>The domain [businessname]sucks.com is registered to a US citizen (private registration), and the website hosted in the US. The site allows users from the general public from the US and internationally. The [businessname] company is US-based, with a trademark on the name.</p>

<p>The site posts are written critiques and complaints and allegations about [businessname] by the website and domain owner; the general public can also contribute complaints and allegations.</p>

<p>The [businessname]sucks.com site will not use the [businessname]'s logo, and will have a clear disclaimer stating the [businessname]sucks.com is not owned or authorized by [businessname].</p>

<p>The TOS will state that the purpose of the site is to provide feedback and an outlet for complaints about [businessname] that are not allowed on the Is a site such as on the [businessname]'s own site.</p>

<p><strong>1:</strong> Does such a site [businessname]sucks.com fall under Protected Speech?</p>

<p><strong>2:</strong> Can the [businessname] force the owner of the domain [businessname]sucks.com to relinquish the domain and in effect, take down the site? And/or does the [businessname] have recourse against the web-hosting company, a third party that simply hosts the website?</p>

<p><strong>3:</strong> If there are clear instances of libel or defamation by a public user, who is liable? The website owner who allowed the instances to be posted? Or the member of the public who posted the instance?</p>

<p><strong>Example:</strong> </p>

<p><a href="http://walmartsucks.org" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WalmartSucks</a> </p>

<p>or at </p>

<p><a href="http://walmartsucksorg.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Walmart Purposefully Ripping Off Customers</a></p>

<p>That site clearly shows the site owner and complaints and allegations by the general public (using their real names). The site is hosted by Google. The domain registration information (not private) is at <a href="http://www.whois.com/whois/walmartsucks.org" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Whois</a>.</p>

<p>One possible point of difference is that the owner of the domain resides in Canada; Walmart does business in Canada, as well as Google, the web host.</p>

<p><strong>Edit 11/08/16</strong></p>

<p>Just came across this (though it is 6 years old at this point): </p>

<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/gripe-site-prevails-in-domain-cybersquatting-case/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gripe site prevails in domain cybersquatting case</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A gripe site that incorporates a company's entire trademark into its
  domain is still protected under the First Amendment, a US District
  Judge has ruled. In the case of Career Agents Network v.
  careeragentsnetwork.biz, the judge said that the gripe site made no
  effort to bolster its own business and was noncommercial, therefore
  protecting it from Career Agents Network's trademark claims and
  cybersquatting accusations.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And, another site mentioned in the article <a href="http://Goldmansachs666.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Goldmansachs666</a> is still up and running.</p>

<p>I'm not sure about USA law, it's probably similar to UK law. In the UK a trademark is registered for a particular business activity, and you can't just blanket register for "all" activities as that would be anti-competitive. I have a trademark "Dreamcraft" for dream interpretation and related activities. However, the name "Dreamcraft" is also a registered trademark for a company selling luxury yachts, and again for a company selling up-market craft materials. A website or organisation that is a gripe-site using the same name would not be in breach of any of these trademarks because it wouldn't be in direct competition with any of these companies.</p>

<p>Assuming jurisdiction is in the US:<br><br>
<b>1.</b> The site's content (assuming it were true) would likely fall under first amendment protection in the US. The site would not run afoul of trademark laws, as it is unlikely to cause customer confusion. There might be some other law at work here that could cause problems.  <br><br>
<b>2.</b> Not that I know of, but I could be wrong. If [businessname] has no recourse against [businessname]sucks.com, it certainly has no recourse against the domain registrar.   <br><br>
<b>3.</b> Probably not. The law which governs here is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(47 U.S. Code § 230(c)(1) accessed from <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230</a>)</p>

<p>This has generally been held to preclude actions for defamation against websites for user-created content.</p>

copyright internet trademark defamation