[*]Associate Editor, Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review.

[1]See Ian Brodie, Surfers Seek Vengeance on Corporate Enemies, Times(London), May 10, 1999, § (Business).

[2] U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2000).

[3]See 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a); 2 Gilson, Trademark Protection & Practice § 5.11(2)(2000).

[4]See 6 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 31:148 (4th ed. 2000)("Based on the principle that trademark law cannot be used to suppress criticism of a company or product, it is not appropriate to use trademark law as a weapon against criticism of a company on the Internet, as with the use of the 'yourcompanysucks' type of domain name for consumer websites devoted to criticizing the acts and policies of 'Your Company.'").

[5] F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1162 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

[6]The URL address of the Bally Sucks site was "www.compupix.com/ballysucks", with the domain name being "www.compupix.com" and the sub domain being "ballysucks". See Bally, 29 F. Supp 2d at 1162.

[7]Bally, 29 F. Supp 2d at 1165.

[8]See id. at 1166.

[9]See id. at 1165.

[10]See id.

[11]No. 98-274, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, at *5; 42 U.S.P.Q.2D 1430 (D.N.J. March 6, 1998).

[12]See Jews For Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282, 296 (D.N.J. 1998) ("Considering the domain name used by the Defendant is nearly identical to the Mark and the name of the Plaintiff Organization, it is likely that Internet users will conclude that the Mark, the name of the Plaintiff Organization and the domain name used by the Defendant share a 'common source, affiliation, connection or sponsorship.' As such, under the facts of this case, the phrase 'jewforjesus' in the domain name used by the Defendant appears to be confusingly similar to the Mark."); see also Bally, 29 F. Supp 2d at 1164("'Sucks' has entered the vernacular as a word loaded with criticism. Faber has superimposed this word over Bally's mark. It is impossible to see Bally's mark without seeing the word 'sucks.' Therefore, the attachment cannot be considered a minor change.").

[13]See 836 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1987).

[14]See Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1167 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

[15]See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2000); 2 Gilson, supra note 3, § 5.11(2).

[16]See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(4)(2000).

[17]See 4 McCarthy, supra note 4, § 24:97.2; 2 Gilson, supra note 3, § 5.11(9).

[18]See Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1166-67 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

[19]See id. at 1167. Because defendant's other websites, also on compupix.com, contained pornographic photos, see id at. 1162, if the defendant's use was found to be in commerce, dilution probably would have been found. See Adam Silberlight, Comment: Www.How To Be A Master Of Your Domain.Com: A Look At The Assignment Of Internet Domain Names Under Federal Trademark Laws, Federal Case Law And Beyond, 10 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 229, 257 (2000).

[20]See id.

[21]See Planned Parenthood Federation Of America, Inc., v. Bucci, No. 98-274, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, at *18-19; 42 U.S.P.Q.2D 1430 (D.N.J. March 6, 1998).

[22]See id.

[23]See id. at *2-4.

[24]See id. at *18-19.

[25]See Jews For Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282, 308 (D.N.J. 1998).

[26]See Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1167 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

[27]See id.

[28]See id. at 1166-67.

[29]See Planned Parenthood Federation Of America, Inc., v. Bucci, No. 98-274, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, at *16; 42 U.S.P.Q.2D 1430 (D.N.J. March 6, 1998).

[30]See Id. at *20-21. The court reasoned that "defendant simply ignores the fact that he has done more than merely register a domain name; he has created a home page that uses plaintiff's mark as its address, conveying the impression to Internet users that plaintiff is the sponsor of defendant's web site." Id.

[31]See id.

[32]See 2 Gilson, supra note 3, § 5.11(9).

[33]See Bally, 29 F. Supp. 2d at 1166-67, citing 141 Cong. Rec. S 19306-10 (daily ed. Dec. 29, 1995).

[34]See Planned Parenthood Federation Of America, Inc., v. Bucci, No. 98-274, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, at *5-8; 42 U.S.P.Q.2D 1430 (D.N.J. March 6, 1998); Jews For Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282, 291 (D.N.J. 1998).

[35]See Planned Parenthood, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, at *4 ("Once a user accesses Bucci's home page, she sees on the computer screen the words 'Welcome to the PLANNED PARENTHOOD HOME PAGE!'").

[36]See Bally, 29 F. Supp. 2d at 1164.

[37]See 2 Gilson, supra note 3, § 5.11(9); 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2000).

[38]See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2000); 4 McCarthy, supra note 4, § 25:78.

[39]See 2 Gilson, supra note 3, § 5.11(9)(" Genuine gripe sites are protected under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which uses as its touchstone the domain name registrant's bad faith intention to profit from another's trademark.").

[40]See id.

[41]See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(B)(i)(IV)(2000).

[42]See Panavision International v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998).

[43]See Andrew Hartman, YourCompanySucks.Com: The Next Domain Name Problem, Chicago Tribune, November 2, 1999, § N (View) at 1.

[44]Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.Com, 95 F. Supp. 2d 528, 535-36(E.D. Va. 2000).

[45] U.S.C. § 1125(d)(ii)(2000).

[46]See Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1164 (C.D. Cal. 1998). ("'Sucks' has entered the vernacular as a word loaded with criticism. Faber has superimposed this word over Bally's mark. It is impossible to see Bally's mark without seeing the word 'sucks.' Therefore, the attachment cannot be considered a minor change.").

[47]See id. at 1165(C.D. Cal. 1998)("[T]he average Internet user may want to receive all the information available on Bally. The user may want to access the official Internet site to see how Bally sells itself. Likewise, the user may also want to be apprised of the opinions of others about Bally. This individual will be unable to locate sites containing outside commentary unless those sites include Bally's marks in the machine readable code upon which search engines rely. Prohibiting Faber from using Bally's name in the machine readable code would effectively isolate him from all but the most savvy of Internet users."); see also 2 Gilson, supra note 3, § 5.11(9).

[48]See Andrew Hartman, YourCompanySucks.Com: The Next Domain Name Problem, Chicago Tribune, November 2, 1999, § N (View) at 1 ("Domain name pirates have had a heyday with this latest venture, registering unflattering URLs such as 'YourCompanySucks.com' or 'IHateYourCompany.com.' A recent Internet search retrieved more than 4,800 of these insulting monikers.").

[49]See David Segal and Caroline E. Mayer, Sites for Sore Consumers, Complaints About Companies Multiply on the Web, The Washington Post, March 28, 1999, § A at A01("A year later www.dunkindonuts.org is a hotbed of doughnut discontent, a cyber-bulletin board packed with unhappy tales about coffee, crullers and cinnamon buns. Among the site's most avid followers: executives at the company's Randolph, Mass., headquarters, who occasionally send coupons and mollifying e-mail to disgruntled consumers."); Ian Brodie, Surfers Seek Vengeance on Corporate Enemies, Times(London), May 10, 1999, § (Business)("The sites have the potential to revolutionise the consumer movement, according to Ralph Nader, doyen of American customers' rights advocates. He says that, for the first time, aggrieved members of the public have a way of connecting with others who feel mistreated. The sites can be done well or poorly, but in general are filling an important vacuum, Mr. Nader says. Among other things, they could be developed to organise boycotts, and co-ordinate lawsuits.").