`
`Serial Number 77392923
`
`REQUEST
`
`Appellant requests if the Board needs any declaration statements for
`length of use financial and specimen that Appellant be allowed to
`to provide them.
`
`Respectfully
`
`flaw /»2.4¥;.,/V
`
`Shawn M. Lynch August 12"‘ 2011
`
`HlllllllllllllllHlllHHIHlllllllllllllfllllllf
`
`08-13-2011
`
`‘J
`
`13 Patem.
`
`.& TM£I{c./TM M511 P..;_;.t U1
`
`3'32
`
`
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Serial No. 77892923
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`Shawn M. Lynch
`P.O. Box 71
`
`Cottonwood, AZ 86326
`602-445-6267
`
`BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
`
`Appellant is responding to the Ofiice Action Dated May 17, 2011.
`
`At this juncture Appellant advises , Appellant is responding to the
`
`entirety of the Oflice Action , its Refiisals and its Authorities Supporting
`
`those Refusals.
`
`At this juncture Appellant advises , a New Area of Trademark Boundaries
`
`will be studied and explored. Appellant expects The Justices to thoroughly
`
`investigate these Trademark Boundaries making an Unleashed and
`
`Introspective in Totality, Sets of Findings and Rulings which can be
`
`fiiture questioned but will remain solid upon any attack.
`
`THANK YOU
`
`
`
`
`
`The May 17'“, 2011 Oflice Action States INTERIORSUSA.NET has had only
`
`10,170 visitors, At this date August 12 2011 it has had 12,086 visitors, That
`
`means there have been 1916 More visitors to the site, For Private Purchases.
`
`THANK YOU
`
`APPELLANTS RESPONSE TO THE EN'I'IRETY OF THE OFFICE
`
`ACTION IT'S REFUSALS AND ITS AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING
`
`THOSE REFUSALS.
`
`Appellant provides the Definitive Terms which lead tothe refiisals.
`
`1. A Great Identifier of Services or of Goods and Services
`
`2. Individual Components Retaining their Descriptive Meaning
`
`Composites, Create a Unitary Mark with _I@1g_e Incongruous and
`
`or Otherwise Non Descriptive Meaningjsl in Relation to Services or
`
`of Goods and Services
`
`3. Double Entendre or Triple , Quadruple Entendre Must be Well
`
`Recognized by the Public.
`
`
`
`4. Top Level Domain (TLD) “._1‘_l_E_I” Merely Indicates an Internet
`
`Address for the Intended use by an Internet Business, and in General,
`
`Adds No Source Identifying Significance
`
`5. Acquired Distinctiveness of Mark a Mark is Merely Descriptive if it
`
`Describes an Ingredient, Quality, Characteristic, Function, Feature,
`
`Purpose or Use of the Specified Goods and/or Services.
`
`INTERIORSUSA.NET
`
`Appellants Explanation for Theory
`
`lnteriorsusa.net Sounds like the Examining Attorney Described it,
`
`Sounding Like Something, and Being Something Else, is Completely
`
`Different.
`
`On the Front Page of INTERlORSUSA.NET There are Divisions,
`
`Interiors Japan, Interiors Europe, Interiors Canada, Interiors Australia
`
`Int. New Zealand.
`
`On the About us page it States More Than a Thousand Categories
`3
`
`
`
`From Around the World, With Japanese and European Treasures
`
`for Your Home Stating in English, French , and Japanese Which is on the
`
`Front Page, Also 10 of the Products on the Rotating Gif on all Pages
`
`are From Oriental and European Countries, More than 10 Countries
`
`Products are in the Database Including, Sweden , Portugal, France,
`
`Spain, Australia, and of Course IN'I'ERIORSUSA.NET is in the Center
`
`of Every Page TRADEMARK including the information, connection.
`
`.NET or NET in the Last Part of the 20”‘ Century and the 21"‘ Century
`
`Has Taken on a Completely New Identity, its Not Only Animal Net
`
`Anymore.
`
`The Net (Web, Internet), Enables? Encompasses Almost The Entire
`
`World it is an ENTITY That Enables The Transfer of Information
`
`INTERIORSUSA.NET IS SELLING AND TRANSFERRING HUGE
`
`AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC NOT NORMALLY
`
`AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC,
`
`
`
`Here we Have a Great Identifier of Services and or Goods and Services
`
`Individual Components do not Retain Their Descriptive
`Meaning
`
`The Composite Creates a Unitary Mark With Unique
`lncongruous or Otherwise Non Descriptive Meaning
`in Relation to Goods and or Services
`
`The Double, Triple,Quadruple Entendre is Recognized
`
`The TLD has Everything to do With the Description
`
`The Acquired Distinctiveness of the Mark has Nothing
`to do With the Above Described Definitions
`
`IN'I'ERIORSUSA.NET IS A PROCESSOR AND
`TRANSFERER OF HUGE AMOUNTS OF
`
`INFORMATION IN
`
`ALMOST ALL AREAS OF THE WORLD THROUGH
`THE N_E_i_1‘, THE WORLD WIDE WEB THE
`INTERNET.
`
`.COM, .ORG, .BIZ. ARE ALL TLD'S THAT DON'T
`DESCRIBE THE WORLD WIDE WEB THE
`INTERNET. THEY DESCRIBE COMPUTERS,
`NON PROFIT ORGINIZATION AND BUSINESS
`
`IN THE FACTS of the above INTERIORSUSA.NET is a WORLDWIDE
`
`GREAT Identifier of INFORMATION , GOODS AND OR SERVICES.
`5
`
`
`
`ITS COMPOSITE Creates a Unitary Mark as Highly Described Above
`
`and, in the Attachments Showing Unique Incongflous or otherwise’
`
`Non descriptive Meaning in Relation to _G_ogd_s and or §gr_v1_‘c_e_§
`
`INFORMATION TRANSFER . ;_S_e5 US Supreme Court Definition of
`
`_I_n_t_gr_n_e_t: Page 1 - 7
`
`INTERIORSUSA.NET MEANS HUGE TRANSEER‘ OF
`
`INFORMATION FROM ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD
`
`IT DESERVES REGESTRY WITH THE U.S.P.T.O.
`
`WITH RESPECT TO THE JUSTICE
`
` m
`
`SHAWN M LYNCH August 12”‘, 2011
`
`ATTACHMENTS;
`
`US SUPREME COURT DEFINITIONS OF INTERNET (NET)
`
`
`
`'K)
`
`Images VICIEOS Maps News anopplng uman ITIOTG
`9
`
`sign in
`
`Everything
`
`Images
`
`Videos
`
`News
`
`Shopping
`
`M076
`
`Cottonwood, A7.
`Change location
`
`All resuitis
`Related searches
`Timeline
`
`More search tools
`
`US supreme court definition of Internet
`
`X
`
`About 52,400,000 results (0.10 seconds)
`
`Advanced search
`
`Obscenity - Wikigedia, the free encyclopedia
`en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity - Cached
`Jump to U.S. activity and court cases dealing with obscenity: United States (1957),
`the Supreme Court
`This definition was not very ACLU (1997), the Supreme
`Court struck down indecency laws applying to the Internet.
`
`Children's Internet Protection Act - Wikigedia, the free encyclogedia
`
`en.wiklpedia.org/wiki/ChlIdren's_lnternet_Protection_Act — Cached
`The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires that K-12 schools and
`
`Show more results from wikipedia.org
`
`Natural Born Citizen
`naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ — Cached
`The us Supreme Court Center at Justia.oom is the leading resource on the
`intemet which publishes United states Supreme court decisions.
`The US
`Supreme court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-bom citizen as stated
`in
`
`Internet legal definition of Internet. Internet synonyms by the
`Iegal—dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Internet - Cached
`521 U.S.
`Definition of Internet in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English
`844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997), the Supreme Court found
`
`nternet Sales Tax Fairness | The New Rules Proiect
`vvww.newrules.org/retaiI/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness — Cached
`Internet Sales Tax Fairness. In a 1992 decision. Quill v. North Dakota. the U.S.
`Supreme Court ruled that retailers are exempt from collecting sales taxes
`
`Prosecuting Obscenity - Pornography In The U.S. Supreme Court
`
`wvvw.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/.../supremehtml - Cached
`Since the spring of 2002, the us. Supreme Court has decided several cases
`block access to pornographic (but not necessarily obscene) intemet sites.
`1996
`which broadened the definition of child pornography to include images of
`
`US Supreme Court Definition
`religiousnaturalism.info/subpage11.htm| - Cached
`Internet Links for RN Email Contacts Other. US Supreme Court Definition of
`religion condensed from the Law Encyclopedia: ‘To determine whether an action
`of
`
`Regulation of Child Pornograghy on the Internet - United States
`wvvw.cyber-rights.org/reports/uscases.htm - Cached
`The US Supreme Court has overthrown a congressional ban on virtual paedophilia.
`The new legislation expands the definition of child pornography.
`
`How is Obscenity Regulated on the Internet? | Lega|Zoom
`vvww.legalzoom.com/us-law/freedom.../how-is-obscenity-regulated - Cached
`How is Obscenity Regulated on the intemet? Find out at LegaIZoom.com.
`Gonzales, the supreme Court affinned the constitutionality of a federal ban on
`intemet
`to the "community" definition for the Supreme Court's Miller Test.
`
`
`
`.»
`
`Th F
`Di tio
`© e me C
`"ltemet
`?
`wordy]
`3,089,341,625 visitors served.
`V _ _»
`__
`7
`_V >_
`£2 $8“? with O
`I
`Financial
`)ictionaryI' Medical" T" L’@aI'
`I Acronyms I
`ldiomsj Encyclopedia , Wiklpedia
`dictionary I
`dictionary
`hesaurus .
`dictionary
`I
`I
`encyclopediai
`E
`
`G
`le
`Bi
`new 0 O09 O "9
`
`?
`
`ternetEE§ Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Medical, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wiklpedia, Hutchinson
`3x Communications
`Ads by Google
`g Page tools
`printer friend|M
`horra mas de $900‘ con Coxl Nuevo Cox Bundle 30-30-30
`M’-°°*“'A"“9°-°°'"
`Cite / link
`llllllo Wireless Broadband
`Ema."
`gn Up For Vlfireless Broadband Starting At $9/Mo. No Contractl
`~—— —~— — —i
`-w.topicologi'st.com/Broadband
`
`F
`
`New: Language fort
`24K
`0
`
`Like
`
`0.01 5
`
`Feedback
`Add definition
`
`F —- Pi
`
` 3W_fiE
`eat Rates on High-Speed lntemet, Phone & TV. Order Easily Online!
`w.TDSTeIecom.com
`
`.
`
`,
`
`"
`
`‘
`
`g.
`
`ta ‘
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`,
`
`"A.
`
`. , it
`
`,,
`
`L:
`
`gs ,, _.
`
`;i,
`
`(Gt,
`
`jg ‘
`
`V.
`
`Ioiidwide Telecommunications network of business, govemment, and personal computers.
`
`2 Internet is a network of computers linking the United States with the rest of the world.
`ginally developed as a way for U.S. research scientists to communicate with each other, by the
`1990s the Internet had beoorne a popular form of telecommunication for personal computer
`irs. The dramatic growth in the number of persons using the network heralded the most
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`-ortant change in telecommunications since the introduction of television in the late 1940s.
`Never, the sudden popularity of a new, unregulated communications technology raised many
`ies for U.S. law.
`
`2 Internet, popularly called the Net, was created in 1969 for the U.S. Defense Department.
`iding from the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) allowed researchers to
`-eriment with methods for computers to communicate with each other. Their creation, the
`ianced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), originally linked only four separate
`iputer sites at U.S. universities and research institutes. where it was used primarily by
`antists.
`
`we early 1970s. other countries began to join ARPANET, and within a decade it was widely
`essible to researchers, administrators, and students throughout the world. The National
`snce Foundation (NSF) assumed responsibility for linking these users of ARPANET, which
`5 dismantled in 1990. The NSF Network (NSFNE1') now serves as the technical backbone for
`nternet communications in the United States.
`
`2 Internet grew at a fast pace in the 1990s as the general population discovered the power of
`new medium. A significant portion of the Net's content is written text, in the tom of both
`:tronic mail (E-Mail) and articles posted in an electronic discussion forum known as the Usenet
`vs groups. In the mid-1990s the appearance of the World Wide Web made the lntemet even
`"e popular. The World Vlfide Web is a multimedia interface that allows for the transmission of
`:, pictures, audio, and video together, known as web pages, which commonly resemble pages
`. magazine. Together. these various elements have made the lntemet a medium for
`imunication and for the retrieval of infonnation on virtually any topic.
`
`2 sudden growth of the lntemet caught the legal system unprepared. Before 1996, Congress
`I passed little legislation on this form of telecommunication. In 1986, Congress passed the
`ctronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) (18 U.S.C.A. § 2701 et seq. (19961), which made
`egal to read private e-mail. The ECPA extended most of the protection already granted to
`ventional mail to electronic mail. Just as the post office may not read private letters. neither
`
`1 the providers ofprivate bulletin boards, on-line services, or Internet access. However, law
`
`orcement agencies can subpoena e-mail in a criminal investigation. The ECPA also permits
`oloyers to read their workers‘ e-mail. This provision was intended to protect companies against
`.istrial spying, but it has generated lawsuits from employees who objected to the invasion of
`r privacy. Federal courts, however, have allowed employers to secretly monitor an employee's
`nail on a company—owned computer system, concluding that employees have no reasonable
`ectation of privacy when they use company e-mail.
`
`IOULD THE INTERNET Bis POl.l__C_ED?
`
`v obsenrers could have predicted the fuss that the Internet began to generate in political and
`al circles in the mid-1990s. Alter all. the global computer network linking 160 countries was
`ed relentlessly in the media in the early 1990s. It spawned a multimillion-dollar industry in
`irnet services and a publishing empire devoted to the online experience~—-not to mention
`lywood movies, newspaper columns, and new jargon. But the honeymoon did not last. Like
`er communications media before it, the Internet provoked controversy about what was actually
`t across it. Federal and state lawmakers proposed crackdowns on its content. Prosecutors
`< aim at its users. Civil liberties orouos fought back. As the various factions enoaoed in a tuo-of
`
`iii.-'.' lililmlin : mflil-liiii,~i‘i'i"iaiiiii;‘~t-in l} tit mu!
`;.,,mL_W_ l.mlMm immlw/_ mtmk mm ‘,4 M
`
`‘til i»M§ir.i!r‘il.~: hi ,~.'»l. time i.iii'_l,i!llrli{-: s
`» §
`
`I
`iwii‘
`
`W,” ,
`W M, M,,,,,_,m
`Advertisement (Bad banner? Please let us kno
`
`Related Ads
`
`- Business Internet
`- Internet Provider
`- Internet Services
`- Cable Internet
`- DSL Internet
`
`- Internet Vo|P
`- Comcast Internet
`- Internet Internet
`- 02 Internet
`- Foto Internet
`
`I
`
`I I
`
`I,
`
`I My WW“ List
`Add current page to the list
`
`lconrgfrnlcn mil
`Mrlini.-.
`
`.
`
` -
`
`
`“iii”-Ms aimllejfii im it mural my lit‘ ‘
`
`Advertisement (Bad banner? Pleaseiletfluskno
`
`i Chamy _
`I
`‘W
`
`,
`I A“ 2
`
`
`
`Feed a hungry child -
`_ «ldonate to school feeding
`program
`
`T
`
`
`
`
`
`Advertisement (Bad banner’? Please let us kno
`
`.-..-..- -.- -..
`..-.,..-_-- -. ._._-._, -. -..--.
`_- .-§-..-..--.,
`'a'hEr";iiu}ri}.tiéi;{3'aEahéa'up-'7 Although this question became heateddunng the early- to
`-1990s, it has remained a debated issue into the early 2000s.
`
`'e than three decades after Defense Department contractors put it up, the network remains
`a from official control. This system has no central governing authority for a very good reason:
`general public was never intended to use it. its designers in the late 1960s were scientists.
`reral years later, academics and students around the world got access to it. in the 1990s,
`ions of people in U.S. businesses and homes signed on. Before the public signed on its
`clecessors had long since developed a kind of lntemet culture——essentially, a freewheeling,
`thing-goes setting. The opening of the lntemet to everyone from citizens to corporations
`aessarily ruptured this formerly closed society, and conflicts appeared.
`
`each rights quickly became a hot topic of debate. The lntemet is a communications medium,
`I people have raised objections to speech online just as they have to speech in the real world.
`i lntemet allows for a variety of media——text, pictures, movies, and sound—and Pornography is
`rndantly accessible online in all these forms. It is commonly "posted" as coded information to a
`tof the lntemet called Usenet, a public issues forum that is used primarily for discussions. With
`r 10,000 topic areas, called news groups, Usenet literally caters to the world's panoply of
`rests and tastes. Certain news groups are devoted entirely to pornography. As the speed of
`lntemet increased dramatically with the development of broadband access in the late 1990s
`I early 2000s, not only has more of this type of infonnation become more available, but also
`are have been able to access this information in greater quantity.
`
`/eral signs in 1994 predicted a legal crackdown on the Internet. Early on, U.S. attorney general
`et Reno said criminal investigators were exploring the originators of online Child Pornography.
`uly 1994, federal prosecutors won an Obscenig conviction in Tennessee against the
`:rators of a computer bulletin board system (BBS) called the Amateur Action BBS, a private
`n subscription service. Quickly becoming a cause celebre in the online world, the case raised
`question of how far off a general lntemet crackdown could be.
`
`Jecember 1994, a college student's fiction raised a furor. Jake Baker, a sophomore in
`uistics at the University of Michigan. published a story about sexual torture in the
`sex.stories news group on Usenet. its lurid detail was not unique in the news group, but
`iething else was: Baker used the name of a female classmate for one of his fictional victims.
`:e the name was recognized, campus critics of pornography lashed out at Baker.
`
`<er‘s case demonstrated how seriously objections to Internet material would be taken. In
`uary 1995, the University of Michigan opened an investigation, and soon, Federal Bureau of
`estigation agents began reviewing Bakers E-Mail. Baker insisted he meant no harm,
`gesting that he wanted to be a creative writer. He even submitted to a psychological profile,
`ch determined that he posed no danger to the student named in his story or to anyone else.
`on February 9, 1995, federal authorities arrested him. He was charged with five counts of
`1g inter—state communications to make threats to injure-—and kidnap-—another person. Lacking
`' specific target for Baker's alleged threats, yet armed with allegedly incriminating e-mail,
`secutors charged that he was dangerous to other university students. The American Civil
`erties Union (ACLU) came to his aid. arguing in an amicus brief that the accusations were
`eless and moreover violated Baker's First Amendment rights. A U.S. district oourtjudge threw
`the case.
`
`2 U.S. Senate had its own ideas about online speech. In February 1995, Senator J. James
`in (D-NE) introduced the Communications Decency Act (8. 314. 104th Cong., 1st Sess.
`35]). Targeting ”obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" electronic communications, the
`called for two-year prison sentences and fines of up to $100,000 for anyone who makes such
`terial available to anyone under the age of 18. In its original form, the bill would have
`ablished broad criminal liability: users, online services, and the hundreds of small businesses
`viding Internet accounts would all be required to keep their messages, stories, postings, and e-
`I decent. After vigorous protest from access providers. the bill was watered down to protect
`11: they would not be held liable unless they knowingly provided indecent material.
`
`reral groups lined up to stop the Decency Act. Opposition came from civil liberties groups
`uding the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Computer Professionals for
`:ial Responsibility, as well as from online services and lntemet access providers. They argued
`i the bill sought to criminalize speech that is constitutionally protected under the First
`endment.
`
`rough Congress eventually outlawed obscene and other forms of indecent sexual material on
`lntemet in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.A. § 223, the statute was
`llenged immediately. In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329,
`l L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997), the Supreme Court found that most of the statute's provisions violated
`First Amendment. Congress subsequently sought to focus its attention on legislation that
`scribes the transmission of child pomography. though the Supreme Court in a series of cases
`1d that these statutes were likewise unconstitutional.
`
`2 central concern in Reno and the subsequent cases was that Congress has prohibited
`stitutionally protected speech in addition to speech that is not afforded First Amendment
`tection. Some members of Congress and supporters of such leoislation suooested that
`
`
`
`ujaé ail}; iiiai siiiariiiétitsii "iii;ir'i's"a5ii}<;.$ri:;iie'i5i‘.3iiiiH£e}lj£i;a'iiie' é{;;;i”e‘n{é‘t:6t3ri ieéaiiéd inié
`cise conclusion.
`
`tough the debate about whether the government should regulate pornography and other
`cane material continued, much of the focus about Internet policing shifted to other issues that
`>lve the Internet. One important issue has been how the government can protect C_ogyr_igl_1t
`I other Intellectual Progegy owners from Piracy that is somewhat common on the medium.
`ither major issue is how the government can prevent the dissemination of unwanted
`ertising, usually sent through e-mail and commonly referred to as spam. Likewise, computer
`ses have caused millions of dollars of damages to computer owners in the United States and
`ldwide in the 1990s and 2000s, and most of these viruses have been distributed through the
`irnet.
`
`1y lntemet users, some of whom may otherwise object to government regulation of the
`ziium, view governmental regulation that protects users from such problems as piracy, viruses,
`l spam more favorably than other forms of regulation. Nevertheless, even regulation of
`nguter Crime raises issues, such as whether such regulation may violate users‘ First
`endment rights or how government regulation protecting against these harms can be effective.
`the Internet continues to develop, and even as the medium gradually becomes more
`idardized, these questions largely remain unanswered.
`
`rther readings
`
`ndall, Robert W., and James H. Alleman, eds. 2002. Broadband: Should We Regulate High-
`aed Internet Access? Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
`
`leral Trade Commission. 1999. Self-Regulation and Privacy Oniine: A Report to Congress.
`shington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission.
`
`ass-references
`
`Ell.
`
`ninal activity on the Internet generally falls into the category of Computer Crime. It includes so-
`ed hacking, or breaking into computer systems, stealing account passwords and credit-card
`nbers, and illegally copying Intellectual Property. Because personal computers can easily copy
`-rmation——including everything from software to photographs and books—-and the information
`be sent anywhere in the world quickly, it has become much more difficult for Copyright
`iers to protect their property.
`
`zlic and legislative attention, especially in the mid to late 1990s, focused on Internet content,
`ecifically sexually explicit material. The distribution of Pornography became a major concern in
`1990s, as private individuals and businesses found an unregulated means of giving away or
`ing pornographic images. As hard-core and Child Pornography proliferated, Congress sought
`npose restrictions on obscene and indecent content on the lntemet.
`
`996, Congress responded to concerns that indecent and obscene materials were freely
`ributed on the Internet by passing the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as part of the
`ecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. This law forbade the
`-wing dissemination of obscene and indecent material to persons under the age of 18 through
`iputer networks or other telecommunications media. The act included penalties for violations
`up to five years imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000.
`
`iAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and onllne lntemet services immediately challenged
`CDA as an unconstitutional restriction on Freedom of Speech. A special three-judge federal
`iel in Pennsylvania agreed with these groups. concluding that the law was overbroad because
`>uld limit the speech of adults in its attempt to protect children. American Civil Liberties Union
`term, 929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
`
`2 government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court aflirmed the three-judge
`rel on a 7-2 vote, finding that the act violated the First Amendment. Reno v. American Civil
`arfies Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 136 L. Ed. 2d 236 (1997). Though the Court
`agnized the "legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from
`harmful materials" on the Internet, it ruled that the CDA abridged freedom of speech and that it
`'efore was unconstitutional.
`
`tice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the sexually explicit
`terials on the Internet range from the "modestly titillating to the hardest core." He concluded,
`irever, that although this material is widely available, "users seldom encounter such content
`identa|ly." In his view, a child would have to have "some sophistication and some ability to
`d to retrieve material and thereby to use the Internet unattended.” He also pointed out that
`terns for personal computers have been developed to help parents limit access to
`actionable material on the Internet and that many commercial web sites have age-verification
`tems in place.
`
`
`
`of concern for the protection of children were inapplicable. The CDA differed from the laws
`I orders upheld in the previous cases in significant ways. The CDA did not allow parents to
`sent to their children's use of restricted materials. and it was not limited to commercial
`isactions. In addition, the CDA failed to provide a definition of "indecent," and its broad
`hibitions were not limited to particular times of the day. Finally, the acts restrictions could not
`analyzed as forms of time, place, and manner regulations because the act was a content-
`ed blanket restriction on speech. Accordingly, it could not survive the First Amendment
`.ilenge.
`
`998, Congress responded to the decision by enacting the Child Online Protection Act (COPA),
`>. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681. This act was narrower in its application than the CDA.
`olying only to commercial transactions and limited to content deemed to be "harmful to minors."
`: new statute was subject to immediate litigation. A federal distn'ct court placed a preliminary
`nction on the application of the statute, and this decision was affinned by the U.S. Court of
`Jeals for the Third Circuit. American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000).
`tough the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision, it was due to procedural grounds rather
`1 the merits of the challenge. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 122 S.
`1700, 152 L. Ed. 2d 771 (2002). On remand, the Third Circuit again affirrned the Injunction,
`sling that that statute likely violated the First Amendment. American Civil Liberties Union v.
`icroft, 322 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2003).
`
`2 questions raised in Reno and subsequent decisions have also been raised in the debate over
`use of lntemet filters. Many schools and libraries, both public and private, have installed filters
`t prevent users from viewing vulgar, obscene, pornographic, or other types of materials
`imed unsuitable by the institution installing the software.
`
`:ACLU. library associations, and other organizations that promote greater access to
`-rmation have objected to the use of these filters, especially in public libraries. The first
`orted case involving libraries and Internet filters occurred in Mainstream Loudon v. Board of
`stees of the London County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998). A Virginia federal
`rt judge in that case ruled that the use of screening software by a library was unconstitutional,
`t restricted adults to materials that the software found suitable for children. Courts have
`lerally been split about his issue, and several have found that the use of these filters in public
`ools is allowed under the First Amendment.
`
`nography is not the only concern of lawmakers and courts regarding potential crime on the
`nrnet. The lntemet has produced forms of Terrorism that threaten the security of business,
`emment, and private computers. Computer "hackers" have defeated computer network
`walls" and have vandalized or stolen electronic data. Another form of terrorism is the
`pagation and distribution over the Internet of computer viruses that can corrupt computer
`ware, hardware, and data files. Many companies now produce virus-checking software that
`rks to screen and disable viruses when they arrive in the form of an e-mail or e-mail file
`ichment. However, computer hackers are constantly inventing new viruses. thus giving the
`see a window of time to wreak havoc before the virus checkers are updated. Moreover, the
`- of viruses has led to hoaxes and panics.
`
`2 of the most infamous viruses, dubbed the Melissa virus. was created in 1999 by David Smith
`lew Jersey. It was sent through a Usenet newsgroup as an attachment to a message the
`ported to provide passwords for sexrelated web sites. when the attachment was opened, it
`cted the user's computer. The program found the users address book and sent a mass
`ssage with attachments containing the virus. Within a few days, it had infected computers
`ass the globe and forced the shutdown of more than 300 computer networks from the heavy
`is of e-mail that Melissa generated.
`
`2 Melissa virus represented one of the first instances where law enforcement personnel were
`3 to take advantage of new technologies to track the creator of the virus. On April 1, 1999,
`nut a week after the virus first appeared on the Usenet newsgroups, police amested Smith. He
`1 guilty to one count of computer Fraud and abuse. He was sentenced to 20 months in prison
`I was fined $5,000.
`
`Jther area of legal concern is the issue of libel. In roar LAW. LIBEL AND SLANDER occur when the
`tmunication of false information about a person injures the person's good name or reputation.
`ere the traditional media are concerned, it is well settled that libel suits provide both a means
`edress for injury and a punitive corrective against sioppiness and malice. Regarding
`tmunication on the lntemet, however, there is little case law, especially on the key issue of
`ility.
`
`.uits against newspapers, courts traditionally held publishers liable, along with their reporters,
`ause publishers were presumed to have reviewed the libelous material prior to publication.
`:ause of this legal standard, publishers and editors are generally careful to review anything that
`r publish. However, the Internet is not a body of material that is carefully reviewed by a
`ilisher. but an unrestricted flood of information. If a libelous or defamatory statement is posted
`the Internet, which is owned by no one, the law is uncertain as to whether anyone other than
`author can be held liable.
`
`he courts have held that online service providers. companies that connect their subscribers to
`
`
`
`-. .
`
`... -......- ,.. -....-. ._ ...-.- ..-..-.. ....- -. -.-......-..-.. ,.-....._..-..
`
`er courts have rejected the publisher analogy and instead have compared lntemet service
`viders to bookstores. Like bookstores, providers are distributors of information and cannot
`sonably be expected to review everything that they sell. U.S. libel law gives greater protection
`iookstores because of this theory (Smith v. California. 361 U.S. 147, 80 S. Ct. 215, 4 L. Ed. 2d
`3 [1959]), and some courts have applied it to online service providers.
`
`DEMARK infringement on the Internet has also led to controversy and legal disputes. One of the
`gest concerns for registered trademark and Service Mark holders is protection of the mark on
`lntemet. As Internet participants establish sites on the Web, they must create domain names,
`ch are names that designate the location of the web site. Besides providing a name to
`ociate with the person or business that created the site, a domain name makes it easy for
`ernet users to find a particular home page or web site.
`
`individuals and businesses devised domain names in this medium, especially during the mid to
`a 1990s, they found that the names they created were similar to, or replicas of, registered
`lemarks and service marks. Several courts have considered complaints that use of a domain
`ne violated the rights of a trademark or service mark holder, and early decisions did not favor
`se parties‘ rights.
`
`999. Congress enacted the Anti-cyber-squatting Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-
`l, 113 Stat 1501. The act strengthened the rights of trademark holders by giving these owners
`ause of Action against so-called "cybersquatters" or "cyberpirates," individuals who register a
`:l-party's trademark as a domain name for the purpose of selling it back to the owner for a
`lit.
`
`>r to the enactment of this law, an individual could register a domain name using the trademark
`iervice mark of a company, and the company would have to use a different domain name or
`‘ the creator a sum of money for the right to use the name. Thus, for example, an individual
`id register the name www.ibm.com, which most web users would have associated with
`ernational Business Machines (IBM), the universally recognized business. Because another
`vidual used this domain name, IBM could not create a Web site using vwvw.ibm.com without
`ing the wber-squatter a fee for its use. The 1999 legislation eradicated this problem.
`
`ing the 1990s, a number of companies were formed that operated completely on the lntemet.
`5 to the overwhelming success of these companies, the media dubbed this phenomenon the
`t-com bubble." The success of these