throbber
‘[1’
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket