Not This Again: Facebook Threatens To Sue Guy Who Registered 'DontUseInstagram.com'

from the don't-be-a-trademark-bully dept

Ah, this one takes me back to the early days of Techdirt, when the biggest nonsense we were writing about was giant corporate bullies threatening (or in some cases suing!) over so called “Sucks Sites” (that’s an article from almost 20 years ago!). The issue was that people who were upset with a particular company would register the domain of CompanySucks.com to (usually) put up a protest site. The company (and its lawyers) would then threaten to sue the individual for trademark infringement. There were some mixed rulings over those sites, but in general most have decided that sucks sites are not trademark infringement, and are protected under a variety of theories — including a lack of any possible confusion and because they’re nominative fair use.

You’d have hoped that, by now, big company lawyers would recognize all of this. Apparently not Facebook’s. Now, to be fair, as we recently discussed, for companies like Facebook, often they carefully police domains that make use of similar URLs in order to cut off sketchy phishing and scam sites. But it’s one thing to go after such scammers… and it’s another to go after someone who is obviously engaging in criticism.

Enter: DontUseInstagram.com, created by Paul Kruczynski.

The site now is designed to pretty much do what it says on the tin: give you reasons why you shouldn’t use Instagram. Whether or not you agree with that messaging, it’s clearly not infringing on Facebook/Instagram’s trademarks. Someone should probably tell Instagram’s lawyers. Because they sent a threat letter. In fact, they sent this threat letter before he’d even launched anything at the site, basically trying to intimidate him out of the site before he’d even done anything with it.

To Whom It May Concern,

We are writing concerning your registration and use of the domain name dontuseinstagram.com, which contains the Instagram trademark.

You are undoubtedly familiar with Instagram and its worldwide renown in providing photo sharing and editing services, online networking and related products and services through a number of channels, including through its mobile application software and its website available at Instagram.com. Instagram owns exclusive rights to the INSTAGRAM trademark, including rights secured through common law use and registration in the United States (Reg. Nos. 4,170,675 and 4,146,057) and internationally. Instagram is a global leader in photography software for mobile devices, with over 800 million monthly active accounts. Due to Instagram’s exponential growth and immense popularity, the Instagram brand, is frequently, if not daily, referenced in the media and pop culture. Its fame entitles it to broad legal protection.

We have recently discovered that you registered the domain name, which incorporates the famous INSTAGRAM mark. Instagram has an obligation to its users and the public to police against the registration and/or use of domain names that may cause consumer confusion as to affiliation with or sponsorship by Instagram, dilute the distinctiveness of its INSTAGRAM mark, or otherwise tarnish the mark. Accordingly, in addition to civil actions, Instagram and its parent Facebook have filed numerous proceedings pursuant to ICANN’S Uniform Domain-Name Dispute- Resolution Policy (http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp) to secure the transfer of infringing domain names. Moreover, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act provides for serious penalties (up to $100,000 per domain name) against persons who, without authorization, use, sell, or offer for sale a domain name that infringes another’s trademark.

While Instagram respects your right of expression and your desire to conduct business on the Internet, Instagram must take action to stop the misuse of its intellectual property. As you can imagine, various third parties around the world have attempted to wrongfully capitalize on Instagram’s reputation by registering domain names that include or are derived from the INSTAGRAM brand. Such names are confusingly similar to, dilutive of, and can tarnish the INSTAGRAM mark.

We understand that you may have registered dontuseinstagram.com without full knowledge of the law in this area. However, Instagram is concerned about your use of the Instagram trademark in your domain name. Accordingly, we must insist that you immediately cease using and disable either delete or transfer to Instagram any site available at that address. You should not sell, offer to sell, or transfer the domain name to any third party.

Please confirm in writing that you will agree to resolve this matter as requested. If we do not receive confirmation that you will comply with our request, we will have no other choice but to pursue all available remedies against you.

Sincerely,

Instagram IP & DNS Enforcement Group

Instagram, Inc.

Kruczynski was able to line up the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law’s Berkman Klein Center to help him respond to those Instagram lawyers, explaining to them in fairly great detail how totally full of shit their threat letter is in a letter from Kendra Albert,

The legal claims that your letters make are frivolous. Even worse, your
overreach imperils Mr. Kruczynski?s First Amendment rights. Mr. Kruczynski?s
domain name is not likely to cause consumer confusion, which Instagram
would be required to prove in order to succeed on a trademark infringement
claim. See Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, 531 F.3d 1, 12 (1st
Cir. 2008) (citing Borinquen Biscuit, 443 F.3d 116 (1st Cir. 2006)).

To establish likelihood of confusion, a trademark owner ?must show more than
the theoretical possibility of confusion.? Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aero.
Workers, AFL-CIO v. Winship Green Nursing Ctr., 103 F.3d 196, 198 (1st Cir.
1996). For courts to find a likelihood of confusion, it has to be shown that there
is ?a likelihood of confounding an appreciable number of reasonably prudent
purchasers exercising ordinary care.? Id. Given that Mr. Kruczynski?s domain
has not even been launched, Instagram cannot show more than a theoretical
possibility of confusion. Moreover, as Mr. Kruczynski?s website
dontuseinstagram.com currently resembles nothing like the Instagram website,
it is inconceivable that any reasonably prudent purchaser exercising ordinary care would confuse the two websites.

Even in the scenario that Mr. Kruczynski?s domain dontuseinstagram.com
becomes live and operates in a way Mr. Kruczynski originally intended it to,
Instagram will not be able to establish that there is likelihood of confusion in
Mr. Kruczynski?s registration and use of dontuseinstagram.com under the First
Circuit?s eight-factor test. See Oriental Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Cooperativa De Ahorro
Cr?dito Oriental, 698 F.3d 9, 17 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Beacon Mut. Ins. Co. v.
OneBeacon Ins. Grp., 376 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 2004)). Mr. Kruczynski did not
intend to claim any associations with the Instagram mark and did not intend to
compete with Instagram. In fact, Mr. Kruczynski?s domain would serve as a
platform to criticize Instagram?s user privacy violations, not as a social media
platform for users to share photos and accumulate followers. The goods or
services provided by dontuseinstagram.com would be significantly different
from those provided by Instagram, and the channels of trade and advertising
would be very different as well. It is unimaginable that there would be evidence
of actual confusion where Instagram users actually confuse Instagram with a
website criticizing Instagram, starting from the domain name itself. Even
assuming that Instagram has a strong mark that most people recognize, it is
overreaching for Instagram to forbid others from registering or using any name
that mentions Instagram without due regard of relevant laws.

The existence of a parked page on Mr. Kruczynski?s domain does not create
trademark infringement where there previously was not any. See, e.g., Acad. of
Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. CV 10-03738 AB (CWx),
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120871 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2015) (holding that the plaintiff
failed to meet its burden of proving that a domain name registrar who operates
parked page programs acted with a bad faith intent to profit from the plaintiff?s
marks). In fact, the existence of the parked page is largely irrelevant to the
discussion of trademark infringement here, and you are overstepping by
demanding Mr. Kruczynski remove the parked page on his own registered
domain.

Your claim of Mr. Kruczynski?s alleged trademark infringement is ungrounded
in law. The non-infringing nature of the use would have been obvious had an
attorney even glanced at the name of the site.

To the extent that these emails were sent using an automated process that
merely checks to see if a domain contains the word Instagram, and then
automatically requests the transfer of a domain to you if it does, such behavior
plays on the threat of litigation to suppress potentially lawful speech. I am
aware that there may be many domains registered with the Instagram mark in
them, some of which may be used for phishing or other nefarious purposes.
But that does not justify a ?spray and pray? strategy where you automatically
send notices of infringement without any human review. Such notices may
serve to unlawfully intimidate critics, requiring them to find legal counsel.

That reply was sent back in November and it requests that Instagram retract the threat letter and provide “a clear statement that you do not intend to file suit over his ownership of dontuseinstagram.com.” Somewhat optimistically, it also said that such a letter should “be
accompanied by a discussion of what processes you will implement in order to
ensure any messages you may send to domain owners will not attempt to
intimidate lawful users of the Instagram wordmark.”

Neither happened. Instead, Instagram just went silent. It’s quite likely that the human being who received the response letter realized how bad an idea it was to send that original threat letter, even if automated, but has just moved on to threatening someone else. But Instagram deserves to be called out for its practices which can lead to real intimidation for people, unlike Paul, who don’t have the ability to have a knowledgeable lawyer respond to the threat.

That’s unfortunate, because it means that there are no consequences for sending out such bogus, censorial threat letters. Well, other than having a site like Techdirt call out your stupid threats.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: facebook, instagram

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Not This Again: Facebook Threatens To Sue Guy Who Registered 'DontUseInstagram.com'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
17 Comments
Anonymoussays:

Probably doesn’t help that instagram is one of the internet’s biggest sources of malware. FROM THE GODDAMN OWNERS!

Signing up/using instagram gives them carte blanche in the TCs to install whatever the hell adware/malware they feel like. And this includes software that scans your hard drive (whilst idle to hide the activity ‘natch) then takes whatever juicy documents/notes/juicy stored browser passwords it feels like and ships the date back to HQ for resale. Despite this being illegal. In every single damn country on Earth.

One is nearly zero, for small values of zero.says:

Re: "Despite this being illegal."

Oh, an oldthinker, both for the notion of "illegal" and that corporations aren’t immune to the very notion.

Have you been reading here long, AC? — Cause Maz is a flaming corporatist who believes that legal fictions are "persons", because a legal doctrine created out of thin air by lawyers makes them so. — You cannot logically rail at corporations and not at Maz for supporting them. So you’re probably just yet more astro-turfing to make it look as though corporations are disliked here.

Rico R.says:

Re: Don't think that's true

Unless you have evidence otherwise, I don’t think Instagram installs malware. It defies common sense. What social media site is going to install malware on the devices of their userbase? Doesn’t sound like a way of winning new users over. You also claim:

Signing up/using instagram gives them carte blanche in the TCs to install whatever the hell adware/malware they feel like.

Assuming "TCs" refers to "Terms and Conditions", I looked into Instagram’s terms of service. There is no reference to malware in the current terms of service. But in an earlier revision from 2017, the word malware only appears once:

You must not interfere or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, including by transmitting any worms, viruses, spyware, malware or any other code of a destructive or disruptive nature. You may not inject content or code or otherwise alter or interfere with the way any Instagram page is rendered or displayed in a user’s browser or device.

This states that YOU agree not to use Instagram to spread malware or use it to interfere with Instagram. It’s NOT saying that Instagram is going to install malware and you can’t interfere with that installation.

Unless you have evidence I’m not seeing, I don’t think Instagram is installing malware.

Annonymousesays:

Re: Re: Don't think that's true

You invoked common sense with media companies.
Common sense is not the same as good sense.
The vast majority of us are not social media companies who have a completely different world view than the rest of us.

Social media companies have historically done a number of dumb, stupid to outright malicious things in the past and will more than likely continue such well into the future. This is no doubt due to the absolute lack of accountability or meaningful repercussions.

A classic example is the SONY DRM rootkit bricking people’s PCs because they wanted to play a SONY CD on their PC.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Don't think that's true

"Social media companies"

"A classic example is the SONY DRM rootkit"

Your classic example of a social media company doing something is a non-social media company? Hmmm….

I can understand the example if you’re just talking about how bad corporations are as a whole, but it seems pretty stupid to single out social media and not provide any evidence or relevant examples for what you’re claiming.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re: Re: Don't think that's true

"A classic example is the SONY DRM rootkit bricking people’s PCs because they wanted to play a SONY CD on their PC."

…for which Sony took a beating, both in the fiscal sense and – more importantly – to the fact that decades down the road people are still referring to Sony’s rootkit.

Social media is a different animal. Instagram, Facebook, twitter…these live or die by the convenience and evaluation of their user base. They don’t have a hardware lock-in like Sony and remain one bad set of user reviews away from becoming the Altavista of tomorrow.

In other words I very much expect social media to be incredibly careful not to drop anything harmful on their user base. For the same reason I don’t expect my choice of car vendor to make self-exploding automobiles.

One thing is to be cautious and careful. Another to be such a paranoid fscknut as to expect major corporations to be fanatically devoted to their own destruction.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Artificial Stupidity

… not signed by anyone.

Nah, the signatures were deleted to protect the signers from being sent down the black hole of Spammer’s Hell, wherein they get the same treatment they’ve been giving others…. in spades. To the nth degree. You just know that if they start getting that kind of treatment, they’ll blame sites like Techdirt, and then Mike’s legal "fun" starts all over again. Probably not the best idea, I’m sure.

Tanner Andrewssays:

Re: Artificial Stupidity

It is totally generic, and it is not signed by anyone.

That is actually fairly common. I see quite a few letters “signed”, if you can call it that, only by the name of the firm. No hand-written anything, and not always including the disclaimer that no attorney has yet looked at any part of the file.

Of course no attorney has looked at it. The term “spray and pray” seems appropriate in such cases; they are playing the numbers. It is no better than debt collectors.

Assuming they pay 55 cents for the postage, and the investment in paper and envelopes is lost in the noise. If they send a few hundred of these letters, and one responds usefully (e.g. sends money), the operation is paid for. Here, if one of the recipients response without instructing them to go pound sand up their butts, they can report back to the client success in protecting the valuable mark.

In the mean time, they gain deniability. No one at the firm sent the letter, and no one is liable for prohibited practices. Think of it as a win all around.

Well, yeah, it does tend to reinforce the idea that some law firms are populated by sleazy individuals, but other than that it is a win all around. And I have not heard of any mandatory bar association actually leaning on law firms that do this sort of thing, so you may presume that sleazy activity is at least implicitly endorsed by the respective states and their bars. So maybe it is not a win for the “real” lawyers out there, but for everyone involved with the sending it is a win all around.

Bobvioussays:

Misread the name

I thought it was Don Stagram merely including his middle name, Tusein, in his website URL, Don Tusein Stagram dot com. It seems he’s the relative of Kelvin Stagram, https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/burning-our-koalas-australias-shame,13484 and https://www.reddit.com/r/ImaginaryMindscapes/comments/gyh360/bubbly_planets_by_kelvinstagram/

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it