From See@My.Sig Thu Sep 19 07:46:53 1996 Xref: elastic can.consumers:276 can.legal:10696 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!n2ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!uniserve!sunqbc.risq.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!eloi.vir.com!noc.van.hookup.net!news From: See@My.Sig (Mark) Newsgroups: can.consumers,can.legal Subject: Re: Future Shop and Libel Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:15:57 GMT Organization: The WriteDesign Company Lines: 81 Message-ID: <323ddec5.1125044@news.van.hookup.net> References: <51jroq$spc@news.interlog.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: excel69.jumppoint.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:25:11 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton M. Goldmacher) wrote: >If Mark Prince is in any way liable for the words he publishes about >Future Shop, it is not out of the law of defamation or libel. The law >of defamation permits persons to be compensated for injury to their >reputation. I have been unable to find a case in which a corporate >plaintiff has been able to advance a defamation suit, and it is my >belief at this time that relief is unavailable to the Future Shop >under the law of libel. > >Althouth there may be other legal frameworks for action against Mr. >Prince, (torts such as intentionaly interfering with a contractual >relationship), defamation is inappropriate. I too think Future Shop has been blowing a lot of hot air, and playing the bluff game. I have two questions however: what is the difference between libel and slander? is one printed, the other spoken? And, what exactly is a "tort" (excuse my ignorance! :) Here is their last letter to me, dated, appropriately, Friday the 13th: >September 13, 1996 > >Dear Mr. Prince: > >We are in receipt of your e-mail messages of September 9th. > >In the second e-mail message you have asked us to tell you which stories we >consider untrue and have offered to follow up with the original authors of >those stories and if they are not able to back up their claims remove the >said stories from the web site. This proposal is completely unacceptable to >the Future Shop. Once a false and defamatory story is posted the damage is >done. It is your responsibility and the legal onus is on you to check the >stories you are publishing and make sure that they are true before you post >them on your web site. In addition your previous correspondence clearly >evidences the fact that you are maliciously trying to damage the Future Shop >and are obviously not an impartial person for the verification of the stories. > >Your revised disclaimer in which you note that "any of the stories at this >web site that are proven false by Future Shop will be removed", is a feeble >attempt to avoid defamation proceedings. As pointed out above the onus is >on you, as publisher, to ensure that all statements you publish are true >before publishing them. > >With respect to your assertion that "fair criticism is a right in this >country" we would like to point out that this defense is not available to >you. Fair comment must be based on facts that are true which is not the case >with your web site and in any case can be defeated where malice is involved. > >Your assertion that you are entitled in law to use someone else's registered >trade mark by ackowledging it's owner is simply wrong. Specifically, your >web site is clearly intended to depreciate the goodwill associated with our >trade mark. We demand that you cease and desist use of our trade mark or any >similar mark. > >We are proud of our company and our staff and won't stand by idly watching >them being maligned. We believe that this isn't just about the Future Shop >and a much bigger issue is involved. The unfettered democracy of the net >carries responsibility too. Otherwise everyone is vulnerable. We believe >your actions are malicious, defamatory and illegal and should be stopped. We >demand that you immediately delete your web site referring to the Future >Shop and hereby put you on notice that we intend to exercise all remedies >available to us to respond to your actions. > >Yours sincerely, > >Eric Ommundsen >Public Relations Coordinator >Future Shop If anyone feels the need to express their opinions to Mr. Ommundsen personally, his e-mail address is: fsfyi@direct.ca Mark ______________________________________________________________ Mark Prince mprince@jumppoint.com Visit my web page at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1301 or the FutileShop page http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2702 From alchemy@interlog.com Thu Sep 19 07:47:30 1996 Xref: elastic can.consumers:272 can.legal:10676 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!gts!whome!telly!problem!ve3tsx!news.interlog.com!news From: alchemy@interlog.com (Morton M. Goldmacher) Newsgroups: can.consumers,can.legal Subject: Future Shop and Libel Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:25:11 GMT Organization: Barrister and Solicitor Lines: 15 Message-ID: <51jroq$spc@news.interlog.com> Reply-To: alchemy@interlog.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ip93-5.tor.interlog.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 If Mark Prince is in any way liable for the words he publishes about Future Shop, it is not out of the law of defamation or libel. The law of defamation permits persons to be compensated for injury to their reputation. I have been unable to find a case in which a corporate plaintiff has been able to advance a defamation suit, and it is my belief at this time that relief is unavailable to the Future Shop under the law of libel. Althouth there may be other legal frameworks for action against Mr. Prince, (torts such as intentionaly interfering with a contractual relationship), defamation is inappropriate. Morton M. Goldmacher Barrister and Solicitor From mprince@jumppoint.com Thu Sep 19 07:48:14 1996 Xref: elastic can.consumers:275 can.legal:10686 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-4.sprintlink.net!news.inc.net!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news From: mprince@jumppoint.com (Mark) Newsgroups: can.legal,can.consumers Subject: The use of a company's trademark? Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:21:57 GMT Organization: The WriteDesign Company Lines: 20 Message-ID: <323de045.1509254@news.van.hookup.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: excel69.jumppoint.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 What are the legalities involved in using a company's trademark on a web page? Specifically, if the page is a criticism page - what is required to use the trademark? Permission from the company? Acknowledgment of the rightful owner of the trademark? In what circumstances can a company demand that you no longer use the said trademark, and have the law to back it up? Also, are there any specifics to using a satire-ed version of a company's trademark. For instance, calling WalMart - Wallymart, or calling Future Shop - Futile Shop. Does the company have any right to demand you cease using a parody'd version of their name? Mark ______________________________________________________________ Mark Prince mprince@jumppoint.com Visit my web page at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1301 or the FutileShop page http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2702