Monday, November 30, 2020

Talk:Architecture of Houston

Talk:Architecture of Houston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleArchitecture of Houston was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 30, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 30, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
April 17, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Collaboration notes[edit]

This scope of this article:

  1. Notable buildings and structures
  2. Architects, styles
  3. Entire Houston MSA

Random thoughts:

  • Should this article be reorganized by timeline or by area?
  • Should scope be narrowed?
  • Lead paragraph (or lack of). Add at end of editing?

Postoak 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Let's see how it evolves. There's a lot out there to process. Because of the way Houston developed, the timeline and area methods may have some parallels.
    • I think the scope is fine. We may discover some notable sub-scopes, but I'd like to see this article be pretty comprehensive.
    • I added a brief intro, for the interim. Once the article is more developed, I bet a substantive intro will be warranted.
--Evb-wiki 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, looks good. I can take some pics for the article on a sunny weekend. I'd like to add some of the older buildings located downtown for the "Early Houston" section. Postoak 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

SANDBOX[edit]

I've created a SANDBOX for us to play in while we take on the task of making this article comprehensive. Everyone is invited to contribute buckets of sand and to create sandcastles to be placed in the article. --Evb-wiki 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

lol, just noticed the sandbox. Postoak 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Edge cities[edit]

I have removed most of the Edge cities section (moved Uptown to Mid-/late century), because it seemed to me to mainly discuss urban planning. While I realize the term architecture can sometimes be broad enough to include it (and landscaping, etc.), I think the article is developing with a more narrow focus. Some of the discussion of the housing styles were relevant and interesting, but I felt the section was a little distracting. Is that okay? Did you have more you wanted to do with it? --Evb-wiki 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I dropped it into the sandbox, in case we decide to keep it. --Evb-wiki 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, we're still in brainstorming mode here. Actually, I started with "edge cities" but intended to move towards a residential architecture section. The city has many fine examples from mansions in River Oaks to postwar modern homes. Loft conversions and some of the new high-rise condo towers I think would also be appropriate. My ideas are in the sandbox, what do you think? Postoak 03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that *Early Houston*, *Downtown*, and *Uptown* each have an intro paragraph that is similar to the *edge city* sub-secs. I think this is fine. If we could identify specific examples of each area's architecture (like the other sections do), that would be great. I was just thinking, without examples of the styles mentioned, the paragraphs were a little off scope. Of course, I have not yet done any type of "focused" research on the edges. --Evb-wiki 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove edge cities altogether and replace with a residential architecture section. Sections would be:

  1. Early Houston - 1800's to 1949, all
  2. Middle and late century - 1950 to current
  3. Residential architecture
  4. Public facilities
  5. See also
  6. References
  7. External links

Postoak 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That might work. Makes more sense than "edge cities", IMHO. --Evb-wiki 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Images of Early Houston[edit]

I'm checking flickr for Esperson, Rice Hotel and Gulf Building images. Do you have any? I still plan to take some pics myself. Postoak 05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm having such a tough time finding pub domain or fair use images of early downtown. There must be hundreds of them somewhere. --Evb-wiki 05:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I found Esperson, but it's not that good, I'll upload it anyway. Postoak 05:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at this. Great but not free. [1] Postoak 06:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Damn. Ummm . . . we don't have any of those buildings in our article. Hmmm. --Evb-wiki 06:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything free anywhere. Hey, I need to get my butt to bed. I'll look for more images tomorrrow. This article is looking good! G'night. Postoak 06:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember this? I think it was out by Almeda Mall [2]

Hmmm. Nope, can't say that I do. Of course I grew up near Cypress, kinda between Jersey Village and where Willowbrook Mall is now. Almeda was a long way away, especially back then, when Highway 290 only reached to West 43rd. --Evb-wiki 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I grew up on the south side, we usually went to Sharpstown, Meyerland and Westwood. I do remember seeing this building back then and thought it needed repairs. Postoak 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

This article is nicely written, but unfortunately I have to fail it on the basis of lack of references. While many paragraphs are well referenced, a good deal also are not. In the style of the rest of the paragraphs (wherein a building summary is presented with an inline reference) I would recommend referencing for the remaining unsourced paragraphs. As far as the writing goes it is nice, it's mostly a referencing problem. DoomsDay349 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold[edit]

I read through the article, and saw that it was very well written. I also thought it was well-referenced, but only today the article was failed because of referencing problems. I am placing it on hold pending an absolute confirmation that this article has been properly renominated with appropriate changes have been made since the last renomination. I'd be quite happy to pass it, but I dont want to pass it only for someone to say that, because it was only just failed, it cannot be re-reviewed until major changes have been made - • The Giant Puffin • 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional references were added to the article immediately after the intial failed review was reported to us. I renominated the article after adding the references. Thanks, Postoak 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
After going through previous versions of the article, I see you quickly made a lot of amendments. Seeing as it is a very different article now, I'm happy to pass it - • The Giant Puffin • 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that the lead section is way too short. Ideally it should briefly summarize the article. Hopefully someone can take care of this. Drewcifer3000 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Omissions[edit]

I read the article (not in detail but scimmed it) and there are some suprising omissions Some (myself included) would nominate Renzo Piano's Menil Collection as Houston's single most significan work of architecture. Yet it isn't mentioned here; nor the Cy Twombly Gallery. And though you mention the St. Basil Chapel of UST, the original campus mall buildings which aren't discussed are are a more important and successful part of Phillip Johnson's body of work. Speaking of campuses, an entire article could be written on the Architecture of Rice University from the original parts by Ralph Adam Cram to newer building by Ceasar Pelli, Bofill, et al. Well I suppose you know you have your work cut out for you, it could evolve into a series of articles. Houston Residential Architecture; Houston Academic Architecture; Houston Religious & Institutional Architecture ; Houston Commercial architecture etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


A much more significant omission[edit]

Where on Earth is Houston? Is it at the centre of the universe, so that there is no necessity to state what country it is in? I am an ignorant reader from Australia, and am wondering if it is anywhere near Woop Woop? If it isn't fixed soon, then the article must lose its GA status as being seriously lacking in information of a type which is absolutely essential. Amandajm (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple fix, you could have done it yourself. Postoak (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Architecture of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Architecture of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Architecture of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Architecture of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Architecture of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Architecture of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Architecture of Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Architecture_of_Houston&oldid=803320816"
Posted by at No comments:

Lamparello v. Falwell

Lamparello v. Falwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Fallwell)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lamparello v. Falwell
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.svg
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Full case nameChristopher Lamparello v. Jerry Falwell; Jerry Falwell Ministries
Argued2005-05-26 2005
Decided2005-08-24 2005
Citation(s)420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005), Nos. 04-2122, 04-2011
Case history
Prior action(s)Claude M. Hilton ruled for plaintiff Falwell in 360 F.Supp.2d 768 (E.D. VA. 2004)
Holding
The 4th Circuit holds that Lamparello's gripe site does not infringe on Falwell's trademarks.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingDiana Gribbon Motz, M. Blane Michael, Robert Bruce King
Case opinions
MajorityDiana Gribbon Motz, joined by M. Blane Michael, Robert Bruce King

Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, was a legal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concerning allegations of cybersquatting and trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the right to use the domain name fallwell.com, and provides discussion on cybersquatting as it applies to criticism of a trademark.

In 1999, Christopher Lamparello created a website to respond to and criticize the anti-homosexual statements by the American Christian evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell. Lamparello's website was located at fallwell.com (note the misspelling). Believing that there was confusing similarity between the domain name and Falwell's own name, domain name, and other trademarks, Falwell and his ministries attempted to legally block Lamparello from using the mark "fallwell" and transfer the ownership of the domain name to Falwell.

The initial decisions (ruled by the National Arbitration Forum in 2003 and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2004) decided in favor of Falwell, granting Falwell's claims of federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and cybersquatting.

On appeal in 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the earlier decisions, ruling that there was not a "likelihood of confusion" between Lamparello's and Falwell's official site; that there was no trademark infringement based on "initial interest confusion" for sites that were non-commercial and critical of the trademark holder; and since Lamparello's site was non-commercial, there was no "bad faith intent to profit" and it was not cybersquatting.

Background[edit]

In 1999, Christopher Lamparello registered the domain name fallwell.com and used the affiliated website as a gripe site to express his negative opinions about the Fundamentalist Christian preacher Jerry Falwell's public statements against homosexuality.

Lamparello's site was plainly critical of Falwell and had very little viewership.[1] The website offered no goods or services for sale, though the website contained a link to a separate Amazon.com webpage selling a book supporting his views, but Lamparello did not stand to financially gain from the sales of the book. Lamparello's website also contained prominent statements declaring that it was not affiliated with Falwell and his ministry, and provided a hyperlink to redirect viewers to Falwell's official website.[1] Lamparello claimed that the domain name was chosen as a parody of Falwell's name, combining "fall" and "well".[2]

Falwell had a registered trademark in the name "Listen America with Jerry Falwell". At the time, Falwell did not have any registered trademarks in the names "Falwell" or "Fallwell", but was in the process of registering the name "Jerry Falwell". Falwell had an official website at the domain name falwell.com, where he also sold goods.[1]

Believing in a confusing similarity between the two domain names, Falwell sent Lamparello letters in 2001 and 2003 demanding that Lamparello cease and desist from using fallwell.com or any variation of Falwell's name as a domain name. Lamparello did not comply.

Prior history[edit]

UDRP complaint[edit]

In October 2003, Falwell submitted a complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), requesting that the domain name be transferred from Lamparello to Falwell.

Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to their trademark, that the registrant has no legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the domain name is being used in bad faith.

The NAF panel decided 2-1 on November 20, 2003 to transfer the domain name to Falwell's ministries, Liberty Alliance.

The dissenting panelist, David E. Sorkin,[3] argued that the domain name was not used in bad faith, and that this dispute was not one to be resolved under the UDRP or by the NAF.[1]

Related case: jerryfalwell.com[edit]

A contemporaneous case was one concerning Gary Cohn and the domain names jerryfalwell.com and jerryfallwell.com. Falwell sued Cohn for "reverse domain name hijacking", but the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland did not accept the case since Falwell did not have a trademark on his own name.[4] After Falwell threatened to sue in Virginia, U.S. in 2003, Cohn surrendered both domain names.[5][6]

District Court[edit]

Following the NAF decision, Lamparello filed an action against Falwell in federal district court, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement.[7] Lamparello was supported by the Public Citizen Litigation Group.[2] The ACLU also provided an amicus brief, arguing that the domain name in question was protected by the First Amendment.[8]

Falwell filed a counterclaim, alleging trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2000), false designation origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1126 and the common law of the state of Virginia, and cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

The District Court granted summary judgment for Falwell, blocking Lamparello from using the domain name and ordered the transfer of the website to Falwell. The court denied Falwell's request for statutory damages and attorney fees.

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Lamparello appealed the District Court's order and Falwell cross-appealed the denial of statutory damages and attorney fees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that Lamparello could continue maintaining the gripe website at fallwell.com. The court reasoned as follows:

Likelihood of Confusion
The Court used the 4th Circuit's seven part test for likelihood of confusion: "(a) the strength or distinctiveness of the mark; (b) the similarity of the two marks; (c) the similarity of the goods/services the marks identify; (d) the similarity of the facilities the two parties use in their businesses; (e) the similarity of the advertising used by the two parties; (f) the defendant's intent; (g) actual confusion."[9]
In applying this test, the Appeals Court found that there was only a similarity in the online marks, but nothing else was applicable, and that "Lamparello clearly created his website intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers."[9]
The Court of Appeals stressed that there was no confusion that Lamparello's site was not affiliated with Falwell or his ministries.

After even a quick glance at the content of the website at www.fallwell.com, no one seeking Reverend Falwell's guidance would be misled by the domain name — www.fallwell.com — into believing Reverend Falwell authorized the content of that website. No one would believe that Reverend Falwell sponsored a site criticizing himself, his positions, and his interpretations of the Bible.[9]

Initial Interest Confusion
This argument is roughly a typosquatting argument, wherein legitimate potential customers seeking Falwell's website might misspell his official domain name and instead go to fallwell.com, giving Lamparello an "unearned audience". The Appeals Court states that there must be a financial profit from the initial interest confusion, and in the case of noncommercial gripe sites, there is no way to financially profit from the confusion. "This critical element — use of another firm's mark to capture the markholder's customers and profits — simply does not exist when the alleged infringer establishes a gripe site that criticizes the markholder."[9]
Cybersquatting
In order to win a cybersquatting claim, Falwell would have to show bad faith intent to profit from using the fallwell.com domain name, and prove that the domain name is "identical or confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, the distinctive and famous mark".[9] In addition to the already established lack of confusion, the Appeals Court found that Lamparello did not have a bad faith intent to profit due to the lack of income from the site, that Lamparello had not attempted to sell the domain name, and that Lamparello had not purchased a large quantity of domain names.[NB 1]
Finally, agreeing with prior cases in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, "the use of a mark in a domain name for a gripe site criticizing the markholder does not constitute cybersquatting."[9]

Subsequent developments[edit]

On April 17, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Falwell regarding the 4th Circuit opinion, giving no reasons for declining.[10][11]

As of August 2018, the website is no longer functioning. The last archival snapshot of the site was taken in February 2012, implying that it went down later that year.[12]

Significance[edit]

In contrast to the Court of Appeals' 2001 opinion in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney,[13] where the Court affirmed the District Court's judgment against the defendant, this case supported the defendant, ruling against one gripe site and for the other. In PETA, the parody website's content was not conveyed simultaneously with the message that the site was peta.org. In short, the Fourth Circuit backtracked on its decision in PETA, justifying the different opinions as a distinction between parody and consumer confusion.[14] Additionally, in both PETA and Lamparello, the website in question had links to items for sale. The distinction between the two cases may have been that in PETA, the defendant registered numerous other websites for cybersquatting purposes.[15] The utilization of the bad-faith factors of the ACPA has been criticized by some scholars for leading to counterintuitive results when applied to cases that are not clear-cut cybersquatting.[15]

Perhaps the Court of Appeals has created a lesson here for counsel representing parties who might assert cyber squatting claims. Before filing suit, initiate bad faith settlement negotiations, for the purpose of obtaining a statement from the cyber squatter that he might be willing to settle. Then, file suit under the ACPA, asserting that your opponent's willingness to engage in your bad faith settlement negotiations demonstrates a bad faith intent to profit on his part.[16]

This opinion is important when considering typosquatting and gripe sites as it upheld Fifth and Sixth Circuit decisions that "the use of a mark in a domain name for a gripe site criticizing the markholder does not constitute cybersquatting."[9] This opinion contained direct analysis of application of the Initial Interest Confusion doctrine, but leaves questions regarding the IIC unanswered.[17]

See also[edit]

Related cases[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Referencing the ACPA, the Appeals Court also stressed that the ACPA does not limit domain names used for the purposes of noncommercial commentary. From the 4th Circuit Opinion: "Factor IV of the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1) (B)(i)(IV), counsels against finding a bad faith intent to profit in such circumstances because "use of a domain name for purposes of . . . comment, [and] criticism," H.R. Rep. No. 106-412, 1999 WL 970519, at *11, constitutes a "bona fide noncommercial or fair use" under the statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i)(IV)."

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d National Arbitration Forum (2003-11-20). "The Reverend Dr. Jerry L. Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Lamparello International, Decision (Case No.: FA0310000198936)". Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
  2. ^ a b "Public Citizen Litigation Group Brief" (PDF). 2004-11-17. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
  3. ^ "David E. Sorkin - Domain Name Disputes". Sork.com. Archived from the original on 2010-01-05. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
  4. ^ "Web site retains rights to parody Falwell". The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 2002-06-11. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
  5. ^ "ACLU asks court to throw out Jerry Falwell's Web site lawsuit". Associated Press. 2002-09-13. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
  6. ^ "Falwell v. Cohn, Memorandum Opinion, CA-6:02CV00040" (PDF). 2003-03-04. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
  7. ^ "Lamparello v. Falwell, CA-03-1503-A (E.D. VA)" (PDF). 2003-12-03. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
  8. ^ "ACLU Amicus Brief" (PDF). 2004-11-24. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005).
  10. ^ Holland, Gina (2006-04-17). "Supreme Court Won't Hear Falwell's Appeal". Associated Press.
  11. ^ Broache, Anne (2006-04-17). "High court skips Falwell Web site case". CNET News. Retrieved 2010-10-20.
  12. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20120216082115/http://www.fallwell.com/. Archived from the original on 2012-02-16. Retrieved 2018-08-16. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  13. ^ People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001).
  14. ^ Katyal, Sonia (July 2010). "Stealth Marketing and Antibranding: The Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name" (PDF). Buffalo Law Review. 58 (4): 795.
  15. ^ a b Lipton, Jacqueline (2006). "Commerce Versus Commentary: Gripe Sites, Parody, and the First Amendment in Cyberspace" (PDF). Washington University Law Review. 84 (6): 1327–1374. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-07.
  16. ^ "4th Circuit Rules for Jerry Falwell's Cyber Squatter". Tech Law Journal. 2005-08-24. Retrieved 2010-10-19.
  17. ^ Goldman, Eric (2005-08-25). "Gripers 1, Initial Interest Confusion 0--Lamparello v. Falwell". Retrieved 2010-10-20.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamparello_v._Falwell&oldid=991268275"
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)