Judge blesses "Wal-Qaeda," "Walocaust" anti-Wal-Mart web-sites

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Judge blesses "Wal-Qaeda," "Walocaust" anti-Wal-Mart

Machinist at Salon

A computer store owner in Conyers GA owns two websites antithetical to Wal-Mart. He also made T-Shirts.
The company sued, complaining that their logo was infringed upon. Judge ruled that no one would consider the
act other than protest. Besides only a few shirts have been sold, and some of them to Wal-Mart officials.



To put it mildly, Charles Smith, a 50-year-old computer store owner in Conyers, Ga., isn't a fan of Wal-Mart. Indeed he considers the retailing giant to be plying the same moral trade as Adolph Hitler and Osama Bin Laden -- and to prove his seriousness, Smith has gone and done something that requires a good deal of courage. He's designed a few impolite bumper stickers and T-shirts.

Smith's two Web sites, Wal-Qaeda and Walocaust, take for granted your hatred of Wal-Mart, and consequently offer little reasoned criticism of the firm. Instead, here you'll find an entire worldview squeezed into a slogan like, "Support our Troops: Boycott Wal-Qaeda."

One has to do some hefty mental work to conceive of a way that any of this stuff could pose an economic threat to Wal-Mart. But incredibly, Wal-Mart felt threatened by Smith's work, and a couple years ago it filed a trademark infringement suit.

...Fortunately a federal judge in Atlanta had sense enough to strike down the suit. "The fact that the real Wal-Mart name and marks are strong and recognizable makes it unlikely that a parody -- particularly one that calls to mind the genocide of millions of people, another that evokes the name of a notorious terrorist organization ... will be confused with Wal-Mart's real products," wrote U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr.

more at the link

I think Wal Mart deserves the names Smith is giving it.
So does Keith Olbermann, who named Walmart "Worst Person in the World" for other reasons on March 26

Look at what they did to this former employee who is severely disabled, in a nursing home and whose son was recently killed in Iraq:

Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

By Randi Kaye CNN

Debbie Shank, 52, had been employed by Wal-Mart when she was in a serious traffic accident, and suffered severe brain damage. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
Wal-Mart's health plan sued Shank for more than that. After losing the lawsuit to Wal-Mart, the Shanks young son was killed in Iraq.
JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

...Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

more at the link

[wtmusic]

1. Wal-Mart's lawyers sure suckered them

Satire is immune to copyright restrictions by a whole boatload of legal precedent. Should have never gone to court.

[selador]

2. good

i am not one of the "wal mart" haters, but i respect free speech FAR more.

this is so clearly parody and so clearly protected it's not even debatable.

and especially after the case that really established how far you can go with parody (the flynt/falwell case) walmart had to know they would lose, and this was basically intimidation via lawsuit.

[wtmusic]

3. At least in copyright cases like this

Wal-Mart will have to pick up defendant's legal tab. Serves them right.

[selador]

4. i am a believer

in at least SOME semblance of loser pays

reasonable tort reform.

im not saying we have to go as far as england etc. (which is FULL loser pays as i understand it) but on lawsuits that can be dismissed summarily or that were CLEARLY frivolous or malicious, the petitioner SHOULD have to pay imo. that's the only way to deter this crap.

[xchrom]

5. recommend