It should be alloweed - sounds to me as though Canada is a communistic party... If they attempt to shut you down, take em to court. Down here in the US we have the freedom of speech as is our constitution. But just see - Im sure I hate Rogers is basically what I hate Canada Bell... But just see how it goes..
Thanks for the reply.
Of course we have freedom of speech except for on 2 issues that I'm aware of. Which I completely disagree with. But thats another topic.
I know what you mean about Canada being communistic. Our laws are set up so that you can get away with alot of crap here in some ways more than the US. Canada is a bit more anti big business than the US so I believe it should be safer in a way more than a similar site about a US company.
Do you think google banner ads would be allowed on a site such as this? I ask cause ihaterogers.ca doesn't have them. Rogers and Bell are 2 of the big 3 companies in this business in Canada and they all provide the same services...
Possibly, if the Google ads are advertising somethign like other Canadian phone businesses, I would say yes. But it just depends on the content of the ads...
Sorry for keep replying so much. Not trying to be annoying.
Do you mean if the ads advertised Rogers or Telus or another company in the same business it WOULD be illegal or it would NOT be illegal? I wasn't clear on what you last said.
Haha. It wont be illegal either way you go, but if you're down talking the company, and have ads for them on your site, it kind of makes it pointless If you can choose your ads [IM NOT SURE HOW GOOGLE ADS WORK] I would suggest avertising other companies that do the same sort of business.
But say you down talk Sony with a site, Ihatesony.com and then on the ads, it talks about buying PS3s and Sony TVs, it contradicts what the site's about, know what I mean?..
Got it. Last question for you if you don't mind..
Are you absolutely sure about this? I will still ask other's opinions. (Nothing personal, just better to be safe than sorry).
Looking forwards to the threat letters! Will be the highlight of each day!..
Yea, I mean freedom of speech covers this too I would suppose, but, if you got the extra money, to be 100% sure, I would buy like iahtebellca.com or something, since .coms are world wide.
EDIT: Did a quick reveiew of your post, only thing you will have some problems with is the logos and mascots, you could easily make or find someone to make a mock version of their logo or mascot..
Yeah exactly. Thanks again.
But for now the .ca is perfect as it's a Canadian company and it's safe to say pretty much only Canadians will be searching this. So for Google Canada users it will be right up there in the search results.
Ok thanks for your advice! Appreciated. I'll give you some rep points although rep points from me don't mean much.
These types of sites have usually been protected in UDRPs, but not always... And there is at least one case where it says that the right to freedom of speech trumps any claims of commercial usage...
However, companies still like to come after people for making these types of sites. So it's not really an issue of whether or not you have the right to do it, it's an issue of whether or not you have the means to defend that right...
Is it really that important to weigh your disdain with the Bell company vs PPC revenue. "Suck" sites have been protect free speach. But if the purpose of teh suck site is for commercial gain (and can be proven), then it may be viewed as a site just to generate revenue (IE- looking for a loophole to make money, but hide behind "Free Speach" arguements)...
UDRP at WIPO is not your only concern, of course, but it is interesting reading: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/s...iew/index.html.
1.3 Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term confusingly similar to the complainants trademark? (sucks cases).
Majority view: A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is confusingly similar to the complainants mark. Confusing similarity has been found because the domain name contains a trademark and a dictionary word; or because the disputed domain name is highly similar to the trademark; or because the domain name may not be recognized as negative; or because the domain name may be viewed by non-fluent English language speakers, who may not recognize the negative connotations of the word that is attached to the trademark.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale D2000-0662, Transfer.
A & F Trademark, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Justin Jorgensen D2001-0900, Transfer.
Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu D2003-0465, Transfer.
Wachovia Corporation v. Alton Flanders D2003-0596 among others, Transfer.
Minority view: A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is not confusingly similar because Internet users are not likely to associate the trademark holder with a domain name consisting of the trademark and a negative term.
Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Dan Parisi D2000-1015, Denied.
McLane Company, Inc. v. Fred Craig D2000-1455, Denied.
America Online, Inc. v. Johuathan Investments, Inc., and Aollnews.com D2001-0918, Transfer, Denied in Part..