Fandom

The IT Law Wiki

Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet Entertainment Group

32,195pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Talk0 Share

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

Citation Edit

Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 1145 (E.D. Mo. 1999) (full-text) (opinion withdrawn at request of the court).

Factual Background Edit

Plaintiff claimed common-law rights in the mark PAPAL VISIT 1999 and variations of that mark in connection with the visit of Pope John Paul II to St. Louis, Missouri, which occurred on January 26, 1999. Defendant operated websites located at the domain names "papalvisit.com" and "papalvisit1999.com," which contained information on the Pope's visit. But virtually every page on defendant's websites also contained banner advertisements that linked to its adult-entertainment sites. The websites also featured pages devoted to off-color stories and jokes regarding the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.

Trial Court Proceedings Edit

Plaintiff sued, alleging that defendant's websites infringed and diluted plaintiff's marks. Ruling only on the dilution claim, the court characterized defendant’s activities as a cyberspace "bait and switch" scheme and held as a matter of law that defendant was making commercial use of plaintiff's marks in commerce by purposefully promoting its Internet services to users who expected to access a website sponsored by plaintiff.

The court further held that plaintiff's "famous" marks and the spiritual image associated with them had been tarnished by use of the marks in connection with websites advertising and promoting sexually explicit materials and services. The court did not specifically address, however, the issue of why PAPAL VISIT was a protectable mark, let alone a famous one sufficient to qualify for federal-dilution protection.

This decision was subsequently withdrawn at the request of the court.

Source Edit

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki