On March 20, 2002, Taubman issued what I believe to be their second
statement about this case.
I don't have any background on their statement it is not, for
example, posted on their website, and I can't find anything about it on the Web. It was faxed to
me by a reporter, it appears to be on their letterhead, I have every reason to believe that it's
legitimate. Here's the statement in its entirety.
We believe it is our right and obligation to protect our trademarks in whatever
environment they appear. The Sixth Circuit's decision leaves in full force the
lower court's injunction against Mr. Mishkoff's use of a website incorporating the
trademark of one of our shopping centers. The ruling also acknowledges that
issues raised by Mr. Mishkoff's use of an additional complaint website are new
issues for the court, raising First Amendment considerations, and merit expedited
attention. While these important matters are before the U.S. District Court in
Michigan, we feel it is appropriate to make our arguments there.
Most of the statement is pure spin, of course, and I can't really
hold that against them. (They probably say the same thing about our press releases.) I do take issue
with their claim that the court left the injunction against my mall site "in full force." I suppose
that, in the narrowest interpretation of that sentence, you might be able to say that their
claim is accurate. What they're not telling you is that the court's decision left the first injunction
in full force because... we didn't ask the court to rule on that injunction! The court's decision also
left the Roe v. Wade decision, the Dred Scott decision, and the Law of Gravity "in full force"
because, just like the injunction against my "mall" site, we didn't ask the court to consider any of
those rulings, either!