Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

Shuttered FrontPoint hedge funds sue Libor banks for $250 mln fraud  read more »

UBS, powerful amici urge 2nd Circuit not to meddle with Morrison  read more »

Ruling for AIG, Triaxx could delay May 30 trial in BofA put-back deal  read more »

Marketing Popup

What's in a (domain) name?

11/1/2012 COMMENTS (0)

By Terry Baynes 

A lawyer from Lubbock, Texas, will get another chance to make his case that the First Amendment gives him a right to the domain name for his legal blog, www.texasworkerscomplaw.com. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans on Tuesday revived John Gibson's battle with the Texas Department of Insurance over the use of the site as a place to advertise and disseminate information about his law practice.

In the legal blogosphere, the URL might seem unremarkable, except that Texas law bars the business-related use of the word "Texas" in combination with "workers' compensation" or "workers' comp." As we previously reported, Gibson had been running the site for several months when, in February 2011, he received a cease-and-desist letter from the state insurance department, which claimed that the domain name violated the Texas Labor Code. Gibson sued the agency in federal court in Lubbock, alleging, among other things, that the law infringed his freedom of speech.

He argued that the state didn't own the rights to the words "Texas" and "workers' comp," but last year U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings dismissed his suit, finding that the URL was commercial speech entitled to less First Amendment protection than ordinary communication. Cummings said that the law against use of the words in question also served a legitimate purpose of preventing any confusion with the government agency that administers workers' compensation.

But a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit disagreed earlier this week. While the panel -- Judges Edith Clement, Thomas Reavley and James Dennis -- acknowledged that the free speech right to a domain name presented a novel question for the court, it also found that the URL was entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The domain name and blog may do more than simply propose a commercial transaction, given that the site included Gibson's views on the need for compensation law reform, the judges found. They also rejected Texas's argument that the URL was "inherently misleading."

"While Texas fears that Gibson's domain name may confuse the public, there is no showing that the domain name is incapable of being viewed in a non-deceptive manner," wrote Clement for the panel.

The panel sent the case back to district court for the parties to develop the record on the First Amendment dispute.

Gibson was not immediately available for comment on Wednesday. He told us in April that he was aware of the statute when he started the site, but that he didn't think the blog was a violation, given the number of textbooks with similar names. Gibson's lawyer, Robert Hogan of the Hogan Law Firm, welcomed another opportunity to challenge the law, which he said affects a large number of attorneys in Texas. "Any attorney that lists in their letterhead that they're certified in workers' compensation law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization is automatically in violation of the law," he said.

The Texas Attorney General's office declined to comment on the litigation. In the meantime, Gibson's site remains down until he receives permission from the court to revive it. Fines for operating the site run up to $5,000 per day.

Follow us on Twitter @AlisonFrankel@tl_baynes@ReutersLegal  | Like us on Facebook  


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters