George--stick to boat building. Both CLC and Pygmy have claims, even without provable damages. I am not a litigator, but do a fair amount of technology licensing and Internet law. (CLC and Pygmy should not take what follows as legal advice, I am not representing them, and I am merely posting my personal view of possible claims. I have not researched all of the facts of this case and what follows may not apply if some facts are different. Enough CYA.)

This situation appears to present clear copyright, trademark, and misrepresentation claims. First, the site is a direct copy of their sites (Pygmy's presently, CLC's before) and is a clear violation of the copyright. This is not a fair use issue, it was a wholesale copy! NO, everything on the web is not available for use, and the site does not purport to be a fair use. CLC and Pygmy do not need to have registered their sites at the Copyright office to have a copyright. Registration would be necessary in order to file a suit, but could be done tomorrow, and a suit filed the next day (registration need not precede the copying). Registration would also provide certain advantages such as statutory damages (George--there are your damages) and attorneys' fees. That is one claim (and it would appear to be a slam dunk at least for Pygmy while the site is still up).

The second claim is trademark infringement. Both companies have had a third party use their trademark without their permission and in a confusing and misrepresentative way. Even if they haven't filed federal trademarks, they could make state-law trademark arguments.

The third possible claim is misrepresentation. State law varies, but generally it is not legal for someone to hold themselves out as someone else. This claim may require proof of some damages (although loss of goodwill is possible as a claim for damages).

There is a question as to whether they should file a suit. Usually the goal in this type of case is to have the infringing user stop their use. If the person refuses to take the site down, and continues to use the marks or the copyrighted material, then I would say yes, there is a legitimate lawsuit and go after the guy. If I were CLC or Pygmy, at a minimum, I would send a letter to the ISP informing them of the copyright infringement and request that the site be taken down. If the ISP does not want liability for the copyright violation, they will be smart and take it down.

Sorry for the lecture, but this case appears to be so clear that it galls me to find someone that thinks it is okay.

> There has been a lot said about this poor fellow but ...

> Pygmy has no claim - they have no provable damages.

> CLC has no valid claim - I would testify in the poor fellow's behalf. I
> currently have photos of plywood that CLC sold as A/B the best faces of
> that plywood are less than B. I have a tape of Chris threatening me with a
> slap suit unless I did what he wanted. Once he understood he was on tape
> he ran away.

> And Nick ...

> Nick has no claim - he was not mentioned anywhere. I believe that Nick
> accused the fellow of Mail Fraud. Unless and until the fellow is convicted
> of Mail Fraud that puts Nick close to libel.

> ... Bunch of babies.