Michael Kremer wasn’t pleased with the hair restoration treatment he received at a popular clinic. So he created a website to let the public know the hair restoration company’s prior history. Needless to say, the hair restoration company wasn’t flattered by the attention. So they sued …

On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Kremer, largely because the website was not built to turn a profit by pushing potential customers to another hair restoration firm.

Still remaining at issue is the use of the company’s name in the domain name. Using a derivative of the hair restoration firm’s name is a sticky wicket that may (or may not) run afoul of cybersquatting law. To his credit, Kremer did not append the common “sucks” suffix to the company name.

If the court finds in the hair restoration company’s favor in the next round, the site may be, as Bugs Bunny says, “hare today, gone tomorrow” …

Tags: hair restoration, internet law