Leftism

So, I must confess I don't know why I'm getting downvoted exactly. I suspect some folks think Colbert/CBS are being blatant about infringing the trademark to the point I've clearly missed the joke if I didn't catch that it was done consciously. But then some folks like you seem to think that there's no infringement happening here.

But I'm not sure how what you're saying can be squared with what follows here. And I'm pretty certain all of what I'm saying below is true.

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) says:

A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and registers, trafficks in, or uses a domain name that - (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; (II) in the case of a famous mark, that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar ot that mark; or (III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18 or section 220506 of title 36.

(And then after that there are a bunch of specific examples of what the courts ought to consider when deciding whether there's a "bad faith intent to profit from the mark.")

That was passed as part of the 1999 "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act." 15 U.S.C. 1125 is solidly in the "trademark" section of the U.S. code. Full text here and more general information on Wikipedia.

It hasn't been tested in court much since it was passed, but the Second Court of Appeals ruled that these ACPA provisions applied in Sporty's Farm, LLC v. Sportsman's Market Inc. and ordered the domain name in question transferred on the basis of "dilution." I wasn't able to find any indication it was appealed to the Supreme Court.

On the flip side, Lamparello v. Falwell was found not in favor of a mark/name owner. At least partially because Lamparello didn't have a "bad faith intent to profit from the mark." Maybe the situation with Colbert also lacks that requirement on the basis that if it's a charity cause, then Colbert/CBS wouldn't be "profiting." But I'd imagine that'd be a question for the courts.

But even if there's some technicality that lets Colbert/CBS off the hook in this case, it seems like it can't be said outright that trademark doesn't apply to domains.

My bad. Was trying to express "this must be illegal ∴ I'm surprised CBS would go for this", not "this must be illegal ∴ Colbert shouldn't have done it and Tucker's in the right."

And meanwhile, the earliest responses I got to my comment seemed to indicate that folks were downvoting me because they thought I was wrong about it being illegal.

At this point, I suspect the purportion of folks who downvoted me because they think I'm wrong about it being illegal versus those who downvoted me because my post did kinda sound like I was condemning Colbert for breaking "The Rules(tm)" might be around 50/50.

(While I'm at it, I'm under no illusion that the law is magic and there's an objective answer that isn't influenced by a complex intermix of corporate interests, politics, and the judge's own predilections to the question of whether it's "illegal". What I mean by "illegal" in this case is just that if a lawsuit was brought and it wasn't settled out of court, it's (IMO) pretty certain the courts would find in favor of Tucker.)