Goldman Sachs has bigger things to worry about in this economy than a conspiracy theory-filled gripe site, but that's what it has focused its efforts on in an attempt to bully Goldmansachs666.com into shutting down. The investment bank has sent a cease and desist letter to Goldmansachs666 blogger Mike Morgan, claiming that his site has violated Goldman Sachs' intellectual property and trademarks, provides unfair competition, and could confuse consumers.

A quick visit to Goldmansachs666 reveals a blog that—even without reading any of the text—clearly does not appear related to the investment bank Goldman Sachs. There is also a disclaimer at the top of the page stating that the site is not in affiliation with the bank or its marketing department, and even helpfully telling readers where they can find the real Goldman Sachs website.

Postings on the blog run the gamut of your typical conspiracy theorist, too. Morgan wonders whether Goldman Sachs had manipulated the stock market or world oil prices, postulates that the firm has gained too much political power, and questions whether Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein lied to Congress, among other things. To get the blog confused with an official Goldman Sachs website would require a serious removal from reality. Or a partial lobotomy.

Goldman Sachs, of course, disagrees. "Your use of the mark Goldman Sachs violates several of Goldman Sachs' intellectual property rights, constitutes an act of trademark infringement, unfair competition and implies a relationship and misrepresents commercial activity and/or an affiliation between you and Goldman Sachs which does not exist and additionally creates confusion in the marketplace," reads part of the letter the firm sent to Morgan.

Clearly, the bank is hoping that Morgan decides to fold under the legal pressure and just take the site down. But as history tells us, that rarely happens. Instead, the bank is now drawing more public attention to Goldmansachs666 than ever, which may encourage the founder to keep it online. After all, if Morgan decides to fight back, the law is likely to side with him.

When we spoke with EFF staff attorney Corynne McSherry in 2007 about Lowes-sucks.com, she noted that "gripe sites like this are protected—in fact, [the courts] want people to speak freely and share information about their experiences with various companies." She said that trademark holders sometimes lose sight of the point of trademark law, which is to protect consumers and provide them with good information about a company's product. Gripe sites provide information on someone's consumer experience, she said, which is not only allowed under trademark law, but protected by the First Amendment.

Found via TechDirt.