Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2008 Defamation Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


CHRISTOPHER ZAMMITO AND ZAMMITO AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. v. RICHARD HAVRDA
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSSETTS (BOSTON)
1:08-CV-11936
FILED: 11/19/2008

Part of evaluating a "cyberspace attack" is understanding the entire scope and extent of the alleged misconduct. Most "free speech" websites are motivated by greed and not by the noble causes that gave rise to the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiff is the owner of a retail automotive dealership. Defendant is a former employee of Plaintiff. Defendant is alleged to have been terminated as a salesperson and, in response, he purchased the domain name "zammitoautogroup.com" and thereafter placed derogatory and defamatory statements about the Plaintiffs on the site. In addition, he is alleged to have posted private photographs of the individual owner of the dealership on the site, sexually explicit and highly inappropriate comments about the dealership, the principals and their families on the site, and overall carried on a campaign of disparaging the products and services of the Plaintiff and the individuals and families of the owners of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant offered to sell the Plaintiff the domain name for $1,200.00 and a $100.00 restaurant gift certificate recently.

The lawsuit alleges cybersquatting, trademark infringement, and defamation. The Plaintiff requested an award of compensatory damages, its attorneys' fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1249.


FORBA HOLDINGS, LLC v. DEBBIE HAGAN
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY (OWENSBORO)
4:08-CV-00137
FILED: 11/14/2008

This Defendant appears to have launched a full-scale cyber-attack on the Plaintiff's company. Defamation, of course, is not protected by free speech or the first amendment. If these allegations are true this case is another in the long line of examples of how an individual located somewhere in the world can personally cause very serious damage to a business.

Forba Holdings is a limited liability company operating out of Nashville, Tennessee and is the nation's largest dental practice management company. Defendant Debbie Hagan is a resident of Kentucky and operates an Internet website and blog titled "Dentist the Menace" as well as YouTube video hosting channel titled "Abusive Pediatric Dentistry". Without going into details, the Defendant is alleged to be a rather prolific critic of the Plaintiff, having posted rather extreme claims including alleged torture, abuses, and the intentional traumatization of four families and children, all attributed to the Plaintiff. The final straw apparently came when the Defendant obtained confidential, internal, strategic and tactical trade secret documents and published those or linked to those documents from her websites.

She has been sued for misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, and defamation. The complaint requests an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interests, post-judgment interests, and the entry of extensive preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from continuing with her publications as they relate to the distribution of trade secrets or copyright infringing materials. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1250.


ASH BUCKLES v. BRIDES CLUB, ET AL
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:08-CV-00849
FILED: 11/04/2008

The Plaintiff, being an expert SEO, was able to identify exactly what was transpiring and act quickly to attempt to address the problems. As a business it is critical that you constantly monitor search engine results and the content of the web as it relates to your business and key trademarks to quickly identify this type of an attack and deal with it before it causes irreversible damage.
Plaintiff Ash Buckles is in the business of improving the client's Internet marketing results. In other words, he is a "SEO". The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant contaminated his Google search results by impersonating him, opening up a blog, acquiring three domains in his name, and establishing a fraudulent "LinkedIn" profile. These "impersonating websites" included legitimate information mixed in with false, misleading, poorly written content that reflected adversely on the Plaintiff's abilities as an Internet marketing expert.

The Plaintiff sued for cybersquatting, trademark infringement through false designation, tortious interference with prospective economic relations, cyberterrorism under Utah law, unauthorized access (hacking) and abuse of personal identity under Utah law. Although we have categorized it as a defamation case there is no specific claim alleging defamation. The Plaintiff requests entry of an order for statutory damages in the amount of $100,000.00 per domain name, punitive damages, and temporary and permanent injunctive relief addressing the alleged misconduct of the Defendants, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1251.


BFN, LLC AND JANE DOE v. DAVID ELMS, ET AL
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:08-CV-07285
FILED: 11/03/2008

If you are acting in an illegal manner you cannot avail yourself of rights to protect that illegal enterprise through the courts. Does this mean that if your business is involved in illegal criminal activity, whether you know it or not, you are "fair game" for any type of misconduct to be visited upon you and your business? That is an interesting issue that will continue to be developed over time, but for right now, I used the "unclean hands" argument successfully in Washington State in a similar case to obtain the dismissal of a lawsuit against my client. Again, always look for the commercial motivation involved in the publication of "sucks" or "the truth about" websites. Although it is sometimes difficult to see, these types of sites are almost always financially motivated.

The Plaintiff is an "escort". Defendant owns and operates a website that advertises the services of escorts and Plaintiff claims that when she refused to advertise on the website the Defendant undertook a campaign to disparage her reputation by using her real name in a "the truth about" website, which is a variation of a "sucks" attack website. Defendants are alleged to have emailed Plaintiff's father and undertaken a number of other actions that revealed her true personal information, creating a very dangerous environment for the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit includes a count for copyright infringement, cybersquatting in violation of a California state statute, violations of the right of publicity, defamation, state privacy law violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. Plaintiff requests the entry of a permanent injunction, an award of actual damages and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and requests a trial by jury. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1252.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2008 Defamation Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

HOME SHOW TOURS INC. v. QUAD CITY VIRTUAL INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA (DAVENPORT)
3:08-CV-00127
FILED: 9/30/2008

Once again we have litigation between competitors relating to the publication of allegedly defamatory statements and a trademark infringement claim under the federal Lanham Act. It is hard to know whether the use by the Defendant of the Plaintiff's name was in a direct commercial context such that a trademark infringement claim would be appropriate, but a good rule of thumb is that commercial competitors’ claims relating to defamation do generally bring trademark infringement issues into play.
The Plaintiff was incorporated in January of 2004 and since that time has engaged in the business of selling advertising on the Internet to homeowners and other persons and entities offering real estate for sale by owner. The Defendant is a direct competitor of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is alleged to have published defamatory statements and information about the Plaintiff on its website that is false, literally true or ambiguous but which implicitly conveys a false impression.

The lawsuit alleges a trademark infringement claim under the federal Lanham Act, libel per se in that such statements would reasonably be understood to be an expression that attacks the integrity of the Plaintiff, libel per quod in that the statements and information were published with actual knowledge that they were false or with a reckless disregard for their truth, and "false light". Relief requested includes compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and a permanent injunction that prohibits the publication of future false or defamatory statements, or the assertion of claims that may be true or ambiguous but which implicitly convey a false impression or are misleading in context. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1229.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2008 Defamation Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

JOHN A. BLAZI AND GREENWICH COFFEE, LLC v. JASON WAGONER AND NICHOLAS DEGRAZIA
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (NEW HAVEN)
FILED: 9/19/2008
3:08-CV-01441

Litigation over the use of company names is seemingly exploding across the country. This is another example of an "attack" website being used, if the Plaintiff's allegations are correct, to gain advantage and leverage in a civil dispute. The courts have not yet decided how to deal with these "sucks", "attack", or "gripe sites" (the later which of course is the term used by the free speech and public interest groups). Are these really "gripe sites"? Almost all of the litigation coming through the federal courts has significant commercial elements as the motivating factor in the launching of these sites, and they are far from mere "free speech" or "gripe" sites.
The Plaintiff, operating a coffee shop known as "Greenwich Coffee" allegedly had some disputes with the Defendants who were former employees and in charge of the coffee shop's website located at "www.greenwichcoffee.com". To make a long story short, according to the Plaintiff the parties had a falling out and the Defendants maintained control of the Greenwich Coffee website and domain name and changed the site from an "online store" into an attack "blog" site for the sole purpose of generating and posting negative and disparaging comments about their former employer.

The lawsuit includes a claim for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition of false designation of origin, common law unfair competition under Connecticut common law, computer hacking under section 1030, and civil conspiracy. Plaintiff requests an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, a tripling of compensatory damages, and awards of attorney's fees and courts costs. In addition, the Plaintiff is requesting the transfer of the domain names "greenwichcoffee.com" and "greenwichcoffee.net" to the Plaintiff. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1228.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2008 Defamation Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

USA HERBALS, LLC, ET AL. v. SYBERVISION, INC. ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:08-CV-07571
FILED: 8/27/2008

“Review” sites run by affiliate marketers or competing products fall into the category of “comparative advertising”. Free speech does not protect much of the content of these sites since the motivation is commercial and economic in nature. Consequently, the false advertising laws and related causes of action flowing from the falsity of claims often provides a much stronger basis for dealing with the problem. This area is primed for a lot of legal action. Don’t allow affiliate marketers or your in-house marketing staff do run these types of sites reviewing a product or service in which the owner of the site has an economic interest.
The Plaintiff develops and markets a variety of herbal, natural health and wellness products. Defendants are alleged to have launched websites that are touted by the Defendants as informative and unbiased “product reviews”. Plaintiff alleges that the “reviews” are fake, are intended to disparage its products and cause consumers to buy products being sold by the Defendants, which almost always receive very high ratings. There are also allegations of bidding on trademark key terms owned by the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit counts include copyright infringement, false advertising, trademark infringement and false designation, injurious falsehood, false and deceptive trade practices, state false advertising, defamation, tortuous interference with prospective business, common law unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and civil conspiracy. The Plaintiff requests the entry of injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1210.


JOHN CAFIERO v. DOUG CUSTER a/k/a DOUG EVIL
WESTERN DSITRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (JOHNSTOWN)
3:08-CV-00202
FILED: 8/14/2008

The Digital Millennium Copy Act requires that a website pull down infringing content upon the receipt of a “DMCA notification”. While it is a bit ambiguous, the law requires the content to be down for ten days, during which a “counter-notification” can be filed. The counter-notification is an affidavit, signed under oath and under penalties of perjury. And, since the DMCA notice should have taken care of the content for ten days, a counter-notification could be viewed simply as an invitation to file another DMCA takedown notice if you are on solid footing. Little known fact: There is no limitation as to how many DMCA takedown notices you can serve on a web host.
Beginning in 2005 the Defendant launched an unprovoked attack on Mr. Cafiero’s personal and professional credibility by posting on the Internet numerous false, harassing and defamatory statements about Mr. Cafiero. The Plaintiff is a successful artist, musician, producer, director and businessman in the entertainment industry. Mr. Cafiero has directed films and videos that have ranked at the top of the Billboard charts and received gold and platinum certification from the Recording Industry Association of America. Mr. Cafiero presently manages the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame band “The Ramones”. Defendant allegedly stole an animated video owned by Mr. Cafiero and placed it on YouTube.com. The Defendant then laid claim to ownership of the video. When the Plaintiff served a DMCA takedown notice on YouTube the Defendant filed a counter-notification claiming that the Plaintiff had committed perjury and was not the owner of the video. Defendant then is alleged to have launched a blog attacking various business interests of the Plaintiff through the publication of false and defamatory accusations relating to theft, misappropriation, stealing and lying.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act/perjury, defamation, and false light. The Plaintiff is requesting the entry of permanent injunction from “defaming or otherwise disparaging Plaintiff John Cafiero”, damages sustained, statutory damages, triple damages, and costs and attorney’s fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1211.


OLD TIME POTTERY, INC. v. RICHARD K. BEDSOLE, ET AL.
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE (NASHVILLE)
3:08-CV-00760
FILED: 8/07/2008

The allegations in this case set forth a well organized pattern of mischief making. Indeed, the mischief goes far beyond creating problems for a couple of the stores in this retail chain. In fact, if these allegations are true the Defendants appear to be operating anonymously but, once again, it becomes readily apparent that the web is not as anonymous as many think it is.
The Plaintiff, Old Time Pottery, Inc., sued the Defendants and alleged that they published a “going out of business” announcement on “Craigslist”. Plaintiff continues to allege that the Defendants published numerous other similar or identical postings about the Plaintiff’s various stores including a post on Wikipedia questioning its financial legitimacy.

The Plaintiff has sued for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, state consumer protection act violations, intentional interference with business relationships, defamation, and telephone consumer protection act violations. The prayer for relief includes a request for the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants which will probably result in “prior restraint” constitutional challenges, awards of monetary damages tripled by state statute, as well as other statutory damages, award of attorney’s fee, punitive damages, costs and further relief. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1212.