Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. October, 2009.

Defamation Lawyer 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.


FELINE INSTINCTS, LLC v. FELINE FUTURE CAT FOOD COMPANY, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (FORT WORTH)
4:09-CV-00644
FILED: 10/30/2009

I don’t know what it is about the pet store, pet food manufacturing, and animal rights industry but we get more calls about defamation within this industry than any other commercial segment of the marketplace. If you are in this industry, or are thinking about getting into this industry, or even considering handling some affiliate marketing for products within the pet and animal industry, be very cautious.


The Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors in the cat food manufacturing industry. The Defendant is alleged to have posted false statements on its website alleging the Plaintiff had stolen its product. Customers were being directed to the website containing the defamatory statements by cybersquatting on domain names including the Plaintiff’s trademark.

The Plaintiff has sued for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, cybersquatting, common law trademark infringement an unfair competition, trademark dilution and injury to business reputation under state law, declaration of validity of Plaintiff’s “Feline Instincts” trademark, business disparagement/defamation, and tortious interference with prospective relations. Prayer for relief includes actual damages, Defendant’s profits, Plaintiff’s lost profits, statutory damages, treble damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, recall from trade of all infringing products, transfer of infringing domain names to Plaintiff, an accounting of profits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, other relief that may be just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1374.


CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JACQUES SERVIN, ET AL.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (WASHINGTON, DC)
1:09-CV-02014
FILED: 10/26/2009

This incident of impersonation and related publication of allegedly defamatory statements impugning the reputation and work of the Plaintiff was a highly publicized event in October and many television stations covered the fake events. This type of conduct provides a window into the motivation of those who attack others on the web. All too often such attacks are directly attributable to a commercial interest or financial motivation. If you are under attack or your product is being disparaged or unfairly “reviewed” consider the source as you evaluate your options for responding. Disparaging or defaming a service or product is not free speech, although it is defamation and could be trademark infringement.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States is a not-for-profit business corporation representing businesses of all sizes on various issues presented to the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Government. The Defendants apparently operate a kind of “punked” enterprise in which they practice “identity correction”. The Defendants are alleged to pose as representatives of business or Government entities for the purpose of misrepresenting the entity’s position to the public. They are alleged to have done just that with the Chamber of Commerce. Just prior to the release of the Defendants’ movie, they conducted a fraudulent press conference at the prestigious “National Press Club” in Washington, DC in which one of the Defendants impersonated an executive of the Chamber, issued fraudulently prepared statements, referred the press to a website, and conducted a series of follow-up interviews promoting their movie release, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, false advertising, cyberpiracy, unlawful trade practices, publication of injurious falsehood, and Prima Facie Tort. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief, an award of Defendants’ profits, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as any further relief the court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1375.


NEOSTEM, INC. v. DR. WANG TAIHUA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:09-CV-08967
FILED: 10/23/2009

Here is the problem with Dr. Taihua’s alleged misconduct. If you are doing due diligence on the Plaintiff in order to make a purchase decision or even a public or private grant evaluation and you run across a website from a physician making the same exact claims of inventions and discoveries and authority, who do you believe? One of the two is lying. Which one is it? All too often consumers are faced with contradictory information that just doesn’t make sense, so they abandon your business and go find an alternative vendor or supplier who does not appear to have some sort of credibility question. That is the problem with false and fraudulent claims and the intended impact on a business. For someone deciding to purchase on the web, the criticisms don’t have to seem reasonable or fair or just or balanced. They just have to exist. Because it is much easier for a consumer to move on to another choice and simply avoid the hassle of trying to figure out the truth. And your business will never hear from them to understand the consequences of this type of information existing on the web.

NeoStem is the leading biotechnology firm in the adult stem cell arena. The Defendant is a physician in China. The Defamation arises out of claims the Defendant is making as to ownership of the Plaintiff’s intellectual property. The doctor’s website lists extensive credentials that the Plaintiff claims are its own.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, tortious interference, conversion, federal trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and false designation or origin, common law trademark and trade name infringement, deceptive acts and practices under New York state law, and cybersquatting. The Plaintiff has requested that the court enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, order the recall and removal of all infringing products or services, order the transfer of the infringing domain name to Plaintiff, cancellation of hosting services for other Defendant websites, an award of further relief elected by Plaintiff, and other further relief the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1376.


JET WORKS AIR CENTER LLC v. DOMAIN BY PROXY, INC. AND UNKNOWN PARTIES
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
2:09-CV-02105
FILED: 10/06/2009

This is a John Doe lawsuit and Domains by Proxy is named solely to get the information as to the identity of those owning the websites. Once names are obtained, a request for injunctive relief is submitted after service of process, and the Judge will often enter an order based upon the failure of the Defendants to respond that mandates the removal of these websites by the web host or redirection of the domain name by the registrar. This is the “work-around” that the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, the ACLU and other groups are almost helpless to prevent. If you are the victim of a sucks site there are many approaches that can be effective in addressing and resolving the problem.

Jet Works provide air craft maintenance services in a 100,000 square foot facility in Denton, Texas. Plaintiff has encountered two “sucks sites” allegedly defaming and disparaging its reputation. One sucks site claims that Jet Works is “operated entirely by monkeys”, includes a number or portraits of chimpanzees with the names of employees associated with each, and further includes statements portraying Jet Works as a racist organization.
The lawsuit alleges federal trademark infringement, violation of section 43(A) of the Lanham Act, injurious falsehood, and defamation. The Plaintiff has requested that the court enter temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of domain names to Plaintiff, monetary damages including Defendant’s profits, treble damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1377.

1 comment:

nine said...

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush................