Traverse Internet Law DisclaimerThe 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.
HANGSTERFER’S LABORATORIES, INC. v. SHAWN DUNN
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (CAMDEN)
VIDEO PROFESSOR, INC. v. STRATEGIC BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
DISTRICT OF COLORADO (DENVER)
AVIATORS v. PAUL SANCHEZ, ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION v. ALL WEB LEADS, INC., ET AL.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (SAN ANTONIO)
REMOVE YOUR CONTENT, LLC v. JOHN DOES #1-20
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
Whenever your business is faced with online attacks you can usually find the source by “following the money”. While first amendment and free speech proponents vigorously defend the right of netizens to voice their opinion, these organizations have virtually no experience in the commercial aspects of the web and simply do not understand the commercial nature of the use of a target’s name or the commercial benefit of publishing false and disparaging comments. Most, but not all, online attacks against businesses have some economic and commercial motivation, and these cases provide you with several examples.
Hangsterfer’s Laboratories, Inc. is a family owned and operated manufacturer of coolants and lubricants used in all sectors of the metal working industry. The Defendant sent an email to six of the Plaintiff’s employees and eighty-five of the Plaintiff’s customers and potential customers with a link to “www.hangsterfers.info”. The link leads to a website which contains false, misleading, malicious and disparaging statements about Hangsterfer’s principals, employees, and products. The Defendant then sent another email appearing to come from the Plaintiff’s business suggesting that the Plaintiff’s customers were switching to another website for products. The Defendant, a former salesman for the Plaintiff, then encouraged customers and prospective customers of Plaintiff, through additional alleged misconduct, to switch to one of the Plaintiff’s primary competitors. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1306.
Video Professor has been in the business of developing, marketing, and distributing for sale to retailers and the general public computer learning products including video tapes and CD-ROMs for over twenty years. The Defendant is running a “sponsored link” in the Google AdWords program that purports to be a review of the Video Professor products. When the user clicks on the ad, he is taken to a website that purports to present an unbiased report comparing the Plaintiff’s products to other products which are determined by the site operator to be superior to those of the Plaintiff. Video Professor alleges that this comparison is false and Defendant is simply promoting competing products. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1307.
Aviators provides a weekly event on Saturday nights in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Defendants took control over the Plaintiff’s MySpace® webpage and directed traffic to its own business. Defendants then allegedly posted a blog claiming that a principal of the Plaintiff was a racist and a homophobe. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1308.
USAA is a member owned insurance and financial services company that has been in business since 1922 with over 6.8 million members. Defendants sell or market competing insurance products and have published on their website false and misleading statements of fact regarding USAA and make these defamatory statements appear as if they are coming from USAA affiliated websites. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1309.
Remove Your Content, LLC was formed to help combat copyright infringement and piracy on the Internet. It provides various services to its clients including working with websites to remove stolen content and serving Digital Millennium Copyright Act notices. One of the Defendants is the owner of a hate blog, “eric green sucks”, that is replete with false and defamatory information, and calls the Plaintiff’s business a scam and alleges the individuals involved with the Plaintiff’s company are thieves. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1310.