Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. August 2010.

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.


HANLEY-WOOD, LLC v. HANLEY WOOD, LLC and MUTUAL COMPANIES, LLC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (WASHINGTON, DC)
1:10-CV-01167
FILED: 7/12/2010

Corporate “shakedowns” are becoming more prevalent as attackers develop a greater understanding and appreciation for the damage that can be visited upon businesses using virtually free tools on the web. No longer are mere words being used to attack. The tactics, strategies, and actions of alleged extortionists are absolutely amazing.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have carried on an extensive campaign of corporate stalking. Plaintiff alleges a broad range of impersonations, financial demands, and defamation.

The lawsuit includes claims for trademark infringement and false descriptions, violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, defamation, and unfair competition. Plaintiff requests damages in the form of declaratory and injunctive relief along with compensatory damages, statutory damages, fees, costs, and other just, equitable, and proper relief. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1438.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. July 2010.

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.


PHOTO EXCHANGE BBS, INC., ET AL. v. JONATHAN D. SHELINE, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO (COLUMBUS)
2:10-CV-00566
FILED: 6/17/2010

You would have to read through this entire lawsuit to get an appreciation as to the scope and extent of the alleged unlawful activity. The bottom line is that, for purposes of defamation, false statements that damage a party are legally actionable and create almost unlimited liability to the author.

Photo Exchange BBS is an adult website and the Defendants have allegedly carried on an incredibly extensive campaign of harassment and defamation against the Plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges defamation per se, defamation per quod, public disclosure of private facts, false light, misappropriation of each Plaintiff’s name and likeness, tortious interference with contractual relationship, tortious interference with business relationship, tortious interference with perspective and past economic advantage, copyright infringement, service mark infringement, false designation or origin, cyberpiracy, product disparagement and trade libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of filial consortium, intentional destruction of evidence, negligent destruction of evidence, and conspiracy. Plaintiffs request injunctive relief and that the Defendants be ordered to pay extensive punitive damages plus attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and other relief the Court deems appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1434.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. June 2010.

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.


ALOHA DATA SYSTEMS, INC. v. JEROLD D. CIBLEY
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00668
FILED: 5/07/2010

The amount of damage that can be caused by a former employee, contractor, or a supplier to the reputation of a business is profound. When faced with a problem like this, the best approach is to act quickly, attempt to resolve the matter immediately by going directly to the former employee or business associate, and if the problem is not resolved at that point a lawsuit is necessary.

Aloha Data Systems, Inc. is a business located in Nevada involved in providing software and technical support services. Defendant Cibley was hired as an independent contractor for sales and licensing of the Plaintiff’s products and services. Mr. Cibley left the employ of the Plaintiff and launched a website that displayed allegedly disparaging comments about the Plaintiff and its principals. He is alleged to have also sent many of the Plaintiff’s customers an email message disparaging the Plaintiff.

Causes of Action include false designation of origin, cybersquatting, common law trademark infringement, misappropriation of confidential information, misappropriation of licensable commercial property, unjust enrichment, business disparagement, intentional interference with prospective contractual relationships, and breach of contract. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of Defendant’s domain names, an accounting of profits, actual damages, compensatory damages, treble damages, general damages, punitive damages, statutory damages no less than $1,000, costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, pre-and post-judgment interest, and other relief the Court deems just. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1432.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. May 2010.

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.


HAMPTONS ONLINE LLC v. ROBERT M. FLORIO, ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (CENTRAL ISLIP)
2:10-CV-01865
FILED: 4/27/2010

This lawsuit has a lot more to it than just the alleged defamation. There are also extensive allegations of intellectual property infringement and misappropriation. The best practice for a business owner is to make sure that all of your employees understand that nothing disparaging should be published about a competitor unless you are willing to invest heavily in defending your business in court. Negative information can be tactfully and lawfully communicated and savvy businesses know how to do it.
Plaintiff Hamptons Online is a website design and development company that owns and operates an award-winning online publication that covers the Hamptons. At least one individual Defendant, a disgruntled employee, published anonymous comments on the Plaintiff’s website disparaging the quality of articles that were being published. The employee was terminated, went to work for a competitor, and continued to allegedly publish, through emails and otherwise, defamatory comments about the Plaintiff.

Claims in the complaint include copyright infringement, contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement, misappropriation and conversion of proprietary source code and trade secrets, libel/libel per se/defamation by implication, unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, conversion, accounting, and breach of contract. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any further relief the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1421.


KETTERING UNIVERSITY v. KURT JOERGER
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (DETROIT)
2:10-CV-11634
FILED: 4/22/2010

The Defendant’s website is apparently coming up high in organic results when Kettering University is searched. This case is a good reminder to make sure that your business has acquired the key domain names to protect itself. Remember that Google gives various degrees of authority to web pages depending, in part, on the domain name. You should own the .net of your name, and don’t forget the hyphen between any two words since Google ignores hyphens.
Kettering University is a university located in Michigan. The Defendant is alleged to have acquired the “ketteringuniversity.net” domain name and launched a website that contains false and defamatory information about the university.

Kettering University alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin and dilution, unfair competition, cybersquatting, state and common law unfair competition, state common law palming off, business defamation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff requests extensive preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, statutory damages, all damages directly or proximately caused by actions of Defendant, and costs, interest, and attorney fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1423.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. March 2010.

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.


AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ANTIGUA, COLLEGE OF MEDICINE v. STEVEN WOODWARD
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (DETROIT)
2:10-CV-10978
FILED: 3/11/2010

Attacks by former students against foreign universities is becoming an increasingly serious problem since most of the schools do not have a strong online presence in the United States and attacks move quickly up to the top of organic Google search results. These “sucks” sites can wreak havoc on your business if you are targeted. There is a chapter in my “Google Bomb” book about these types of sites. Simply stated, there are a lot of landmines planted, often unwittingly, by these types of sites and you need to be very careful navigating through the process of dealing with online attacks like this.
The Plaintiff is a foreign medical school catering to students in the United States. The Defendant is a disgruntled former student of the medical school. Mr. Woodward has launched an attack website against the medical school at “www.AUA-MED.com”. Plaintiff claims that he is publishing false information alleging that the school commits criminal activities, falsifies student grades, and that its students are sexually assaulted, among other “reckless, false, and malicious” statements.

The lawsuit claims federal trademark infringement, infringement under the ACPA, willful violation of FERPA, and defamation. Plaintiff requests a judgment against Defendant together with costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1417.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. February 2010.

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.


QVC INC. AND QHEALTH INC. v. YOUR VITAMINS INC. AND ANDREW LESSMAN
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE (WILMINGTON)
1:10-CV-00094
FILED: 2/05/2010

The interesting part about this case is that QVC is suing, in part, based upon comments from third parties on the Defendants’ website. The basis for getting around Section 230 immunity is alleged to be the selection of responses by the Defendants to various comments posted on the Defendants’ website. This is a very hot area of law right now and do not assume that you can edit third party comments and still be immune. Establish internal business procedures defining the specific and exact circumstances under which editing may, or may not, occur. Obviously your legal counsel will have to assist you in the preparation of these business guidelines.

QVC operates the leading national broadcast cable television shopping channel. It has been promoting Nutraceuticals in competition with the Defendant, who appears on the Home Shopping Network and allegedly distributes false information about QVC’s nutraceutical product.

The Plaintiffs claim false advertising, common law false advertising, violation of Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, violation of Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unfair competition. Prayer for Relief requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, corrective advertising from the Defendant, actual damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, and cost. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1410.


UHP PROCESS PIPING, INC., ET AL. v. JEFF CUNNINGHAM, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
3:10-CV-00242
FILED: 2/05/2010

People make purchase decisions today based upon research. The research is conducted on facts and information that is usually available online. The days of whisper campaigns and maligning competitors through word of mouth are long gone. Today when you try to disparage a competitor it is more often available to everyone online, including the competitor. We’ll continue to see an increase in defamation, product disparagement and trade libel claims because today people are actually seeing what used to only be whispered in hush tones behind their backs. Be careful what you say about your competitors or anyone else online. You may feel like truth is an absolute defense but reality tells us that proving truth is usually incredibly expensive.
The Plaintiff and Defendant are involved in the fabrication of piping and related businesses. Defendants are alleged to have published on their website claims that the Plaintiff has been stealing from them, using outdated processes, and the like.

The lawsuit includes claims for copyright violations, slander, libel and defamation per se, breach of contract, unfair competition, and conspiracy. The Plaintiffs request injunctive relief, exemplary damages, actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1409.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. January 2010.

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.

INVENTION SUBMISSION CORPORATION v. IP WATCHDOG INC., ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (SYRACUSE)
5:10-CV-00074
FILED: 1/21/2010

The entire inventor consulting services industry on the web seems to constantly be embroiled in these types of situations where defamation is allegedly being used as a business model to divert customers away from a competitor. It’s interesting how certain industries embrace a particular marketing technique that is highly questionable in terms of its lawfulness. Comparative advertising is permissible but using it carries a much greater responsibility for accuracy and truth.

The Plaintiff is in the business of providing inventor assistance services to inventors. The owner of the “IPWatchdog.com” website is allegedly a patent attorney who competes against the Plaintiff by providing inventor assistance services to inventors throughout the Unites States. According to the Plaintiff, the “IP Watchdog” website contains a broad range of false and defamatory information aimed at converting Plaintiff’s prospective clients into the clients of the Defendant patent attorney and another Defendant who appears to be related to the attorney and who is the chief operating officer of IP Watchdog, Inc.

The lawsuit claims violations of the Lanham Act, defamation, trade libel, and interference with existing and prospective contracts. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant, dissemination of advertising to correct the false and misleading claims made by IP Watchdog, an award of actual damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1395.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. December 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.

RIB CITY GROUP, INC. v. RCC RESTAURANT CORP. AND FRANCIS W. RYAN
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (FT. MYERS)
2:09-CV-00827
FILED: 12/23/2009

How can your business legally publish potentially defamatory statements about a competitor? The answer is – in a lawsuit. There are litigation immunities for statements made in the context of litigation. When you consider the consequences of this litigation exception in the context of the online world, one can easily imagine defamatory comments being posted online in the form of copies of a lawsuit and it would be almost impossible to get that information down off of the web.

Rib City Group operates family style restaurants in Florida. The Defendant is using its name and creating customer confusion. The Plaintiff has not sued for defamation, but sets forth in its lawsuit word-for-word unfavorable reviews about the Defendant posted on the Internet.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Lanham Act, trade secret violations, and breach of contract. The prayer for relief requests declaratory relief, actual or statutory damages in an amount between $1,000 and $100,000 per domain name, transfer of the infringing domain name, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1404.


JENNIFER EISENBARTH v. FWM LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL.
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
0:09-CV-03525
FILED: 12/10/2009

These are “negative option” websites and the defamation claim is interesting in the sense that the alleged false endorsements and attributions appear to disparage the Plaintiff by suggesting her weight loss was something other than hard work and discipline. This is the first case I have seen in which defamation is part of a claim relating to false endorsements. The recent self-policing by Google, MasterCard, and Visa of the negative option and continuation programs that seem to be at the heart of the many of the false endorsement problems on the web should solve at least some of these problems.

Mrs. Eisenbarth is a former plus-size model who appeared as a contestant on “The Biggest Loser”. The Defendants are allegedly using her image and name on websites and fabricating quotes for falsely purporting to speak in the Plaintiff’s voice recommending brands and products she has never used or endorsed. The Plaintiff claims that the false statements have defamed her by attributing her weight loss to Defendants’ products instead of attributing it solely to her weight-loss regimen.

The Plaintiff alleges false designation of origin, false endorsement and sponsorship, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices, unlawful trade practices, appropriation of right of publicity and right of privacy, common law unfair competition/unjust enrichment, and defamation. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and that Defendants withdrawal all advertising, websites, and promotional materials that include Plaintiff’s property, compensatory damages, actual damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and any further relief the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1402.


GROUND ZERO MUSEUM WORKSHOP AND GARY MARLON SUSON v. WILLIAM WILSON
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (GREENBELT)
8:09-CV-03288
FILED: 12/10/2009

Charitable organizations are often informal in structure and operation and seem to have recurring problems with disagreements among the volunteers. These disagreements unfortunately have a high frequency of evolving into very messy situations. If you are considering doing business with a tax-free or a charitable organization make sure that the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the parties are spelled out in writing in an appropriate contract.

The Ground Zero Museum Workshop is a tax-exempt organization showcasing images and artifacts from the “Recovery Period” at Ground Zero and is featured regularly in the top ten lists of many travel websites. There was an internal falling out between the organization and the webmaster and the webmaster is alleged to have published claims that the individuals running the tax-free organization were lining their pockets and receiving financial compensation. Plaintiff alleges that no such compensation has ever been paid and that these statements are defamatory.

Ground Zero Museum Workshop claims circumvention of copyright protection systems, copyright infringement, conversion, defamation of Gary Marlon Suson and defamation of the museum, tortious interference in a business relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Prayer for Relief includes requests for extensive injunctive relief along with statutory damages in an amount no less than $150,000 per copyrighted work infringed and costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, and such other relief the Plaintiffs may be entitled. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1403.


LIGHTS OUT HOLDINGS, LLC AND SHAWNE MERRIMAN v. TILA NGUYEN AND LITTLE MISS TRENDSETTER, INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
3:09-CV-02742
FILED: 12/08/2009

One of the unknown impacts of publishing defamatory comments online is the damages that might ensue. If Merriman loses his contract with the Chargers and Wal-Mart, and the jury concludes that these claims were false, the damages are going to be astronomical. Another lesson to be learned when a business is considering publishing anything about a competitor.

The Plaintiff is Shawne Merriman, the San Diego Chargers football player, and the Defendant is Tila Tequila, the Hollywood star. Merriman claims that Tila Tequila has published extensive false information online, including that he sleeps with minors, forces them to take drugs, and manufactures drugs in his own home. Plaintiff claims that as a result of some of the claims made by Tila Tequila online Merriman’s relationship with the San Diego Chargers has suffered and Wal-Mart has delayed its endorsement dealings with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, intentional interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and common law unfair competition. Plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, treble damages, exemplary and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory damages up to $2 million, costs, expenses and fees, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1399.


NTP MARBLE, INC. v. JOHN DOES (1-10), JANE DOES (1-10), AND DOE ENTITIES (1-10)
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (PHILADELPHIA)
2:09-CV-05783
FILED: 12/4/2009

It is critical that a business constantly monitor the web for defamatory statements. You might be surprised how often negative reviews are actually coming from competitors posing as customers. This is discussed extensively in my “Google Bomb” book.

Plaintiff claims to be one of the fastest-growing providers of fabrication and installation of stone materials in the Northeastern United States. It claims that unknown individuals, believed to be competitors of Colonial, used various websites to anonymously spread defamatory statements about the products and services of the Plaintiff. The Defendants are allegedly executing a coordinated campaign by falsely posing as the Plaintiff’s customers and posting false customer reviews on consumer review websites. Plaintiff alleges that, in totality, this group of Defendants has posted hundreds of fake customer reviews in such a manner.

Plaintiff claims false advertising and false designation of origin and requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief along with actual damages in an amount to exceed $150,000, treble damages, cost of suit, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1401.


LAURTREC CORPORATION INC v. DIAMOND REVIEW INC AND JOHN DOE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN (MILWAUKEE)
2:09-CV-01124
FILED: 12/03/2009

Unlike fake “review” forums or websites, Diamond Review, Inc. appears to be a legitimate forum hosting allegedly defamatory statements. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides that website with immunity. The interesting approach taken by the Plaintiff in this case is to claim to breach of contract because the “terms of service” on the Diamond Review website promises to remove any false, misleading or inaccurate information. An argument can be made that if the Plaintiff participated in the forum the terms of this contract could be binding and require the removal of the posts. Pay particular attention to the commitments you make in your terms of service and make sure that your promises are consistent with your actions and policies.

The Plaintiff is a designer, producer, marketer and seller of fine jewelry products. Diamond Review is a forum in which an unknown Defendant posted allegedly defamatory statements about the Plaintiff and its products.

The lawsuit alleges federal unfair competition, defamation, common law defamation, and breach of contract. The prayer for relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, a retraction of the false statements through the same channels, an accounting of profits, actual damages, treble damages, cost and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any further relief the Court deems just. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1400.