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.