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.
MPS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. ROBERT M FLETCHER and FRANK SORRENTINO
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (MIAMI)
1:11-CV-21765
FILED: 5/16/2011
This is more of a trademark infringement case than a defamation matter. Keep in mind that there are plenty of state laws that prohibit the use of the name or image of a third party for commercial purposes and even if there is no trademark held by someone in their own name you can violate other laws that prohibit the use of the name and likeness of third parties if you are not careful. Of course, there are constitutionally protected bases for using such information in certain contexts and the analysis can get a little involved and complex.
MPS is in the business of developing, marketing and distributing goods and services under the trademark “The Situation”. It is a limited liability company owned by one of the stars of the “Jersey Shore” TV show. The Defendant owns a website that is allegedly using “The Situation” and related images of the “Jersey Shore” TV star. The Plaintiff alleges that it is being defamed because of the Defendant’s website falsely purporting or suggesting an affiliation with the Plaintiff.
The Defendants are accused of trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, deceptive, false, and misleading advertising, common law trademark infringement, common law injury to business reputation, and unauthorized publication of name and likeness. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, an accounting of profits, destruction of all infringing materials in the Defendants’ possession, treble damages, statutory damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1496.
SUNGHOON HONG v. TRUDEF RESEARCH, INC., ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
3:11-CV-01030
FILED: 5/11/2011
This case is a perfect example of why you should not make any comments about employees or former employees that are derogatory, whether true or false. If you are contacted about a former employee the best guidance is to simply confirm dates of employment and make no further comments about the basis for dismissal or termination or your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the work of the individual.
The Plaintiff is an individual resident of San Diego County, California. The Defendant is a California corporation in the business of developing and marketing video separation and enhancement technology. An employee of the Defendant is alleged to have claimed that the Plaintiff embezzled $200,000, ran away to Korea, admitted the criminality and begged for forgiveness. All of these claims are false and defamatory according to the Plaintiff.
The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay all wages upon termination, slander per se, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, breach of bailment agreement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition. Plaintiff requests a judgment against the Defendants which include an accounting of profits, compensatory damages, all applicable Labor Code penalties, punitive and exemplary damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1497.
