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.
ZIMMER INC v. ARI KRESCH, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA (SOUTH BEND)
The bottom line is that when you put content out on the web you need to make sure that it is factually supported and correct, particularly when you are criticizing a product or service and attempting to generate business from the criticism. Who knows whether the claims made on these law firm websites are true? But when a Plaintiff sues law firms it is a strong indication that businesses are scrutinizing content being carried on the web much more carefully and policing allegedly deceptive content more aggressively.
Zimmer, Inc. develops, manufactures and sells artificial knees, hips, and other orthopedic devices. The Defendants are a law firm with websites that are focused on alleged defects in the Plaintiff’s products. Plaintiff claims that the content on the websites is false, misleading, and defamatory.
The lawsuit alleges defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, product disparagement and unfair competition under common law, cybersquatting, trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, and common law unfair competition and trademark infringement. Zimmer requests injunctive relief, an order requiring Defendants to place corrective advertising with an apology, an order requiring Defendants to notify recipients of the defamatory material of their unlawful conduct, an accounting and disgorgement of profits, actual damages, treble damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and expenses. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1476.