Defamation Lawyer: Dozier Internet Law

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation - January 2012

2012-01-19T12:37:00.000-08:00

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.

LYONS, ET AL. v. GILLETTE, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS (BOSTON)
1:11-CV-12192-WGY
FILED: 12/12/2011

These types of business disputes are very common and you have to be careful about everything you say when a dispute arises.

The Plaintiffs claim to be the lawful owners of a registered trademark relating to veterinary sports medicine and rehabilitation. Defendants are alleged to have made false statements to the public concerning the Plaintiffs and imputed an unfitness to do their job.

The Plaintiffs allege federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, misappropriation of intellectual property, and emotional distress. The prayer for relief requests Defendants be permanently enjoined from continued use of the infringing marks and Plaintiffs be awarded all costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1543.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation - December 2011

2011-12-22T10:11:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSISTANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. NATIONAL MARKETING SOURCE, LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (FT. LAUDERDALE)
0:11-CV-62438-WPD
FILED: 11/14/2011

The defamation claim in this matter arises because of the deceptive nature of the advertisements and the alleged misleading purposes of the Defendant’s websites, which is to lure consumers into paying for services otherwise offered for free by the Plaintiff.

NACA, the Plaintiff in the case, is a non-profit corporation providing loan modification and related mortgage assistance services to homeowners. The Defendant is allegedly using the “NACA” name in Internet advertisements that drive prospective customers of the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s websites. The Defendant then charges the consumers for services offered for free on the NACA website.

The Plaintiff alleges counterfeiting, service mark infringements, unfair competition, false designation of origin, false representation and advertising, and deceptive and unfair trade practices. Plaintiff requests to enjoin the Defendant from registering or using infringing marks, an award of statutory and treble damages, all costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1536.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. November 2011

2011-11-15T12:12:00.000-08:00

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.

DAVINCI VIRTUAL v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP
DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:11-CV-00989
FILED: 10/25/2011

Monitoring your employees’ communications on the web will help avoid this type of a claim for defamation.

Both the Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors selling virtual office solutions. Davinci alleges that Regus has claimed it is affiliated with Davinci and, in fact, purchased the Davinci Virtual, LLC business. Plaintiff claims these statements are false and defamatory.

The Plaintiff alleges federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, intentional interference with current/potential economic relations, commercial disparagement/injurious falsehood and unfair practices. Prayer for relief requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from infringing use, statutory and civil damages, punitive and treble damages, corrective advertising, all costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1530.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. October 2011

2011-10-31T07:32:00.000-07:00

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.

DEER CREEK CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. v. NORTHWEST REGISTERED AGENT, LLC, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF MONTANA (HELENA)
6:11-CV-00054
FILED: 9/27/2011

The misuse of intellectual property of others is an important issue that seems to be a recurring theme. Make sure that you have the rights to use the property of third parties before doing so.

Plaintiff’s business consists primarily of serving as a registered agent for closely-held Montana companies. The Defendants are alleged to be using various intellectual properties including trademarks of the Plaintiff, and in so doing are liable according to the Plaintiff for business libel and business defamation.

The Plaintiff alleges infringement/disparagement of marks, dilution by blurring/tarnishment, cyberpiracy, business libel/defamation and unlawful dilution. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief from infringing use, treble and statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs and such other and further relief from the Court as may be just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1526.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. September 2011.

2011-09-28T13:17:00.000-07:00

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.

ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, L.P. v. RICK SHOOP
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
3:11-CV-01922
FILED: 8/5/2011

Make sure that your company is very active in monitoring your online and offline reputation. Sometimes getting “Google Alerts” just isn’t enough to keep you abreast as to the latest developments.

Advocare is the direct sales company that sells nutritional, sports performance and weight management products under its own name. Shoop is alleged to be carrying on an extensive campaign of defamation including claims that the Plaintiff is a “scam” and “run by crooks”.

The Defendant is accused of commercial disparagement and defamation, tortious interference with contractual relationships, trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, cybersquatting, and injury to business reputation. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, transfer of the infringing domain name, statutory damages, actual damages, treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and other further relief which may be justly entitled. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1522.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. August 2011.

2011-08-04T12:10:00.000-07:00

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.

LINDA P. SCHACHT v. BRUCE CARUTHERS and BROOKE YOOLE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE (NASHVILLE)
3:11-CV-00699
FILED: 7/22/11

The bottom line is that you have to maintain possession and control of your domain names and websites. There is no reason for a web developer to have administrative access and control of your domain names. If the Plaintiff had an off premises back-up of the site’s content then the domain name, if under her control, could have been pointed to a new website and this problem would have been nipped in the bud.

The Plaintiff is the elderly widow of world renowned artist Mike Schacht and has previously held high profile positions in politics and publishing. The Defendant is a web developer and got into a dispute with the Plaintiff. When the Plaintiff allegedly failed to make a payment the web developer removed the content from one of the websites and reported that it had been “shut down for non-payment”.

Schacht alleges cybersquatting, violation of statutory right to publicity, breach of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, libel, false light invasion of privacy, outrageous conduct, fraud, conversion/embezzlement, and intentional interference with existing and prospective business relationships. The prayer for relief requests an award of temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, exemplary damages, punitive damages, treble damages, statutory damages, transfer of the infringing domain names, and such further relief the court deems appropriate. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1510.

HARSCO CORPORATION v. NOVETAS SOLUTIONS, LLC
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (HARRISBURG)
1:11-CV-01355
FILED: 7/21/2011

Make sure that you have Google alerts set up so you will know whenever your product is being mentioned online.

The Plaintiff and Defendant are both in the business of manufacturing and selling glass abrasives used for blast cleaning and preparation of surfaces. The Defendant is alleged to be carrying out an advertising campaign which includes false and misleading claims placing into question the safety of the Plaintiff’s products under EPA guidelines.

The Defendant is accused of unfair competition, false advertising, product disparagement, tortious interference with contract, and interference with prospective business relationships. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, actual damages, corrective advertising, deactivation of all Defendant websites, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1511.

ARDIS HEALTH, LLC, ET AL. v. ASHLEIGH NANKIVELL
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:11-CV-05013
FILED: 7/21/2011

Former employees can launch very bad attacks, and sometimes with impunity, against your business. Be very careful when discharging employees. It is always preferable to have a signed agreement with a severance package or a confidentiality and non-disparagement provision in an employment contract.

Plaintiffs are a group of closely affiliated online marketing companies that develop and market a variety of herbal products online. Defendant is a former employee and she claimed on Facebook that the Plaintiff was “raping” customers with “fake diet patches”.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, breach of contract, conversion/civil theft, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and defamation. The Plaintiff requests the court award extensive permanent injunctive relief as well as actual damages, compensatory damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1512.

COSMETIC WARRIORS LIMITED v. ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY CARE: MEDICAL, COSMETIC, AND SURGERY, P.A., ET AL.
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
0:11-CV-02023
FILED: 7/21/2011

This is an interesting twist on defamation. If you use a competitor’s name, and the public criticizes you, but it appears to be criticism of your competitor, then according to this lawsuit you are liable for defamation. It will be interesting to see how this case pans out.

The Plaintiff is a premiere supplier of cosmetic, bath, and beauty products. The Defendants are a competitor. The Defendants launched a product with a very similar name to the Plaintiff’s product and numerous reviews appeared online criticizing the Defendants’ product. Unfortunately, the public perceived the criticism of the Defendants’ product as that of the Plaintiff’s product.

The Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising. The lawsuit includes requests for permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, an accounting of profits, statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees with interest. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1513.

FUSION ENERGY, LLC and WILLIAM SCOTT COURT v. BREITLING OIL AND GAS COMPANY and CHRISTOPHER FAULKNER
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
3:11-CV-01558
FILED: 7/11/2011

Obviously the Defendants are competitors of the Plaintiffs and this is the type of defamation, if true, that is not only damaging to the Plaintiffs but also rewarding to the Defendants. At least until the lawsuit comes.

Fusion Energy is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company. The Defendants are alleged to have begun a smear campaign to deceive potential customers, disparage the Plaintiffs’ business and gain an unfair competitive advantage. The Defendants are alleged to have acquired domain names that include the Plaintiffs’ names, launched websites and blogs that contained extensive defamatory, false and malicious information, including claims that Fusion Energy is ripping off the public and is operated by criminals and frauds.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, cybersquatting, unfair competition, business disparagement, and injury to trademark and trade name. Relief requested includes preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of the infringing domain names, statutory damages, actual damages, consequential damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, enhanced damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1514.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. July 2011.

2011-07-06T09:17:00.000-07:00

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.

BLUEMILE, INC. v. YOURCOLO, LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO (COLUMBUS)
2:11-CV-00497
FILED: 6/09/2011

The Defendant is alleged to have acquired the “.net” domain name of the Plaintiff and launched a website that contained defamatory comments about its competitor. A “.net” website is likely to come up high in the results when its competitor is searched and this type of attack is particularly effective. Another good reason, of course, to buy up all of the key domain names to protect your business.

Bluemile is engaged in the business of selling Internet technology services. Defendant sells similar services. Defendant is alleged to have purchased a similar domain name and then published extensive defamatory and disparaging comments on the website similar to the Plaintiff’s targeted at the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleges cyberpiracy, trade libel, defamation and interference with business. Relief requested includes preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, turnover of the infringing domain name to the Plaintiff, actual damages, costs and fees. Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1502.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. June 2011.

2011-06-13T11:59:00.000-07:00

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. Dozier 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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1497.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. May 2011.

2011-05-05T12:04:00.000-07:00

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.

BLACK DAWG SEALCOAT, LLC and BLACK DAWG FRANCHISE GROUP, LLC v. AMERISEAL SEALCOATING and ANDREW WRIGHT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (CONCORD)
1:11-CV-00187
FILED: 4/18/2011

The interesting thing about this case is that an executive of the Defendant was sued individually because the Plaintiff believes he actually committed some of the acts complained of. Not only can an individual who took a specific action be personally and individually liable but the executives of a company who are directing or managing this type of alleged unlawful activity can also be held personally liable. The idea that a corporation provides protection against these types of claims is an urban legend. Don’t think that all because you are a corporation that you can’t be sued and held responsible individually.

Plaintiffs and Defendants are competitors in the business of “seal coating driveways and parking lots”. The Defendants are alleged to have placed negative, phony reviews about the Plaintiff on the Internet that are defamatory in nature.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Anti-Cyberpiracy Consumer Protection Act, federal unfair competition, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and common law defamation. Black Dawg request immediate and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of the infringing domain names, disgorgement of profits, actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and compensatory damages. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1492.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. April 2011.

2011-04-21T09:31:00.000-07:00

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.

BERKTREE, LLC and CHASE E. BEACH v. EGENERAL MEDICAL, INC. and PAUL MATTERA
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (WESTERN DIVISION)
5:11-CV-00136
FILED: 03/25/2011

This type of an attack against a business involves not only disparaging and defaming a competitor but also interweaving the name of the competitor into the website so that search engine results present the attack site when the competitor is searched. The benefit is that it not only defames the competitor but provides direct commercial benefit to the attacker. When you see a site such as this targeting your business the first action is to have the site taken off the web. Notify the domain name registrar, web host, transaction processor, search engines and any advertisers of the trademark infringement and attack the existence and availability of the website. If it comes down you may not have to spend a small fortune on litigating the case.

Berktree is a successful e-commerce business selling consumer products online. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants undertook extensive defamatory attacks ranging from filing false police reports alleging embezzlement and causing the founder’s arrest to filing a frivolous lawsuit. In addition, the Defendants acquired the domain name of the founder of Berktree and used the domain name to launch a website that defamed the Plaintiffs. For instance, the website claimed that the Plaintiffs were offering “unparalleled uneducated services and competitive high prices….” The website allegedly contains extensive additional defamatory and false claims. There is a “donate” button that is allegedly directed to the PayPal account of the Defendants and those visiting the site are asked to donate in an effort to help fight against database theft. The Plaintiff claims that there has been no such theft.

The lawsuit alleges unfair competition, misappropriation of a person’s name, defamation, and malicious prosecution. The Plaintiffs request that the Court award transfer of the infringing URL, permanent injunctive relief to prevent further defamation, compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and other such relief the Court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1484.

DENYSE MERULLO v. RICHARD L. GREER
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (CONCORD)
1:11-CV-00116
FILED: 03/14/2011

This dispute has arisen simply because it appears that the Defendant purchased software and expected to have sole and exclusive use of the software but it had already been licensed before the sale to the Plaintiff. This is a business dispute that needs to be worked out among all of the parties based upon the contract of sale and the license agreements. Make sure you treat business disputes like business disputes and don’t start publishing attacks and potentially defamatory comments about third parties. Using a DMCA takedown notice, claiming that someone is a “pirate”, or publication of other types of comments or action can be considered defamation, particularly when it may be that the Defendant does not really own, on an exclusive basis, the right to use the software.

The Plaintiff operates a traffic exchange website used by Internet businesses to increase the number of visitors to their site. The Plaintiff licensed certain software she was using in her business and the Defendant also licensed that same software for use in his business. The problem arises because the Defendant apparently thought the license was a complete sale of all rights to use the software and started publicizing that the Plaintiff was illegally using a copy of the software the Defendant now perceived it owned outright. The Defendant then filed complaints with various third parties claiming copyright infringement and posted “security alerts” on the Internet according to the allegations of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment against the Defendant’s claims of copyright infringement and the right to use the software in question and alleges against the Defendant false designation or origin, unfair competition and false advertising, defamation, violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief against the Defendants, compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, reimbursement of Plaintiff’s cost and fees, interest on compensatory damages, and any other relief the Court deems just. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1485.

CENOPLEX, INC. v. DAVID SHOR
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
1:11-CV-00159
FILED: 03/1/2011

The Plaintiff in this case was a start-up that initially raised a half million dollars then subsequently raised $2 million in its second round of financing. Quality leadership is critical at the early stage. Recognize your start-up for what it is – a very high-risk business with an unusually high-rate of failure. Seven out of ten venture-backed businesses fail. Most high-quality executives don’t want a failure on their résumé. It is therefore very hard to recruit top executives at an early stage of your business. Be very careful in your interviewing and hiring process to make sure that you don’t have this kind of problem when an executive doesn’t live up to your expectations.

The Plaintiff terminated employment of the Defendant because of alleged incompetence, disruption of operations, and unprofessional behavior. The Defendant then created the website “screwedbycenoplex.com” which contained false and defamatory accusations and now is infringing the Plaintiff’s registered federal trademarks, counterfeiting the Plaintiff’s registered federal trademarks, falsely promoting an affiliation with the Plaintiff, and disclosing “insider information” about the Plaintiff’s technology, all allegedly for the purpose of perpetrating a smear campaign that threatens to compromise investor confidence in the Plaintiff, divert management attention, and impair the brand value of the business. This alleged smear campaign included not only launching the “screwed by” website but also launching a confusing similar website to that of the Plaintiff, the creation of a Facebook profile page, the creation of a LinkedIn profile page, the purchase of the Plaintiff’s trademarked name to key ads and other social media actions.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of a federally registered mark, counterfeiting of a federally registered mark, statutory infringement of mark, misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets, and violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act. Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of Defendant’s profits, compensatory damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief the Court deems proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1486.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. March 2011.

2011-03-29T08:25:00.000-07:00

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)
3:11-CV-00063
FILED: 2/16/2011

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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1476.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. February 2011.

2011-02-22T11:03:00.000-08:00

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.

ALPHAMETRIX GROUP, LLC v. ROLAND CLARKE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-00480
FILED: 1/21/2011

If you have any concerns about a former employee disparaging or defaming your company, you can always negotiate a “non-disparagement” provision in the contract of termination. The most effective provisions carry with them a “liquidated damages” clause that requires the payment of a very significant amount of money if disparagement or defamation occurs, irrespective of the damages incurred by your company. This often times will prevent the former employee from undertaking a campaign of disparagement.

Alphametrix is a financial services firm headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant Rolan Clarke is a former employee, who was terminated from his position as director of technology in April, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that Clarke has used his technical know how to engage in a cyber campaign of defamation, Internet harassment, and other unlawful misconduct despite having signed a non-disparagement agreement at the time of termination.

Alphametrix Group claims cybersquatting, trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, deceptive trade practices, copyright infringement, breach of contract, commercial defamation, and commercial disparagement. They request injunctive relief along with cancellation or transfer of the infringing domain name, actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1472.

CATALENT PHARMA SOLUTIONS, INC. v. VARIOUS JOHN DOES, VARIOUS JANE DOES, and XYZ COMPANY
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-00218
FILED: 1/12/2011

It’s interesting that this lawsuit was only brought based upon trademark infringement when trade libel and defamation could have been included. Also, some states have now passed laws that prohibit “impersonation” and provide for some civil causes of action. At any rate, if this is happening to you there are many legal grounds upon which to pursue the perpetrators.

Catalent Pharma Solutions is a Delaware corporation and leading provider of advanced technologies in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and consumer health industries. Presently unknown Defendants are alleged to have carried on a pattern of disparagement, defamation, libel and harassment about the Plaintiff including impersonating Plaintiff’s employees and sending out email messages with pornography attached.

Catalent Pharma Solutions claims trademark infringement against the Defendants and requests injunctive relief, damages in an amount to be determined, costs, attorneys’ fees and other such relief the Court deems just. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1473.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. January 2011.

2011-02-16T08:32:00.000-08:00

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.

SOLUTIONS FROM SCIENCE, INC. v. EMERGENCY SEEDS, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:10-CV-08077
FILED: 12/20/2010

It’s interesting that if you go out as a company and publish fake reviews that are positive about your company this “astroturfing” can get you in serious trouble with state attorneys’ general or the Federal Trade Commission. If you go out and attack a competitor through the publication of false comments, the federal and state authorities don’t get involved at all to help the party under attack. Maybe things will change, but at this point the only recourse is the private legal process of having your lawyer force the publisher and defamer to stop.

The Plaintiff offers seeds that it alleges produce more nutritionally dense fruits and vegetables and this product is attractive to self- reliant consumers who want to secure an inexpensive and sustainable way to provide fresh, healthy food for their families year round. Once again Defendant ESI is apparently a competitor. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is manufacturing and then posting fake “consumer reviews” on websites it controls falsely criticizing the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description and representation, false advertising, cybersquatting, trademark dilution, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and product disparagement/trade libel. The prayer for relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of Defendant’s profits, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1463.

AMERICAN GRANBY, INC. v DAWN INDUSTRIES, INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (SYRACUSE)
5:10-CV-01523
FILED: 12/16/2010

Again, this is representative of an apparent increase in the willingness of competitors to directly criticize others in the marketplace. Before publishing any type of comparative advertising or comments, expressed or implied, about your competitor, get it cleared by your attorney.

American Granby is a leading distributor in the wholesale pump, pool and spa, turf irrigation and plumbing and heating markets. Defendant competes by selling certain products, including pipe and hose cutters, on its website. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has published on its website in the FAQ section that Plaintiff’s products “had serious problems with leaking” and are a “cheap knockoff” of its own products.

American Granby claims unfair competition, defamation, trade libel, interference with existing and prospective contracts, false advertising, deceptive business acts and practices, and unfair competition. The lawsuit requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, corrective advertising, a retraction of all false and misleading claims, actual damages, an accounting and award of Defendant’s profits, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1464.

PRECISION IBC, INC. v. PCM CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA (MOBILE)
1:10-CV-00682
FILED: 12/10/2010

It’s interesting to see a dramatic increase in the number of defamation and trade libel lawsuits filed in December. We are reviewing four major ones in this federal court report. Competitors are apparently becoming more aggressive in publishing criticism that is crossing the line into false, material factual misrepresentations.

The parties are in the business of selling and leasing intermediate bulk containers designed to store and transport hazardous and sensitive materials. The Defendants are alleged to have published on their website, and then online elsewhere, a “press release” in which the Defendants are alleged to falsely claim that the tanks used by the Plaintiff are of “lower quality” and have “serious quality issues”. The comments also included a suggestion that the tanks used by the Plaintiff did not comply with the United Nations/Department of Transportation specifications and could cause exposure to the consumer of “very costly legal liability”.

Defendants are accused of violating the Lanham Act and libel per se. The prayer for relief includes claims for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, a retraction statement issued by Defendants, an accounting and payment of Defendants’ profits, corrective advertising, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1465.

MICROBRIGHTFIELD, INC. v. STEREOLOGY RESOURCE CENTER, INC. and PETER R. MOUTON
DISTRICT OF VERMONT (BURLINGTON)
2:10-CV-00304
FILED: 12/9/2010

Note that many of theses lawsuits are not only against a corporation but also against an individual. The party who actually is responsible for coming up with the wording or placing the allegedly defamatory words on a website is often personally liable.

The parties sell competing stereology systems. These systems provide three dimensional interpretations of two dimensional images as applied to the light sciences industry. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s website contains extensive false statements, both express and implied, concerning the pricing, quality, features and capabilities of Plaintiff’s products.

Lawsuit counts include false and misleading advertising, trade libel, and common law unfair competition. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1466.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. December 2010.

2011-02-09T07:52:00.000-08:00

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.

ART OF LIVING FOUNDATION v. DOES 1-10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND)
4:10-CV-05022
FILED: 11/9/2010

This is a John Doe lawsuit because the Plaintiff is not sure who is publishing the defamatory statements or controlling the attack blogs. The Plaintiff will subpoena the records from the webhost or website owner, get the IP address from the log files, issue a subpoena for the Internet service provider to identify who was using the IP address at the times specified, and determine the identity of the posters. Anonymity is not necessarily what you might think it is because most often tracking anonymous comments to the identity of the actual author is not difficult.

The Art of Living Foundation is an International educational and humanitarian organization based in Bangalore, India. Defendants are disgruntled former student-teachers and students of the Plaintiff who have created two blogs publishing extensive alleged false and defamatory statements.

Causes of action in the lawsuit include copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, and trade libel. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, compensatory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1457.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. November 2010.

2011-02-02T09:33:00.000-08:00

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.

SPIEGEL & UTRERA, P.A. v. FRED REIS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (MIAMI)
1:10-CV-23890
FILED: 10/27/2010

Customer complaints published on the Internet can obviously be very damaging. Make sure you have Google alerts set up for your business name, names of key executives with your company, and your product or service names, so that you can stay on top of any complaints or disparaging remarks published about you or your products.

Plaintiff is a law firm in Florida. Defendant is a disgruntled client of the law firm who claims that the law firm ripped him off.

The lawsuit claims false description of Plaintiff’s services and activities and libel. The prayer for relief requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, punitive damages, exemplary damages, interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1451.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. September 2010.

2011-01-18T11:18:00.000-08:00

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.

APX ALARM SECURITY SOLUTIONS v. NICK LAWRENCE and 911
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:10- CV-00734
FILED: 8/03/2010

Attacking a competitor can be a very successful tactic. If you are going to take this approach, be absolutely certain that every factual claim, and every implied factual claim you are making, is 100% accurate. Under the defamation laws, even statements that appear to be mere opinions can provide a basis for a defamation lawsuit.

APX is in the business of monitoring, distributing, and selling alarm systems and services to residential customers. The Defendant is an individual providing competing alarm monitoring services in Berkeley, CA. Defendant Lawrence lists a number of disparaging “facts” about the Plaintiff on its website and on its Facebook page which Plaintiff claims are false.

Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment against the Defendant and claims defamation, trade libel, conversion, negligence, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and intentional interference with economic relations. Relief requested includes injunctive relief, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1447.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. August 2010.

2010-08-20T08:49:00.000-07:00

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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1438.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. July 2010.

2010-08-10T08:15:00.000-07:00

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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1434.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. June 2010.

2010-06-28T10:07:00.000-07:00

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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1432.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. May 2010.

2010-05-19T08:32:00.000-07:00

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. Dozier 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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1423.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. March 2010.

2010-04-07T06:19:00.000-07:00

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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1417.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. February 2010.

2010-03-19T07:21:00.000-07:00

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. Dozier 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. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1409.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. January 2010.

2010-03-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1395.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. December 2009.

2010-01-26T09:49:00.000-08:00

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. Dozier 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. Dozier 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. Dozier 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. Dozier 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. Dozier 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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1400.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. November, 2009.

2009-12-30T06:08:00.000-08:00

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.

HEARTLAND AND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC. v. VERIFONE HOLDINGS, INC.
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (TRENTON)
3:09-CV-05654
FILED: 11/06/2009

It is well advised prior to publishing derogatory or negative information about a competitor to have your communication and anticipated business process reviewed by legal counsel. It is very likely that VeriFone went through such a vetting process and is prepared to vindicate itself at a great expense. VeriFone can afford to do so. Most small or mid-size businesses can’t. Consider avoiding the gray area and keep in mind that the more aggressive your business tactics the more likely you will have to incur legal costs defending those very practices.

VeriFone is the single largest supplier of “point of sale” terminals in the United States. VeriFone manufactures “point of sale” terminals stocked by the Plaintiff and sells or licenses the use of the units to its customers nationwide. The Plaintiff alleges that VeriFone published false information in a press release that raised issues about Heartland’s reliability, falsely claimed that a pending patent dispute would result in “down time” for Heartland’s credit card processing customers, and offered a website containing the “Heartland” name in its URL requesting Heartland’s customers to enter personally identifiable information and account information in order to register online and stay up to date on the latest developments. The Plaintiff claims that VeriFone has repeated the false information from its press release in an open letter from VeriFone’s CEO.

The lawsuit claims trademark infringement, violation of the Anticybersquatting Protection Act, and false advertising. Plaintiff requests that the Defendant be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from using Heartland’s trademarks, operating the infringing website or telephone service, issuing any further press releases or letters discussing Heartland, contacting any persons who received the press release or open letter, or engaging in any other acts intended to harm Heartland’s business reputation or confuse customers. The prayer for relief includes requests for compensatory damages, statutory damages, and legal fees, interest and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1379.

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL. v. ZYMOGENETICS, INC., ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE (GREENVILLE)
2:09-CV-00244
FILED: 11/02/2009

The Federal Trade Commission passed, effective December 1, 2009, a broad range of requirements for “product review” websites. Accepting the Plaintiffs’ claims as true, this case is a classic example of potentially misleading “comparative advertising” that is so prevalent on Internet product review sites. FDA approved drugs, and related issues such as false advertising, are governed by the food and drug administration’s policies, practices, regulations, and laws. It’s interesting to note that the Plaintiffs claim the Defendants have been falsely disparaging its product since 2005, the FDA has been involved in reprimanding the Defendants for their advertising, yet four years later no legal action was instituted by the FDA. Don’t expect the same passive approach by the Federal Trade Commission to non-compliance by affiliate marketers with the new economic disclosure and endorsement requirements.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants are competitors in the hemostatic modifier market who both sell topical treatments for bleeding ailments. Both King Pharmaceuticals and the Defendants have FDA approved products. Defendants are alleged to be publishing false statements claiming that its product is more safe than Plaintiffs’, Plaintiffs’ product causes death, and Plaintiffs’ product causes an increase in negative or adverse events.

The lawsuit alleges violation of 15 U.S.C § 1125(a), common law unfair competition, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, tortious interference with existing and prospective economic relations, defamation, unjust enrichment, federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, false designation of origin and false description, common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violations of Tennessee’s Consumer Protection Act. The court has been requested to issue an injunction against the Defendants’ misconduct, an order for destruction of all deceptive materials, an order requiring corrective advertising, an order requiring the takedown of Defendants’ website and AdWords campaigns, and an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief that the court deems proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1378.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. October, 2009.

2009-11-25T11:46:00.000-08:00

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.

FELINE INSTINCTS, LLC v. FELINE FUTURE CAT FOOD COMPANY, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (FORT WORTH)
4:09-CV-00644
FILED: 10/30/2009

I don’t know what it is about the pet store, pet food manufacturing, and animal rights industry but we get more calls about defamation within this industry than any other commercial segment of the marketplace. If you are in this industry, or are thinking about getting into this industry, or even considering handling some affiliate marketing for products within the pet and animal industry, be very cautious.

The Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors in the cat food manufacturing industry. The Defendant is alleged to have posted false statements on its website alleging the Plaintiff had stolen its product. Customers were being directed to the website containing the defamatory statements by cybersquatting on domain names including the Plaintiff’s trademark.

The Plaintiff has sued for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, cybersquatting, common law trademark infringement an unfair competition, trademark dilution and injury to business reputation under state law, declaration of validity of Plaintiff’s “Feline Instincts” trademark, business disparagement/defamation, and tortious interference with prospective relations. Prayer for relief includes actual damages, Defendant’s profits, Plaintiff’s lost profits, statutory damages, treble damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, recall from trade of all infringing products, transfer of infringing domain names to Plaintiff, an accounting of profits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, other relief that may be just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1374.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JACQUES SERVIN, ET AL.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (WASHINGTON, DC)
1:09-CV-02014
FILED: 10/26/2009

This incident of impersonation and related publication of allegedly defamatory statements impugning the reputation and work of the Plaintiff was a highly publicized event in October and many television stations covered the fake events. This type of conduct provides a window into the motivation of those who attack others on the web. All too often such attacks are directly attributable to a commercial interest or financial motivation. If you are under attack or your product is being disparaged or unfairly “reviewed” consider the source as you evaluate your options for responding. Disparaging or defaming a service or product is not free speech, although it is defamation and could be trademark infringement.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States is a not-for-profit business corporation representing businesses of all sizes on various issues presented to the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Government. The Defendants apparently operate a kind of “punked” enterprise in which they practice “identity correction”. The Defendants are alleged to pose as representatives of business or Government entities for the purpose of misrepresenting the entity’s position to the public. They are alleged to have done just that with the Chamber of Commerce. Just prior to the release of the Defendants’ movie, they conducted a fraudulent press conference at the prestigious “National Press Club” in Washington, DC in which one of the Defendants impersonated an executive of the Chamber, issued fraudulently prepared statements, referred the press to a website, and conducted a series of follow-up interviews promoting their movie release, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, false advertising, cyberpiracy, unlawful trade practices, publication of injurious falsehood, and Prima Facie Tort. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief, an award of Defendants’ profits, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as any further relief the court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1375.

NEOSTEM, INC. v. DR. WANG TAIHUA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:09-CV-08967
FILED: 10/23/2009

Here is the problem with Dr. Taihua’s alleged misconduct. If you are doing due diligence on the Plaintiff in order to make a purchase decision or even a public or private grant evaluation and you run across a website from a physician making the same exact claims of inventions and discoveries and authority, who do you believe? One of the two is lying. Which one is it? All too often consumers are faced with contradictory information that just doesn’t make sense, so they abandon your business and go find an alternative vendor or supplier who does not appear to have some sort of credibility question. That is the problem with false and fraudulent claims and the intended impact on a business. For someone deciding to purchase on the web, the criticisms don’t have to seem reasonable or fair or just or balanced. They just have to exist. Because it is much easier for a consumer to move on to another choice and simply avoid the hassle of trying to figure out the truth. And your business will never hear from them to understand the consequences of this type of information existing on the web.

NeoStem is the leading biotechnology firm in the adult stem cell arena. The Defendant is a physician in China. The Defamation arises out of claims the Defendant is making as to ownership of the Plaintiff’s intellectual property. The doctor’s website lists extensive credentials that the Plaintiff claims are its own.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, tortious interference, conversion, federal trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and false designation or origin, common law trademark and trade name infringement, deceptive acts and practices under New York state law, and cybersquatting. The Plaintiff has requested that the court enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, order the recall and removal of all infringing products or services, order the transfer of the infringing domain name to Plaintiff, cancellation of hosting services for other Defendant websites, an award of further relief elected by Plaintiff, and other further relief the Court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1376.

JET WORKS AIR CENTER LLC v. DOMAIN BY PROXY, INC. AND UNKNOWN PARTIES
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
2:09-CV-02105
FILED: 10/06/2009

This is a John Doe lawsuit and Domains by Proxy is named solely to get the information as to the identity of those owning the websites. Once names are obtained, a request for injunctive relief is submitted after service of process, and the Judge will often enter an order based upon the failure of the Defendants to respond that mandates the removal of these websites by the web host or redirection of the domain name by the registrar. This is the “work-around” that the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, the ACLU and other groups are almost helpless to prevent. If you are the victim of a sucks site there are many approaches that can be effective in addressing and resolving the problem.

Jet Works provide air craft maintenance services in a 100,000 square foot facility in Denton, Texas. Plaintiff has encountered two “sucks sites” allegedly defaming and disparaging its reputation. One sucks site claims that Jet Works is “operated entirely by monkeys”, includes a number or portraits of chimpanzees with the names of employees associated with each, and further includes statements portraying Jet Works as a racist organization.
The lawsuit alleges federal trademark infringement, violation of section 43(A) of the Lanham Act, injurious falsehood, and defamation. The Plaintiff has requested that the court enter temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of domain names to Plaintiff, monetary damages including Defendant’s profits, treble damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1377.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. September, 2009.

2009-10-15T07:25:00.000-07:00

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.

CHANNELADVISOR CORP. v. KERRI VAN VEENENDAAL
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA (ATLANTA)
1:09-CV-02702
FILED: 9/30/2009

Many companies issue laptops and do not allow any business to be conducted on other computers. There are numerous benefits to this approach. One such benefit is that upon termination of an employee the retrieval of the laptop is an effective retrieval of important company information. If you allow employees to retrieve, maintain, and store valuable trade secret information and even standard business contact information on their own computers the risk of misconduct increases substantially.

ChannelAdvisor is a Delaware corporation with customers and clients worldwide. It provides numerous products and services to assist its clients in diverse aspects of online business and e-commerce. The Defendant is a former disgruntled employee of the Plaintiff. On August 11 and 12, 2009, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant created and used multiple email accounts to send out false and defamatory messages to customers and clients of ChannelAdvisor in the United States and all around the world. The Defendant resides in Victoria, Australia. She is alleged to have improperly retained confidential and proprietary company information in the form of client and customer lists as well as contact information and used that information to target her defamatory email messages.

The Plaintiff has sued for libel per se, intentional interference with contract, intentional interference with business relations, misappropriation of confidential business information and trade secrets, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. Prayer for relief includes preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, special and general damages to be proven at trial, punitive and exemplary damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1362.

NUTRAMEDICS, INC. v. BLACKSTONE NUTRITION, INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (WEST PALM BEACH)
9:09-CV-81458
FILED: 9/30/2009

There is an entire chapter in “Google Bomb”, my new book, about these review sites themselves. The Federal Trade Commission has recently passed a new set of rules which more clearly define the obligations of parties promoting products or services to disclose economic interests. This is a huge and pervasive problem and if your company, products, or services are the subject of “product reviews” you should consider reviewing those sites for misconduct.

NutraMedics is a Florida corporation operating out of Palm Beach County, Florida. The company is involved in the online sale of various nutraceutical products. Defendants are alleged to have launched “product review” websites that contain false information, are fictitious and biased, and nothing more than unlawful competition by the Defendant to sell its own products. In addition, ads have been allegedly purchased by the Defendants with terms such as “warning” and “scam” prominently displayed in the ad when people are searching for various products of the Plaintiff. Those ads divert the traffic to the false “product review” sites.

The lawsuit alleges initial interest confusion under the Lanham Act, federal and common law trade libel, defamation per se, commercial disparagement, tortious interference with prospective business, and civil conspiracy. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as well as any further relief the court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1363.

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. v. MICHAEL LENNING, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)
3:09-CV-04220
FILED: 9/11/2009

In effect, Merrill Lynch is claiming that the Defendant impersonated a Merrill Lynch employee and his false attribution is business defamation. There are plenty of legal bases for dealing with a problem like this, and defamation is likely not the strongest argument in this case. It’s interesting to see the evolution of the definition of defamation moving ever so slowly from a requirement of the publication of an untrue factual statement to defamation based upon statements by implication. In other words, the law is very much a living and breathing thing and it evolves over time. The question any business will want to ask itself when faced with a potential impersonation situation, and there are plenty of these types of problems online today, is whether the business has been damaged. Then leave it up to the attorneys to figure out the legal angles of attack since most non-lawyers would not see this as a potential defamation situation.

Merrill Lynch is a Delaware corporation and leading global financial management and advisory company. Defendant Lenning is alleged to have registered the domain name “merrilllynchcareers.com”, created an account on CareerBuilder.com, and enticed applicants to enter into an alleged paid training program for a job at Merrill Lynch. All of the communications aimed at this “phishing” operation appear to be coming from Merrill Lynch.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement under section 32 of the Lanham Act, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and false representation under section 43 of the Lanham Act, fraud, business defamation, unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code, and violation of the California Anti-Phishing Act of 2005. The Plaintiff has requested that the court enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, order the transfer of the infringing domain name to Plaintiff, and award actual damages, treble damages, statutory damages, punitive, and exemplary damages plus interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1364.

RESERVATROL PARTNERS LLC v. JON MAYNE AND DOES 1-10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:09-CV-06536
FILED: 9/09/2009

Once again a “product review” website is alleged to in reality be a competitor-funded attack mechanism. Considering the fact that there are thousands of these types of sites online it’s not surprising to see a couple of federal lawsuits each month. If your business is involved in cooperating with, condoning, or assisting these types of sites in any way your liability and legal exposure is very significant. Affiliates running “product review” websites marketing your products could also be creating liability and exposure for your business.

Plaintiff is the sole developer, manufacturer, and seller of Longevinex, the leading Resveratrol dietary supplement sold in the United States. The Defendant allegedly operates a product review and evaluation service that contains false and misleading statements about the Plaintiff’s products. The Defendant is alleged to be funded by competitors.

The lawsuit alleges libel, disparagement, trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff has requested that the court enter temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, award compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1365.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. August, 2009.

2009-09-30T06:43:00.000-07:00

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.

NUTRAMEDICS, INC. v. ELIZABETH ARDEN d/b/a COMPLAINTS BOARD
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (WEST PALM BEACH)
9:09-CV-81216
FILED: 8/21/2009

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act usually gives websites immunity. However, in this case, the Plaintiff is alleging that immunity will not apply to Complaints Board because it defames the Plaintiff by selecting ads that suggest fraud. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant makes editing decisions by giving defamatory statements a more prominent position to be indexed by the search engines and is therefore editing and controlling content. This is an evolving area of law but keep in mind that if you are exerting influence over the content there is potential liability as a publisher for material posted by third parties.

Nutramedics is a Florida healthcare related institute. The Defendant, Complaints Board, is a website that carries and publishes complaints about businesses. The Plaintiff alleges that its products or services are being labeled “fraudulent” and the results are showing up at the top of Google and other search engines when products or services of the Plaintiff are searched. “Complaints Board” has been sued because it allegedly presents advertising that suggests credit card fraud services are necessary when dealing with the Plaintiff and that positive comments and statements are buried in the comment section and only the defamatory statements are programmed to be indexed and receive prominent attention.

The Plaintiff has sued for initial interest confusion under the Lanham Act, federal and common law trade libel, defamation, and commercial disparagement. Injunctive relief is requested addressing the alleged misconduct in addition to requests for any further relief the court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1354.

THETANCO, INC. and TODD J. BECKMAN v. DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, LLC and HOOMAN KARAMIAN
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
2:09-CV-01743
FILED: 8/21/2009

If you are a website with 3rd party content and you are not editing the content you likely have blanket immunity. Once you make a promise to do something, like remove certain material, and you fail to do so, your immunity may be lost. Make sure that your moderators and administrators fully understand what they can, and cannot, do in the context of running a web 2.0 or user generated content website. You should have an operations manual addressing the exact issue of editing and removing content and an auditing program to assure compliance. This is a complex arena and one false move can prove to be costly to an unfathomable degree.

Tanco is a franchisor and operator of tanning salons. The Defendant runs a website by the domain name of “thedirty.com”, which professes to be “all about gossip and satire”. A series of postings on the site allege the Plaintiff and its principals were involved in illegal drug use, pedophilia, illegal business practices, insurance fraud, arson, and philandering. Plaintiff’s counsel demanded that the information be removed from the web and the Defendant advised that it was “in the process of removal”. The Defendant has allegedly failed to remove the defamatory content.

The lawsuit alleges federal trademark infringement, federal trademark dilution, common law infringement and dilution, and defamation. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, the removal of the defamatory posts, actual damages, consequential damages, exemplary damages, treble damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1355.

POWER EFFICIENCY CORPORATION v. RESOURCE ENERGY SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and LEONARD S. BELLEZZA
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:09-CV-01468
FILED: 8/06/2009

You may have heard of “Astroturfing”, which is the practice of a company posting positive comments and reviews about its own products or services. This practice is false advertising. On the flip side is the issue of competitors posting false reviews and comments of a defamatory nature about a competitor. This happens all the time, and if the allegations in this lawsuit are true, this practice is simply another example of an already big problem becoming much bigger as the anonymity of the web creates an unaccountable environment in which misconduct cannot be traced back to the offender. As long as there is a perception thatone can get away with anything on the web, these types of attacks will proliferate. Of course, there are many ways to identify the party who hides behind the cloak of “anonymity” once litigation has begun.

PEC develops and markets advanced energy saving technologies for electric motors. The Defendant was recently formed and employs several former executives of the Plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a clandestine campaign intended to damage PEC’s business and reputation, lower the trading price of PEC’s shares, and make PEC and its products less attractive to potential investors and customers by posting defamatory comments numbering in the hundreds on the web.

The lawsuit alleges false advertising, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation and libel, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The Plaintiff has requested that the court enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and an order requiring the Defendant’s to produce all electronic devices capable of storing data for inspection, award compensatory, consequential, punitive, and exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1356.

This concludes significant cases on defamation law for the month of August, 2009 from Dozier Internet Law, the Defamation Lawyer.

Defamation Lawyer: Dozier on Defamation. July, 2009.

2009-08-17T07:33:00.000-07:00

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.

JAMES R. CANNON AND MARINE PILE DRIVERS LLC v. EAST COAST MARINE PILE DRIVERS LLC AND FRANK E. LYONS, III
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA (SHREVEPORT)
5:09-CV-01189
FILED: 7/16/2009

“Astroturfing” occurs when a business goes out and acts like a satisfied customer to build up its reputation. On the other hand, when a competitor goes online and poses as a customer expressing false dissatisfaction, that is defamation and product disparagement, as well as false advertising. How do you as a business know whether complaints about your company are legitimate or contrived? That’s one of the big challenges of dealing with a world of anonymity, and a very good reason why the right to anonymous speech online needs to be revisited.

Both parties manufacture and design barges used for pile driving in marine areas. The Defendants are alleged to have published comments online to deter third persons from doing business with the Plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants’ comments appeared as if they were legitimate dissatisfied customers of the Plaintiff and alleged product deficiencies, failure to support equipment, poor quality construction, and went on to allege that the Plaintiff had a reputation for making death threats and should be avoided at all costs.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Lanham Act and Defamation. The Plaintiff requests the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting its competitor from disseminating false, deceptive, misleading, and/or defamatory statements about the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s product, an award of compensatory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and pre-judgment interest. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1341.

SIREN, INC. AND GREEN MONSTER USA, LLC v. KYLE SCOFIELD
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
2:09-CV-01444
FILED: 7/10/2009

This is the first time that I have heard of a “tantrum site”. “Sucks sites” are becoming all the rage and more often than not are commercial enterprises driven by financial motives. Google Bomb, the book, can be ordered today on Amazon and will be available in book stores by September 1, 2009. It has an entire chapter on these types of sites and needless to say if your business is targeted by a “sucks site” great care must be taken in dealing with the situation.

Siren is a national leader for residential and commercial security systems. The Defendant, Kyle Scofield, is a resident of Arizona who operates an alleged “tantrum site” at “sirensecuritysucks.com”. The Defendant filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau and wanted $45 plus “interest and penalties” to resolve his consumer complaint. Siren alleges that when it approached the Defendant to resolve his dissatisfaction and offered to refund the cost of his security system and provide two free months of security monitoring, the Defendant demanded $13,000 to take down the “tantrum site”. Plaintiff alleges that there are defamatory statements on the website.

The lawsuit claims federal cyberpiracy in violation of the Lanham Act and the Anticybersquatting Protection Act, unfair competition, and injurious falsehood, and requests compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages of $100,000 per domain name, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1342.

24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC. v. RICK BEASLEY, ET AL.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (SAN ANTONIO)
5:09-CV-00537
FILED: 7/06/2009

There are all kinds of aggressive business practices being undertaken on the web today. This case illustrates the type of problem that requires a strong commitment to monitoring the web and everything that is said about your company. As an online business, you must also be prepared to protect your business from misconduct aimed at you.

24 Hour Fitness is a premier national chain of health and fitness clubs and one of the largest privately-held health and fitness chains in the world. The Plaintiff has attracted extensive attention by partnering with a number of fitness superstars including Andre Agassi, Lance Armstrong, Jackie Chan, Earvin “Magic” Johnson, Shaquille O’Neal, Yao Ming, and Derek Jeter. 24 Hour Fitness was the official fitness center sponsor for the U.S. Olympic team for the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing and has renewed its partnership with the United State Olympic Committee through the London 2012 Olympic Games. The Defendant is alleged to compete against the Plaintiff under the name “The Rock 24 Hour Fitness”, which is a chain of health clubs in Texas and Oklahoma. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has published false and misleading statements about the Plaintiff’s business services.

The lawsuit alleges federal trademark infringement, federal false designation of origin and unfair competition, violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, federal dilution, injury to business reputation and dilution, false and misleading statements under state common law, and unfair competition under state common law. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, transfer of the domain name to 24 Hour Fitness, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1343.

CLEARY BUILDING CORP. v. DAVID A. DAME
DISTRICT OF COLORADO (DENVER)
1:09-CV-01578
FILED: 7/02/2009

Just another example of a “sucks” website that has become all the rage to leverage real or fake dissatisfaction to gain an economic advantage.

Cleary Building is a family owned business founded in 1978 and is a leading manufacturer and builder of pre-engineered structures. The Defendant is a customer of Cleary Building who became dissatisfied. Dame then launched a website at “myclearybuilding.com”, which is alleged to have contained extensive false statements about the project and the work of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has sued for cybersquatting, trademark dilution, trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, federal false advertising, common law trademark infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, defamation, trade disparagement, and breach of contract. A permanent injunction is requested addressing the alleged misconduct in addition to requests for statutory damages of $100,000 for cybersquatting, an award of compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1344.

This concludes signficant cases on defamation law for the month of July, 2009 from Dozier Internet Law, the Defamation Lawyer.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2009 Defamation Lawsuits

2009-07-06T12:04:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

JK HARRIS & COMPANY, LLC v. DOMAINS BY PROXY, INC. AND JOHN DOE
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA (CHARLESTON)
2:09-CV-01547
FILED: 6/11/2009

Another example of the use of defamation, or apparent defamation based upon the allegations, by a competitor for commercial purposes. The argument coming from the Defendants will likely be that the use is “fair use” and raise other free speech defenses. This is an arena of extremely involved and complex law and the crafting of solutions when faced with a problem like this requires expertise.

JK Harris is a company organized and existing under the laws of South Carolina. It is the nation’s largest tax representation company. The Defendant is unknown. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant is running an ad on the MSN search engine with the text “JK Harris- A Scam?” The ad leads to a website that contains allegedly false information about JK Harris and directs the traffic to a competing tax preparation service.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, cybersquatting, trademark dilution, unfair trade practices, intentional interference with prospective contractual relations, common law trade disparagement (defamation), and common law defamation. The Plaintiff has requested that the court enter permanent injunctive relief, award compensatory damages, the transfer of the domain name, and award punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, as well as restitution and the imposition of a constructive trust. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1333.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2009 Defamation Lawsuits

2009-06-12T11:13:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

MENENDEZ AMERINO & CIA. LTDA v. BRAZIL CIGARS & TOBACCO LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (MIAMI)
1:09-CV-21185
FILED: 05/1/2009

Be very careful when dealing with business relationships that have fallen apart since the business models and distribution relationships have already been established at often significant costs. It is often advisable to meet and define very clearly how a business relationship will end.

The Plaintiff is a Brazilian corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling cigars on a worldwide basis, including the United States. The Defendant is an importer and distributor of Brazilian cigars throughout the United States. There was a contractual relationship between the parties that fell apart. The Defendant is alleged to have disparaged the Plaintiff’s products with a cigar industry magazine.

The Plaintiff has sued on a number of claims including libel and slander and requests extensive monetary damages, injunctive relief, an award of attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1324.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: April 2009 Defamation Lawsuits

2009-05-26T12:12:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

M.D. MANUFACTURING, INC. v. THINK VACUUMS, INC., ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:09-CV-02770
FILED: 4/21/2009

If the Plaintiff’s allegations are true, this is a wholesale high-jacking of a business that has been operating for almost fifty years through a calculated plan to misappropriate the trademark, copyright, and online identity of the Plaintiff and then claim that the Plaintiff no longer exists. This is a form of commercial identity theft. By implementing online alerts your business can obtain an early warning of this type of problem and nip it in the bud rather than allowing it to escalate to the point where it materially impacts the viability of your business.

The Plaintiff is a California corporation in the business of manufacturing, supplying, producing, marketing, distributing, and selling vacuum cleaners and related parts and accessories. The Defendant is a competitor and allegedly posted the statement that the Plaintiff was “no longer making central vacuums”. This information was publicized on the Internet in conjunction with the alleged misappropriation by the Defendants of extensive photographs, content, and other material from the Plaintiff’s website.

The lawsuit claims copyright infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, libel, injurious falsehood, and trade libel. Plaintiff requests that all of the Defendants’ profits be held by a trustee appointed by the court for the benefit of the Plaintiff, that a complete accounting of all of Defendants’ profits be undertaken, and that the court award statutory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, legal fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1314.

SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. ROBERT A. DELSMAN
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE)
5:09-CV-01468
FILED: 4/03/2009

You have to really read this lawsuit to get a feel for the extent of alleged misconduct by this Defendant. This is the type of attack your business is susceptible to on a daily basis. This type of situation is an all too common occurrence and must be managed very carefully to avoid a “mobosphere” attack from all regions of the world defending this individual’s right to “free speech”.

Sedgwick is a company that provides insurance claims management services for Fortune 500 companies. The Defendant was an employee of one of the Plaintiff’s clients, General Electric, and was unhappy with Sedgwick’s management of his claim for disability benefits filed against the plan serviced by Sedgwick. The Defendant has used copyrighted photographs of Sedgwick’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operation Officer on his website and blogs attacking the business, morphing those photographs into images of Adolph Hitler and Heinrich Himmler. The Defendant also unjustly accuses Sedgwick of engaging in criminal activity. In addition, the Defendant increased his attacks through what he himself described as “Operation Going Postcard”, which involves sending postcards through the U.S. Mail with the photographs of the CEO and COO of Sedgwick above captions reading “Wanted for Human Rights Violations” and other defamatory, false, and libelous claims. These postcards were sent to Sedgwick offices in California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, and Tennessee, to Sedgwick employees at their home addresses, to the home of Sedgwick’s CEO, to an outside insurance agency, to Sedgwick customers, and likely, according to the Plaintiff, to many others throughout the United States.

The lawsuit alleges trespass to channels, copyright infringement, interference with prospective economic advantage, trade libel, defamation and libel, and unfair competition. The court has been requested to issue an injunction against the Defendant’s misconduct, an award of statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief that the court deems proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1315.

TIAN YI TONG INVESTMENTS LTD. v. AIR AUSTRAL
DISTRICT OF COLORADO (DENVER)
1:09-CV-00745
FILED: 4/02/2009

There is a difference between a “sucks” site and “gripe” site. “Sucks” sites often have economic or commercial motivation behind them, while a legitimate “gripe” site is motivated by the honest desire of the complainant to warn the public. In this case, there was a commercial use in the form of pay-per-click advertising or other commercial links to competitors hosted on the domain name. The fact that an “investment company” in Hong Kong acquired the domain name suggests, in and of itself, an economic motivation and not an underlying desire to protect the public through the dissemination of accurate information. This is a distinction that has not yet fully been recognized by the courts. Suffice it to say, anytime you are dealing with a “sucks” site or other derogatory website attacking your business, the first analysis is determining what the motivation of the owner of the site might be. There are very often commercial motivations that are not protected by free speech considerations in “sucks” sites, although in this instance the true motivation of the owner remains to be seen.

The Plaintiff is an investment company headquartered in Hong Kong. The Defendant is an airline organized under the laws of France. The Plaintiff lost a domain name dispute arbitration decision and the registrar of “airaustralsucks.com” was ordered to transfer the domain name to the airline. The “investment company” in Hong Kong has sued to set aside this decision.

The lawsuit requests that the court declare the Plaintiff’s registration and use of the domain name are lawful, and in effect overturn the domain name dispute decision, and award costs and reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1312.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2009 Defamation Lawsuits

2009-04-17T11:47:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

HANGSTERFER’S LABORATORIES, INC. v. SHAWN DUNN
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (CAMDEN)
1:09-CV-01381
FILED: 3/26/2009

VIDEO PROFESSOR, INC. v. STRATEGIC BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
DISTRICT OF COLORADO (DENVER)
1:09-CV-00619
FILED: 3/20/2009

AVIATORS v. PAUL SANCHEZ, ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:09-CV-00222
FILED: 3/11/2009

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION v. ALL WEB LEADS, INC., ET AL.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (SAN ANTONIO)
5:09-CV-00165
FILED: 3/03/2009

REMOVE YOUR CONTENT, LLC v. JOHN DOES #1-20
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
3:09-CV-00393
FILED: 3/02/2009

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. Dozier 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. Dozier 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. Dozier 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. Dozier 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. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1310.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2009 Defamation Lawsuits

2009-03-20T13:39:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

THERMAL REMEDIATION SERVICES, INC. v. MCMILLAN-MCGEE CORP.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA (ATLANTA)
1:09-CV-00537
FILED: 2/27/2009

We have another lawsuit being filed because of legal claims relating to intellectual property. When you assert that you have exclusive ownership and rights to a piece of intellectual property, you have created a “case in controversy” that can precipitate a lawsuit against you not only based upon a declaratory judgment but other grounds. Whether the assertion of a legal claim can constitute “defamation” is an issue that is up in the air.

The Plaintiff provides contaminated soil and groundwater remediation and related goods and services. The Defendant is a competitor of the Plaintiff. Defendant claims that they have exclusive rights to a patent for industry specific technology. Plaintiff claims that such a claim is false, inaccurate, and misleading and is defamatory.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, violations of Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, defamation and commercial disparagement, and tortious interference with business relations. Compensatory damages, punitive damages, expenses of litigation, and attorneys’ fees are requested in the prayer for relief, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1292.

PACIFICBASIN COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. MODERN LUXURY MEDIA, LLC
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
1:09-CV-00081
FILED: 2/26/2009

This defamation claim results from “comparative advertising” in which the Defendant has attempted to distinguish its readership and loyalty of its ownership with the Plaintiff’s magazine. This is an effort to generate advertising dollars by convincing advertisers that Defendant’s magazine is better suited for their purposes. There is an entirely different set of rules for using “comparative advertising” that require much more due diligence and care with the wording and characterization. Keep in mind if you are going to be conducting comparative advertising you are not only putting forth your best foot, but by doing so it often results in your pointing out the deficiencies of your competitor’s product or service. The use of this type of a technique is inherently high risk.

The Plaintiff, PacificBasin Communications, LLC, is a Hawaii company and the owner and publisher of various magazines including “Honolulu” magazine. The Defendant is the owner and publisher of “Modern Luxury Hawaii” magazine. The Defendant’s chief executive officer sent an email which was comparing various aspects of the two magazines and allegedly making the point that the Defendant’s magazine was better suited for luxury advertisers. The Plaintiff’s have taken exception to this characterization.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition, defamation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The Plaintiff has moved for an injunction, the remedial communications to the recipients of the alleged defamatory comments, compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1293.

CERAMIC PERFORMANCE WORLDWIDE, LLC v. MOTOR WORKS, LLC, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
3:09-CV-00344
FILED: 2/20/2009

This is a claim, in effect, for defamation, by alleging that the defamatory comments are going to interfere with the Plaintiff’s business relationships. Once again, I believe we are looking at a preemptory strike in litigation to avoid claims that appear to be asserted for intellectual property violations and unfair competition against the Plaintiff. This does raise the very real issue as to whether claiming copyright infringement in a public way is a defamatory statement or a mere claim based upon an opinion.

Plaintiff is engaged in the distribution and sales of metal treatment products for the automotive industry. The Defendant is also involved in the same industry. Plaintiff claims that it purchased products from the Defendant and that the Defendant has orally told third parties that Plaintiff has unlawfully copied Defendant’s website contents.

Plaintiff sued for a declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on copy of the Defendant’s copyright or competing unfairly as the Defendants had alleged. In addition, there is a count for tortious interference with “perspective” [sic] business relationships and request for an award of compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1294.

ASCENTIVE, LLC v. 1SHOPPINGCART.COM, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF OREGON (PORTLAND)
3:09-CV-00186
FILED: 2/13/2009

The defamation claim in this case is asserted against the owner of a forum based upon the contents of the forum. This is very fertile ground for litigation and many businesses do not realize how they must manage a forum or otherwise host third party generated content in order to maintain immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Ascentive is a Delaware corporation operating out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Defendant PCPitstop owns and operates websites online. PCPitstop’s website includes a forum on which moderators of the Defendant have posted false and defamatory statements regarding the Plaintiff’s software, including claims that the software is a “scam”. In addition, the Plaintiff claims that PCPitstop controls the statements posted on its forum, and that some of the false and defamatory statements were posted by its employees.

This lawsuit is primarily a trademark infringement suit but includes defamation claims against PCPitstop and various John Does. The prayer for relief requests an award of compensatory and punitive damages as well as the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1288.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2009 Defamation Lawsuits

2009-02-12T11:24:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

SOUTH BEACH SKIN CARE, INC. v. ROBERT MARKIN, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (MIAMI)
1:09-CV-20249
FILED: 1/29/2009

I’ve been blogging on this issue lately. “Review websites” are often run by competitors or affiliate marketers of competitors. The reviews on the sites are rarely objective. Often times there will be false and defamatory claims made about a product in order to sell a competing product, although only time will tell as to whether the Defendants were operating in this manner.

The Plaintiff is the owner of a website located at “www.lifecellskin.com”. It holds a copyright registration of the contents of the website. Defendants own various competing websites. All of these websites sell an anti-aging skincare product. Defendants are also alleged to own “www.bestwrinklecreamsreview.com”. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants operate this allegedly “neutral” website for customer reviews but the website is actually comprised of comments posted by the Defendants disparaging the Plaintiff’s product.

The lawsuit claims defamation and copyright infringement and requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1273.

ENAGIC USA, INC. AND ENAGIC CO. LTD. v. RICHARD CABADOS, ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:09-CV-00101
FILED: 1/06/2009

I have included this as a defamation case because although it is brought as a trademark infringement and unfair competition matter this is in reality another example of product disparagement and online defamation. The technical trademark infringement laws are often used to address this type of alleged defamatory attack.

The Plaintiff is a company organized under the laws of Japan. The Defendant is an individual residing in California. Defendant is alleged to be operating two review sites that consistently contain reviews that find the Defendant’s water treatment devices superior to the Plaintiff’s. The websites claim the reviews are completely unbiased. The Plaintiff claims that the information on the site is intended to mislead and deceive the consuming public with false reviews. Additional search engine optimization techniques are being used to draw customers to this review site when searching for the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff alleges that these websites are nothing more than advertisements disguised as impartial reviews.

The Plaintiff has sued for federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and state law unfair competition. A permanent injunction is requested addressing the alleged misconduct, requesting the award of compensatory and punitive damages, triple damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1274.

TRI-MARKETING, INC. v. MAINSTREAM MARKETING SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
0:09-CV-00013
FILED: 1/06/2009

This is a classic, and too often repeated, response by an alleged copyright infringer. When caught, we will occasionally see an infringer not only claim that their site has been copied by your business, but actually issue a DMCA takedown notice against a website. This type of action is particularly problematic when one considers that the webhosting company is required to takedown your website for a minimum of 10 days upon the receipt of a DMCA takedown notice. This very powerful weapon can be used with absolute impunity by individuals spread all over the world, located in countries with whom the United States has absolutely no treaties and no goodwill. In other words, it can be used with no risk as a sword to attack competitors. Fortunately for the Plaintiff in this case, the Defendant does not appear to have gone that route. If the allegations are true, this is yet another example of defamatory statements being used to gain a business advantage.

Plaintiff is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the business of telemarketing services, including lead generation for the insurance industry. Extensive comparative information within the body of the lawsuit lays out claims of copyright infringement by the Defendant and an attempt to use its content to compete. Plaintiff notified the Defendant of its infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright and the Vice President of the Defendant began claiming that the Plaintiff had copied the Defendant’s website and not the other way around.

This lawsuit alleges copyright infringement and defamation and requests an award of compensatory damages, injunctive relief against further copying of Plaintiff’s website, an award of attorneys’ fees, and an award of other relief as the court deems proper and just. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1275.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2008 Defamation Lawsuits

2009-01-09T12:47:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

MAGICJACK LP v. JOIPHONE LLC, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (WEST PALM BEACH)
9:08-CV-81570
FILED: 12/29/2008

This appears to be another example of the “comparison” websites run by affiliate marketers that not only use the trademark of a company to drive traffic but also falsely compare products and services. This is a relatively sophisticated method of generating significant revenue for an affiliate marketer and is just now getting high profile attention as an illegal practice.

The Plaintiff markets and sells a highly popular voiceover Internet protocol (VoIP). The device provides customers with several features, including a phone number and the ability to make and receive unlimited local and long distance calls over the Internet. The Defendant is alleged to be operating a website which contains false and misleading statements. According to the lawsuit, Defendants have created “nonexistent” deficiencies in the product or are alleging superior features of competing products and acting as affiliate marketers for competitors. Defendants are also alleged to be buying sponsored links on Google that warn against buying the Plaintiff’s product and direct people to its own “review” website which contains false and misleading statements.

Plaintiff claims false advertising, trademark infringement, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and common law trademark infringement. The prayer for relief requests extensive declaratory judgments, the entry of injunctive relief attempting to prohibit future statements about the Plaintiff, the disgorgement of Defendants’ profits, compensatory damages, triple damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1264.

SAMUEL A. HARDING v. JOHN L. GREEN
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:08-CV-01799
FILED: 12/22/2008

These types of sites almost always have some sort of a commercial motivation behind them. If you feel compelled to launch a “sucks” site, or the equivalent, the chance of getting sued is heightened if you are attacking a lawyer. It is unlikely this attorney will be able to obtain the “prior restraint” relief he is requesting with respect to future speech by the Defendant. As an Internet business, whether you are a web host, web developer, payment processor, or anyone else providing support to such a site, you have the absolute right to end the business relationship with such a site if your terms of use are drafted properly. Your business might very well have potential trademark infringement liability once you become aware of such a site that ends up being used for a commercial purpose. The best advice is to simply avoid any relationship with this type of a website, since there is always the possibility, and sometimes a likelihood, that you will have to retain legal counsel in some respect to deal with the problems that often arise.

The Plaintiff is an attorney with a state trademark registration in the name “attorney Sam Harding”. The Defendant registered the Internet domain name “attorneysamharding.com”. The site appears to be a “gripe site” and Plaintiff alleges that the content falsely alleges that the Plaintiff has committed illegal and criminal acts in the representation of his clients.

The first claim for relief is cybersquatting, the second claim is common law defamation, and the Plaintiff requests the entry of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from using the Plaintiff’s name for any purpose, together with an award of compensatory, consequential, statutory and punitive damages. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1265.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2008 Defamation Lawsuits

2008-12-18T11:57:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

CHRISTOPHER ZAMMITO AND ZAMMITO AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. v. RICHARD HAVRDA
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSSETTS (BOSTON)
1:08-CV-11936
FILED: 11/19/2008

Part of evaluating a "cyberspace attack" is understanding the entire scope and extent of the alleged misconduct. Most "free speech" websites are motivated by greed and not by the noble causes that gave rise to the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiff is the owner of a retail automotive dealership. Defendant is a former employee of Plaintiff. Defendant is alleged to have been terminated as a salesperson and, in response, he purchased the domain name "zammitoautogroup.com" and thereafter placed derogatory and defamatory statements about the Plaintiffs on the site. In addition, he is alleged to have posted private photographs of the individual owner of the dealership on the site, sexually explicit and highly inappropriate comments about the dealership, the principals and their families on the site, and overall carried on a campaign of disparaging the products and services of the Plaintiff and the individuals and families of the owners of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant offered to sell the Plaintiff the domain name for $1,200.00 and a $100.00 restaurant gift certificate recently.

The lawsuit alleges cybersquatting, trademark infringement, and defamation. The Plaintiff requested an award of compensatory damages, its attorneys' fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1249.

FORBA HOLDINGS, LLC v. DEBBIE HAGAN
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY (OWENSBORO)
4:08-CV-00137
FILED: 11/14/2008

This Defendant appears to have launched a full-scale cyber-attack on the Plaintiff's company. Defamation, of course, is not protected by free speech or the first amendment. If these allegations are true this case is another in the long line of examples of how an individual located somewhere in the world can personally cause very serious damage to a business.

Forba Holdings is a limited liability company operating out of Nashville, Tennessee and is the nation's largest dental practice management company. Defendant Debbie Hagan is a resident of Kentucky and operates an Internet website and blog titled "Dentist the Menace" as well as YouTube video hosting channel titled "Abusive Pediatric Dentistry". Without going into details, the Defendant is alleged to be a rather prolific critic of the Plaintiff, having posted rather extreme claims including alleged torture, abuses, and the intentional traumatization of four families and children, all attributed to the Plaintiff. The final straw apparently came when the Defendant obtained confidential, internal, strategic and tactical trade secret documents and published those or linked to those documents from her websites.

She has been sued for misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, and defamation. The complaint requests an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interests, post-judgment interests, and the entry of extensive preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from continuing with her publications as they relate to the distribution of trade secrets or copyright infringing materials. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1250.

ASH BUCKLES v. BRIDES CLUB, ET AL
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:08-CV-00849
FILED: 11/04/2008

The Plaintiff, being an expert SEO, was able to identify exactly what was transpiring and act quickly to attempt to address the problems. As a business it is critical that you constantly monitor search engine results and the content of the web as it relates to your business and key trademarks to quickly identify this type of an attack and deal with it before it causes irreversible damage.

Plaintiff Ash Buckles is in the business of improving the client's Internet marketing results. In other words, he is a "SEO". The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant contaminated his Google search results by impersonating him, opening up a blog, acquiring three domains in his name, and establishing a fraudulent "LinkedIn" profile. These "impersonating websites" included legitimate information mixed in with false, misleading, poorly written content that reflected adversely on the Plaintiff's abilities as an Internet marketing expert.

The Plaintiff sued for cybersquatting, trademark infringement through false designation, tortious interference with prospective economic relations, cyberterrorism under Utah law, unauthorized access (hacking) and abuse of personal identity under Utah law. Although we have categorized it as a defamation case there is no specific claim alleging defamation. The Plaintiff requests entry of an order for statutory damages in the amount of $100,000.00 per domain name, punitive damages, and temporary and permanent injunctive relief addressing the alleged misconduct of the Defendants, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1251.

BFN, LLC AND JANE DOE v. DAVID ELMS, ET AL
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:08-CV-07285
FILED: 11/03/2008

If you are acting in an illegal manner you cannot avail yourself of rights to protect that illegal enterprise through the courts. Does this mean that if your business is involved in illegal criminal activity, whether you know it or not, you are "fair game" for any type of misconduct to be visited upon you and your business? That is an interesting issue that will continue to be developed over time, but for right now, I used the "unclean hands" argument successfully in Washington State in a similar case to obtain the dismissal of a lawsuit against my client. Again, always look for the commercial motivation involved in the publication of "sucks" or "the truth about" websites. Although it is sometimes difficult to see, these types of sites are almost always financially motivated.

The Plaintiff is an "escort". Defendant owns and operates a website that advertises the services of escorts and Plaintiff claims that when she refused to advertise on the website the Defendant undertook a campaign to disparage her reputation by using her real name in a "the truth about" website, which is a variation of a "sucks" attack website. Defendants are alleged to have emailed Plaintiff's father and undertaken a number of other actions that revealed her true personal information, creating a very dangerous environment for the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit includes a count for copyright infringement, cybersquatting in violation of a California state statute, violations of the right of publicity, defamation, state privacy law violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. Plaintiff requests the entry of a permanent injunction, an award of actual damages and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and requests a trial by jury. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1252.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2008 Defamation Lawsuits

2008-11-21T08:38:00.001-08:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

HOME SHOW TOURS INC. v. QUAD CITY VIRTUAL INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA (DAVENPORT)
3:08-CV-00127
FILED: 9/30/2008

Once again we have litigation between competitors relating to the publication of allegedly defamatory statements and a trademark infringement claim under the federal Lanham Act. It is hard to know whether the use by the Defendant of the Plaintiff's name was in a direct commercial context such that a trademark infringement claim would be appropriate, but a good rule of thumb is that commercial competitors’ claims relating to defamation do generally bring trademark infringement issues into play.

The Plaintiff was incorporated in January of 2004 and since that time has engaged in the business of selling advertising on the Internet to homeowners and other persons and entities offering real estate for sale by owner. The Defendant is a direct competitor of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is alleged to have published defamatory statements and information about the Plaintiff on its website that is false, literally true or ambiguous but which implicitly conveys a false impression.

The lawsuit alleges a trademark infringement claim under the federal Lanham Act, libel per se in that such statements would reasonably be understood to be an expression that attacks the integrity of the Plaintiff, libel per quod in that the statements and information were published with actual knowledge that they were false or with a reckless disregard for their truth, and "false light". Relief requested includes compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and a permanent injunction that prohibits the publication of future false or defamatory statements, or the assertion of claims that may be true or ambiguous but which implicitly convey a false impression or are misleading in context. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1229.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2008 Defamation Lawsuits

2008-10-21T11:59:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

JOHN A. BLAZI AND GREENWICH COFFEE, LLC v. JASON WAGONER AND NICHOLAS DEGRAZIA
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (NEW HAVEN)
FILED: 9/19/2008
3:08-CV-01441

Litigation over the use of company names is seemingly exploding across the country. This is another example of an "attack" website being used, if the Plaintiff's allegations are correct, to gain advantage and leverage in a civil dispute. The courts have not yet decided how to deal with these "sucks", "attack", or "gripe sites" (the later which of course is the term used by the free speech and public interest groups). Are these really "gripe sites"? Almost all of the litigation coming through the federal courts has significant commercial elements as the motivating factor in the launching of these sites, and they are far from mere "free speech" or "gripe" sites.

The Plaintiff, operating a coffee shop known as "Greenwich Coffee" allegedly had some disputes with the Defendants who were former employees and in charge of the coffee shop's website located at "www.greenwichcoffee.com". To make a long story short, according to the Plaintiff the parties had a falling out and the Defendants maintained control of the Greenwich Coffee website and domain name and changed the site from an "online store" into an attack "blog" site for the sole purpose of generating and posting negative and disparaging comments about their former employer.

The lawsuit includes a claim for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition of false designation of origin, common law unfair competition under Connecticut common law, computer hacking under section 1030, and civil conspiracy. Plaintiff requests an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, a tripling of compensatory damages, and awards of attorney's fees and courts costs. In addition, the Plaintiff is requesting the transfer of the domain names "greenwichcoffee.com" and "greenwichcoffee.net" to the Plaintiff. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1228.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2008 Defamation Lawsuits

2008-09-25T11:42:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law 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.

USA HERBALS, LLC, ET AL. v. SYBERVISION, INC. ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:08-CV-07571
FILED: 8/27/2008

“Review” sites run by affiliate marketers or competing products fall into the category of “comparative advertising”. Free speech does not protect much of the content of these sites since the motivation is commercial and economic in nature. Consequently, the false advertising laws and related causes of action flowing from the falsity of claims often provides a much stronger basis for dealing with the problem. This area is primed for a lot of legal action. Don’t allow affiliate marketers or your in-house marketing staff do run these types of sites reviewing a product or service in which the owner of the site has an economic interest.

The Plaintiff develops and markets a variety of herbal, natural health and wellness products. Defendants are alleged to have launched websites that are touted by the Defendants as informative and unbiased “product reviews”. Plaintiff alleges that the “reviews” are fake, are intended to disparage its products and cause consumers to buy products being sold by the Defendants, which almost always receive very high ratings. There are also allegations of bidding on trademark key terms owned by the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit counts include copyright infringement, false advertising, trademark infringement and false designation, injurious falsehood, false and deceptive trade practices, state false advertising, defamation, tortuous interference with prospective business, common law unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and civil conspiracy. The Plaintiff requests the entry of injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1210.

JOHN CAFIERO v. DOUG CUSTER a/k/a DOUG EVIL
WESTERN DSITRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (JOHNSTOWN)
3:08-CV-00202
FILED: 8/14/2008

The Digital Millennium Copy Act requires that a website pull down infringing content upon the receipt of a “DMCA notification”. While it is a bit ambiguous, the law requires the content to be down for ten days, during which a “counter-notification” can be filed. The counter-notification is an affidavit, signed under oath and under penalties of perjury. And, since the DMCA notice should have taken care of the content for ten days, a counter-notification could be viewed simply as an invitation to file another DMCA takedown notice if you are on solid footing. Little known fact: There is no limitation as to how many DMCA takedown notices you can serve on a web host.

Beginning in 2005 the Defendant launched an unprovoked attack on Mr. Cafiero’s personal and professional credibility by posting on the Internet numerous false, harassing and defamatory statements about Mr. Cafiero. The Plaintiff is a successful artist, musician, producer, director and businessman in the entertainment industry. Mr. Cafiero has directed films and videos that have ranked at the top of the Billboard charts and received gold and platinum certification from the Recording Industry Association of America. Mr. Cafiero presently manages the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame band “The Ramones”. Defendant allegedly stole an animated video owned by Mr. Cafiero and placed it on YouTube.com. The Defendant then laid claim to ownership of the video. When the Plaintiff served a DMCA takedown notice on YouTube the Defendant filed a counter-notification claiming that the Plaintiff had committed perjury and was not the owner of the video. Defendant then is alleged to have launched a blog attacking various business interests of the Plaintiff through the publication of false and defamatory accusations relating to theft, misappropriation, stealing and lying.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act/perjury, defamation, and false light. The Plaintiff is requesting the entry of permanent injunction from “defaming or otherwise disparaging Plaintiff John Cafiero”, damages sustained, statutory damages, triple damages, and costs and attorney’s fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1211.

OLD TIME POTTERY, INC. v. RICHARD K. BEDSOLE, ET AL.
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE (NASHVILLE)
3:08-CV-00760
FILED: 8/07/2008

The allegations in this case set forth a well organized pattern of mischief making. Indeed, the mischief goes far beyond creating problems for a couple of the stores in this retail chain. In fact, if these allegations are true the Defendants appear to be operating anonymously but, once again, it becomes readily apparent that the web is not as anonymous as many think it is.

The Plaintiff, Old Time Pottery, Inc., sued the Defendants and alleged that they published a “going out of business” announcement on “Craigslist”. Plaintiff continues to allege that the Defendants published numerous other similar or identical postings about the Plaintiff’s various stores including a post on Wikipedia questioning its financial legitimacy.

The Plaintiff has sued for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, state consumer protection act violations, intentional interference with business relationships, defamation, and telephone consumer protection act violations. The prayer for relief includes a request for the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants which will probably result in “prior restraint” constitutional challenges, awards of monetary damages tripled by state statute, as well as other statutory damages, award of attorney’s fee, punitive damages, costs and further relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1212.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court: Defamation Lawsuits

2008-09-25T10:20:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law and John W. Dozier Jr., Esq. have now moved the online version of the Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report to the blogging environment. We'll continue to maintain the historical case filings and comments issued prior to September 1, 2008 on the main Dozier Internet Law website. This blog focuses exclusively on defamation lawsuits. Enjoy...and stay informed!