Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. February 2011.

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. Traverse 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. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1473.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. January 2011.

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. Traverse 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. Traverse 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. Traverse 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. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1466.

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

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


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. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1457.

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

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


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. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1451.