In June of 2005, Robert Noiseux sued Donna and Edward Avila, Jennifer Hart, and Raymond Sulich after statements about him appeared on Canterbury Web: Canterbury's Un-Official Town Forum.  According to the complaint, the Avilas owned and operated the website, and Hart and Sulich served as administrators.  Noiseux alleged that Sulich and Donna Avila defamed him by "caus[ing] to be published" critical statements about him on the forum.  He alleged that the remaining defendants were liable by virtue of their responsibility to monitor website content.  

After several months, Noiseux dropped the suit against the Avilas and Jennifer Hart.  Sulich, the other site administrator and alleged poster, settled for part of Noiseux's legal fees (unspecified) and an apology.

On May 20, 2008 Wisconsin realtor Kent Haluska was arrested and charged with criminal defamation.  According to press accounts, Haluska posted statements on the Real Estate networking site ActiveRain.com linking a fellow realtor to the Russian mafia.  Haluska was also accused of sending letters to the  realtor's clients telling them that they were funding Russian terrorism.  

Haluska pleaded no contest to three misdemeanor charges in August 2008. He was sentenced to 18 months of probation, ordered to have no contact with the victim, banned from real estate work for one year, and required to pay a $1,838 fine.

On February 13, 2009, Charles Novins, a New Jersey attorney, filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and his law firm, alleging that nine individuals posted defamatory statements about him "in a world-wide forum." Novins attached to his complaint a copy of a post made to the Usenet newsgroup alt.culture.alaska, claiming that Novins employed drug addicts at his firm. Novins alleged that his firm's revenue "declined demonstrably during this period after the publication on February 13, 2008," and he is seeking "compensatory and punitive damages, plus interest, and costs of the suit."

The complaint also names Google, Inc., TSB Bearings, Inc., Databasix, Oakland Community College, and John and Jane Roes (1-100), as defendants, but no cause of action or claim is made in the complaint against any of these defendants.  According to some Usenet posts (here and here), TSB Bearings, Inc and Oakland Community College are employers of defendants Kevin A. Cannon and Vincent Lamb, respectively.  Novins' complaint also "demands judgment" against defendands ABC Corporation 1-10, XYZ Partnership 1-10, and John and Jane Doe 1-100, who the complaint states are "persons, identities unknown, who acted, assisted, and/or participated in the assault on the plaintiff."

Prior to the lawsuit, Novins sent a letter to defendant Cannon stating his intention to file a lawsuit against him, his employer, and unnamed others.  See CMLP's related database entry, Novins v. Cannon (Letter), for details. 

Update:

04/15/09 - Kevin Cannon filed an answer and cross-claims for contribution and indemnification against his co-defendants.

04/27/09 - Carl Osterwald filed an answer, cross-claims for contribution and indemnification against his co-defendants, and a counterclaim against Novins.

09/25/09 - The court granted Cannon and Osterwald's motion to dismiss without prejudice for failing to answer interrogatories. 

10/20/09 - The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

04/22/10 -  Novins voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to Kevin Michael Fries and Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries.

04/27/10 -  The court granted the motion of defendants Lamb and Osterwald for judgment on the pleadings, relying on Section 230. The court ordered that defendants Kelso, Young, Mather, Monaghan, Google Inc., TSB Bearings, Databasix, Oakland Community College, Lamb, and Osterwald are terminated as parties in the action, leaving only Cannon.

On February 20, 2008, Gordon Roy Parker filed a lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania against the United States Chess Federation and several of its board members, including William Goichberg, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, and Joel Channing. Parker alleged that current and former board members had impersonated him (and others) on a USENET chess forum.

The court dismissed Parker's original complaint for lack of clarity.  He re-filed in October 2008.  The amended complaint included claims for libel, negligence, Lanham Act violations, Title VII and PHRA retaliation, conspiracy, RICO violations, and fraudulent misrepresentation.  

In December 2008, the court dismissed the complaint with respect to Channing, Goichberg, and the United States Chess Federation.  Judge Joyner partially granted and partially denied Polgar and Truong's motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that, in order to pursue his claims, Parker must properly serve Polgar and Truong and establish that the court has jurisdiction.

In December 2005, Texas real estate developer Sienna/Johnson Development and its senior vice president Douglas Goff sued Chris Calvin and the Committee for Responsible Development (an organization co-chaired by Calvin).  Sienna and Goff alleged that Calvin posted critical comments about them on three community websites and used multiple pseudonyms to create a false impression of widespread community opposition to the developer's plans to build apartments near his home.  The complaint, filed in Texas state court, included claims for defamation, business disparagement, public nuisance, and tortuous interference with prospective contract.

In December 2006, the parties settled the case. As part of the settlement, they jointly moved the court to enter an "Agreed Permanent Injunction," which prohibited Calvin and his wife Amy from posting anonymous or pseudonymous statements about Goff, Sienna, or any of their partners, affiliates, directors, officers, or employees.  The agreed injunction specifically excluded "truthful critical statements" made in the Calvins' own names.  The court issued the agreed injunction and dismissed the case.

The Board of Directors of Stillwater Lakes Civic Association (the "Association"), a homeowner's assocation, sued a local watchdog organization and its members over websites that allegedly infringed the Association's trademarks.  Stillwater Lakes Community Activist ("Community Activist"), an organization of Stillwater Lakes property owners dedicated to achieving "an open honest transparent community," registered domain names for its website at www.stillwaterlakes.com and www.stillwaterlakes.net.  Community Activist is primarily concerned with ensuring that the Board's meetings and decisions are sufficiently fair and open to the public.

The Association alleges that Community Activist improperly uses the Association's name and acronym "SLCA" in the sites' content and domain names.  The Association's complaint includes claims for cybersquatting, federal trade name infringement and dilution, unfair competition, and common law trade name misappropriation.

On January 20, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  As grounds for dismissal, the motion disputes the validity of the Association's trademark interests and the sufficiency of its trademark claims.

Update:

4/2/09 - The assigned magistrate judge recommended that the defendants' motion to dismiss be denied with respect to all six claims brought by the Association.

4/30/09 - The district court adopted, without objection by the parties, the magistrate judge's recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss be denied.

6/2/09 - The defendants answered the complaint.

5/9/11 - After extended discovery and at least two court-ordered mediation sessions, the Association moved to dismiss the suit with prejudice, arguing that changes to the Community Activist website have reduced the risk of confusion, and that the Association cannot afford to continue the suit.

5/18/11 - The defendants filed a brief opposing the Association's motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should not be dismissed until the court had ruled on the defendants' forthcoming FRCP Rule 11 motion for sanctions.

5/23/11 - Defendants filed their Rule 11 motion for sanctions, in which they argue that the Association had filed the original suit in order to "harass" the defendants and "cause the Defendants financial harm."

5/26/11 - Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their Rule 11 motion, and also moved for fees and costs under the Lanham Act.

6/2/11 - Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion for fees under the Lanham Act, arguing that the Association's actions constitute an "exceptional case" qualifying for fees and costs.

6/7/11- The Association filed a reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. The brief claims that the Association filed both the original lawsuit and the motion to dismiss in good faith, and argues that the defendants failed to comply with proper Rule 11 procedure.

6/9/11 - The Association filed a separate brief in opposition to the defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The brief again argues good faith and alleges a failure by the defendants to follow Rule 11 procedure; in addition, the brief asks that the court award attorneys' fees to the Association should the court rule against the defendants' Rule 11 motion.

6/16/11 - The Association filed its brief in opposition to the defendants' Lanham Act motion for fees and costs, arguing both technical and substantive grounds.

In 2008, the state of Wisconsin brought criminal defamation charges against Laura Janzig.  According to Northland's NewsCenter, Janzig wrote a series of emails to members of the Superior, Wisconsin School District falsely claiming that a teacher was engaging in sexual activity with students.  On October 27th, 2008, Janzig pled guilty to the charge of criminal defamation under Wis. Stat. § 942.01(1), which is a Class A misdemeanor.  The court sentenced her to 1 year of probation, 20 days in jail, and a $100 fine plus costs.  It also ordered her to pay restitution to the Superior Police Department.  

On February 03, 2009, Mark and Rhonda Lesher filed a defamation lawsuit against anonymous messageboard posters on Topix.com.  Self-described as "the world's largest community news site," Topix.com aggregates news articles and hosts messageboards for users to comment and discuss.  According to the Leshers' petition, over 1,700 defamatory statements were made about them by anonymous posters on Topix.com.  The 365-page petition includes 2,568 counts of defamation, libel per se and defamation per se against the anonymous users.  The petition specifically identifies postings made under 178 different usernames, such as "lou," "Awareness," and "BUDWEISER."  Because Topix messageboard users can post under multiple usernames and they can post under usernames previously used by others, the actual number of defendants in the lawsuit is uncertain.

According to the petition, the defamatory comments began "almost immediately" following allegations in April 2008 that the Leshers had sexually assaulted Shannon Coyle.  Mr. Lesher is a practicing attorney and Coyle was one of his previous clients.  Many of the allegedly defamatory comments crudely describe the Leshers as sexual deviants, molesters, and drug dealers. On January 15, 2009, a jury found the Leshers not guilty on all counts of sexual assault in relation to this matter, and they were subsequently acquitted. 

On February 3, 2009, the Leshers filed suit against the anonymous Topix.com posters in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, the 348th District Court.  Tarrant County is where the Leshers claim "a significant number" of the defendants are located, according to the "IP address locators" on Topix.com.  In their petition, the Leshers allege that the defamatory comments  "affected their reputations in the community as businesspersons and has significantly damaged their businesses."  Additionally, the comments are alleged to have "created psychological, emotional and financial trauma for both plaintiffs."

The Leshers did not file suit against Topix.com, nor did they request the offending postings be taken down.  However, they did make an ex-parte motion requesting that an out-of-state subpoena be issued to Topix.com, in order to identify the anonymous posters.  On February 04, 2009, Judge Dana Wormach of the District Court of Tarrant County Texas, the 384th District Court, issued an order granting the motion.  The order requested issuance of a letter rogatory to the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, where Topix.com is located. 

According to Texas Lawyer, Topix.com CEO Eric Tolles was served with a subpoena on February 5.  Texas Lawyer reports that Tolles is "willing to be reasonable in complying with the subpoena, even though requesting information for 178 names strikes him as 'fairly broad.'"  Additionally, Tolles is quoted saying "all we're going to be able to provide them with is an IP address," which is just the first step to identifying the posters.  The subpoena required the documents be produced by March 6, but according to Texas Lawyer, the Leshers have granted Topix.com an additional week to comply.

Judge Wormach's also ordered the Leshers to post notice of the subpoena "on the appropriate message boards on Topix.com," so that any objections could be made before February 18.  In a thread titled "Lesher v. Doe defamation lawsuit," William Pieratt Demond, who represents the Leshers, published notification of the lawsuit and the subpoena on Topix.com.  Demond advised those making libelous postings to "cease and desist."  Additionally, he offered "conditional immunity" to the first defendant who could provide the name, address, and telephone number of the poster using the pseudonym "lou."  The offer did not extend to the user of the name "lou," users of thee other pseudonyms, or anyone in the Coyel family.  Demond told Texas Lawyer that so far, no posters had come forward.

Update:

03/27/09 - The court denied Topix' motion to quash the subpoena.

08/03/09 - ABC News reports that the Leshers amended their complaint to name Shannon Coyel, Gerald Coyel, James Coyel, Charlie Doescher, Pat Doescher, and Apache Truck & Van Parts as defendants.

04/24/12 - The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that a jury in Tarrant County awarded the plaintiffs $13.78 million in damages for libel against defendants Shannon and Gerald Coyel, and Charlie and Pat Doescher.

06/08/12 - The court granted a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, rendering judgment in favor of the defendant and ordering the plaintiff to pay defendant's court costs.

Automobile salesman Chris Zammito sued former employee Richard Havrda over a gripe site Havrda created at www.zammitoautogroup.com.  Zammito's complaint brought trademark infringment and cybersquatting claims over the site's use of the name "Zammito Auto Group."  As part of the cybersquatting claim, Zammito noted that Havrda offered to sell the domain for $1,000 and a $100 restaurant gift card. Zammito also brought a defamation claim arising from the site's inclusion of a photograph of Zammito and various derogatory statements about Zammito, his family, and the company.

Havrda disputed Zammito's claims in his answer.  He claimed that at least one of the disputed website statements was quoted from Zammito himself, who allegedly "loudly proclaimed the derogatory statements about his wife in a drunk and disorderly fashion" at a dinner with Havrda and others at Black Bass Grille -- the restaurant for which Havdra requested a gift card.  See Havrda's Answer at ¶ 10. 

Havrda's answer also stated that he already had removed the disputed site content per Zammito's request.  Havrda attached to his answer a letter in which he apologized to Zammito and his family and promised to surrender the zammitoautogroup.com domain. 

Two months after Havrda filed his answer and apology letter, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice, suggesting that they reached a settlement.

Nevada attorney Samuel A. Harding filed a defamation and cybersquatting lawsuit against Joan L. Green after Green allegedly created a website critical of Harding at www.attorneysamharding.com. Harding alleged that Green's site "falsely states that Plaintiff committed illegal and criminal acts in the representation of clients." Harding's Complaint ¶ 11. Harding also alleged that Green was using his professional name and service mark in her domain name with a bad-faith intent to profit and in a manner likely to confuse Internet users.

The complaint claims Harding tried to the resolve the dispute by asking Green to transfer the domain to him. Green allegedly responded by putting the domain up for sale on auction site Afternic.com. The complaint seems to rely on Green's attempted sale of the domain to argue that Green had a bad-faith commercial motivation for launching the site. See Harding's Complaint ¶¶ 13-14, 17-18.

In the suit, Harding filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would (1) prevent Green from using Harding's name and service mark (2) order Green and registrar Register.com to transfer the attorneysamharding.com domain to Harding. The court granted the motion, but it ordered only that Register.com "lock" the domain so that Green could not sell it.

Harding later dropped his motion for preliminary injunction on the ground that he had "obtain[ed] some of the relief sought by his Motion for Preliminary Injunction." See Harding's Motion to Vacate Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction at pg. 1.  A website favorable to Harding soon appeared at the attorneysamharding.com domain.

On February 13, 2009, Green, acting pro se, filed her answer to the complaint. Harding filed a motion to strike Green's answer on the ground that it failed to comply with various rules of civil procedure.

Update:

04/27/2009 - Greeen filed her Counterclaim and Complaint for Damages.

08/26/09 - The parties appeared before federal magistrate judge Hon. Lawrence Leavitt for oral argument, and Green agreed to dismiss her counterclaims against Harding.

10/14/2009 - After the parties settled, the court dismissed the case pursuant to a Stipulation and Order for Dismissal, With Prejudice, of All Claims and Counterclaims, and for a Permanent Injunction. In the order, the parties stipulated that the court would enter a permanent injunction against Green prohibiting her from "(1) using Harding's name or confusingly similar variations thereof, alone or in combination with any other letter, word, letter string, phrase or design, for any purpose (including, but not limited to, on web sites and in domain names); and (2) registering owning, leasing, selling, or trafficking in any domain name containing Harding's name or service mark, or confusingly similar variations thereof, alone or in combination with any other letters, words, phrases or designs."