Wal-Mart filed counterclaims in a lawsuit against Charles Smith, asserting trademark and unfair competition claims under federal and state law. The case arose after Smith created a website using the domain name www.walocaust.com and started selling nazi-themed "Walocaust" merchandise through his account on Cafepress.com. Smith, a passionate critic of Wal-Mart, created a number of "Walocaust" graphics that parodied Wal-Mart's familiar trademarks and slogans by likening Wal-Mart's business practices to nazism and its effect on communities to the Holocaust. Smith reproduced these graphics on his website and printed them on T-shirts and other novelty merchandise that he sold through Cafepress. Wal-Mart sent cease-and-desist letters to Smith and CafePress in December 2005 and February 2006. Smith responded by filing a lawsuit in federal court in Georgia seeking a declaration that his use of the "Walocaust" was lawful, and Wal-Mart counterclaimed.

Wal-Mart asked the court for an injunction barring Smith from making any commercial use of the prefix "Wal," for an order awarding it ownership of Smith's Wal-Mart-related domain names, and nominal damages. After the lawsuit commenced, Smith registered the domain names www.wal-qaeda.com and www.walqaeda.com and developed a new series of graphics for CafePress merchandise combining "Wal-Mart" with "Al-Qaeda" and expressing Smith's virulently anti-Wal-Mart views.

In March 2008, the federal district court granted summary judgment to Smith on all counts and dismissed Wal-Mart's counterclaims. The court held that Smith's use of Wal-Mart trademarks was a parody, and that no reasonable person would be confused by Smith's parodic use. The court further ruled that Wal-Mart's trademark dilution claim was barred because Smith's use of the company's trademarks was protected "noncommercial" speech, despite the fact that he placed his graphics on items like T-shirts sold to the public.

Disqus is a provider of a website comment system, which enables website operators and bloggers to fight spam and manage the comments appearing on their platforms. It also allows commenters to create profiles that store their comments from all websites and blogs using the Disqus system and incorporate ratings from other Disqus users. In December 2007, an individual claiming to be the president of a European company sent an email to Daniel Ha, a Disqus co-founder. The email complained about a comment appearing on a Disqus-enabled site. (In his post about the situation, Mr. Ha declined to identify the businessman or the site where the comment appeared.) The email demanded that Disqus remove the allegedly defamatory comment and threatened legal action in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the United States if the company failed to comply.

Mr. Ha refused to remove the comment and responded to the email, arguing that the decision about whether or not to remove the comment belonged to the site operator originally hosting it, not Disqus. He also invoked CDA 230, which protects providers and users of interactive computer services from tort liability for the statements of third parties. Mr. Ha exchanged further correspondence with the unnamed businessman, but maintained his position that Disqus would not remove the comment.

In a follow-up comment to his blog post on the situation, Mr. Ha indicated that the site owner contacted him and indicated that the comment would be removed. The situation thus appears to be resolved.

In May 2003, Dana Kono sued Lawrence and Carole Meeker in Iowa state court for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After an acrimonious business dispute between the Meekers and Kono over a botched exchange of antique mechanical devices, the Meekers published a page on their website called the "Dana Kono Watch page." According to the Court of Appeals decision in the litigation, the Meekers' webpage stated that Kono was an "admitted liar," said that Kono "has a problem with the truth, with facts, and it seems with alcohol," and made other statements accusing Kono of being a disreputable person. The Meekers also posted excerpts from their email communications with Kono.

Kono sued, arguing that the statements on the Meekers' site were false and defamatory. The case went to trial, and the jury awarded Kono $500,000, including $150,000 for defamation, $50,000 for invasion of privacy, $50,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and $125,000 in punitive damages. The Meekers appealed, and the Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the jury verdict on all counts.

In July 2006, Dr. James Floyd sued South Carolina television station WBTW-TV and its parent company for defamation in South Carolina state court. The dispute revolved around a March 1, 2006 WBTW-TV report on local doctors suspended from the practice of medicine for various forms of misconduct. The report directed viewers to WBTW's website, which contained a list of suspended doctors and the reasons for their suspensions. According to Dr. Floyd's complaint and other court papers, the website indicated that Floyd's license had been suspended because of his use of crack cocaine when in fact it had been suspended due to alcohol-related problems.

WBTW removed the case to federal court in South Carolina and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statement on the website was substantially true and that the reporter who posted it lacked "common law malice," which requires that the publication be motivated by hatred, ill will, or desire to injure. The Court denied WBTW's motion, ruling that the issues raised by the television station were questions of fact for the jury to decide.

On January 10, 2008, the trial in the case began. The parties settled on the same day, before it concluded.

Maria Garrido and William Krasnansky are spouses involved in divorce proceedings before a Vermont family court. Mr. Krasnansky wrote a "thinly-disguised, fictionalized account" of the end of their marriage on his blog, LookAtMyPugs's Jurnull. On the blog, Krasnansky also published excerpts from Garrido's diary that he had found after she moved out of their home. On December 7, 2007, Garrido filed a motion for immediate relief before the family court judge, and the court ordered Krasnansky to take down "any and all Internet postings" about his wife and their marriage pending a hearing scheduled for the following month.

Krasnansky then filed a motion to "dismiss" Garrido's motion for relief and to vacate the December 7 order, primarily on grounds that it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. On January 14, 2008, the court vacated its previous order, holding that Krasnansky's blog did not constitute harassment and that the previous order had violated his First Amendment rights. The court also held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether any statements on the blog were defamatory. The court indicated, however, that it could bar Krasnansky's unauthorized use of Garrido's diary because it was property (intellectual and tangible) under the jurisdiction of the court, although it acknowledged that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a federal copyright claim.

In a related incident, Garrido's lawyer sent a C&D to Derek Bambauer, a legal blogger who had written about the case. (See the CMLP database entry, Garrido v. Bambauer, for details.)

Montana Holdings, a resort developer located in the Bahamas, filed a John Doe lawsuit in Arizona state court against the anonymous operator of the website www.resortbuyerbeware.com. The website allegedly contained false and defamatory statements about a Montana Holdings resort project and the people involved in developing it. After filing suit, Montana Holdings subpoenaed the website's domain registrar, Domains By Proxy, Inc., and its web hosting service, GoDaddy.com, Inc., both Arizona corporations. The subpoenas sought identifying information for the website operator and other information about the website.

Doe appeared in the action and moved to dismiss the complaint and to quash the subpoenas. The Arizona court granted both of Doe's motions, holding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over him/her. The court reasoned that, even though Domains By Proxy and GoDaddy.com were Arizona corporations, the website operator's commercial relationships with them were not sufficient to create the minimum contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction over Doe, who was not an Arizona resident.

Global Royalties, Ltd., an international firm that brokers investments in gemstones, sued Xcentric Ventures, Inc., Ed Magedson, and Jane Doe Magedson over three allegedly defamatory posts made by a third party, Spencer Sullivan, on Xcentric's website Ripoff Report. According to the amended complaint, Sullivan criticized Global Royalties and individuals associated with it and accused the company of "operating a scam involving the sale of gem stones." Am. Compl. ¶ 15. Sullivan allegedly posted this latter comment under the category "Con Artists," one of a number of categories Ripoff Report users can choose from when posting. Id.¶ 16. After Global Royalties' lawyers contacted him, Sullivan requested that his posts be removed from the website. Ripoff Report did not remove the posts, following its strict policy against removing reports.

In July 2006, Global Royalties and its owner, Brandon Hall, sued Sullivan and Xcentric in the Superior Court of Ontario, Canada. When Xcentric did not appear to defend itself, the Canadian court found it in default and issued an order requiring Xcentric to remove the disputed statements. When Xcentric still refused to take down the posts, Global Royalties and Hall sued in federal court in Arizona, seeking to enforce the Canadian court order and bringing a defamation claim under Arizona law.

Xcentric moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Canadian order was unenforceable and that the defamation claim was barred by the statute of limitations, the truth of the statements, and CDA 230 immunity. The court granted Xcentric's motion to dismiss, ruling that the Canadian order was not entitled to enforcement because it was not a final judgment. The court dismissed the defamation claim on grounds that CDA 230 immunized the defendants. It ruled that CDA 230 protected the defendants even though they provided a list of categories including the term "Con Artist" and even though Sullivan himself asked for the post to be removed. The court allowed Global Royalties to file an amended complaint, which it did in December 2007.

The amended complaint dropped the claim for enforcement of the Canadian order and re-pled the defamation claim. Xcentric again moved to dismiss, raising CDA 230 and statute of limitations defenses. In opposing the motion, Global Royalties recycled its previous argument that CDA 230 should not protect website operators when the author of a statement asks for it to be removed. In February 2008, the court granted Xcentric's motion and dismissed the case, noting that "liability based on an author's notice, workable or not, is without statutory support and is contrary to well-settled precedent that the CDA is a complete bar to suit against a website operator for its 'exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions -- such as deciding whether or not to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.'"

Gameology, a video-game-review site, posted some criticisms of "Left Behind: Eternal Forces," a Christian-themed video game. Gameology's posts took issue with the game's atmosphere of faith-based violence and criticized its treatment of women and minorities. Several other blogs and forums, including Radical Congruency, Raving Atheists, Earthside, and Public Theologian, posted similar criticisms. Some of these sites criticized Left Behind Games, Inc., which created the game, and noted the company's financial troubles.

Left Behind Games posted two responses to the criticisms via comments at Gameology, calling the criticisms "misleading." The company later sent a cease-and-desist letter to Gameology through its legal advisor Gordon D. Katz, alleging that the criticisms were false and misleading. The letter threatened suit if any false and misleading material is not removed.

Left Behind Games sent similar letters to the aforementioned blogs and forums. None of the letters describe specific statements that are allegedly false and misleading.

As of 03/02/2008, only Earthside has chosen to remove the disputed content, replacing it with a copy of the threat letter and a short explanatory note. Gameology and the remaining sites thus far have not elected not to remove the criticisms.

Sam Adams, the Portland City Commissioner, was considering running for mayor of Portland, Oregon. Two DJs from local news radio station 1190 KEX registered the domain names www.samadamsformayor.com and www.mayorsamadams.com because they were supporters of Adams and wanted him to run for mayor.

David Anderson, one of the DJs, received a cease-and-desist letter from The Boston Beer Company, manufacturer of Sam Adams beer. The letter noted Anderson's registration of the domain names and claimed that "the sale of any services or products under this name" would infringe and/or dilute the company's rights in its SAM ADAMS and SAMUEL ADAMS registered trademarks. It also suggested that Anderson could be held liable for violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

In response, the radio station called The Boston Beer Company and explained the situation. A little over a week later, the Beer Company issued a press release apologizing for the initial letter and stating that candidate Sam Adams has every right to use his own name.