California-based airline Virgin America filed a six-count complaint against the publisher and editors of Adrants, a blog focused on the advertising industry, after it published a post that was paired with a fake ad containing the Virgin logo and the statement, "The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin."  The post has since been removed, but a cached version is available here.

Virgin filed its complaint on January 26, 2009, alleging:

The advertisement consisted of a photograph of the crash of US Airways flight 1549 from January 15, 2009 depicted under the heading “The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin." The posting had an express assertion by Adrants Co-Editor Natividad about the apparent validity of the Virgin America advertisement. However, the depicted photograph was not a Virgin America advertisement and the advertisement was in no way sponsored by or affiliated with Virgin America. Defendants’ posting of the false advertisement on the Adrants.com website was likely to cause consumer confusion as to source, affiliation or sponsorship; was likely to and tended to dilute and tarnish the distinctive nature of and reputation ascribed to Virgin America’s famous name and trademark; and was likely to generate the false belief among consumers that Virgin America had sponsored, endorsed, was affiliated with, and supported Defendants and Adrants.com. 

Virgin's lawsuit asserts claims for trademark and trade name infringement, false designation of origin and false and deceptive advertising, trademark dilution, false and misleading statements, and defamation.

According to press accounts:

In response to a Virgin America email demanding that the picture be removed, Angela Natividad, a head honcho at Adrants, added this copy above the original post: "UPDATE: Clearly, this ad is fake. A spoof. Virgin America has confirmed this. We were always supect from the get go and didn't mean to mislead or misrepresent. So we'll clearly state now: the ad is a spoof. It's not real. Virgin America had nothing to do with its creation."

Susan and Robert Johnson, owners of Cozy Kittens Cattery, LLC, sued consumer review site ComplaintsBoard.com, its (alleged) publishers Elizabeth Arden and Michelle Reitenger, and two ComplaintsBoard users who commented on a complaint thread about Susan Johnson and her cat breeding business. The Johnsons also sued InMotion Hosting, Inc., the hosting service for the website. The complaint alleges injurious falsehood, defamation, and intentional inflication of emotional distress against all six defendants.

The complaint also includes a federal trademark infringement claim against one of the commenters, Kathleen Heineman, who allegedly violated the Johnsons' trademark rights in their "Cozy Kittens" trademark by "use of the name 'Cozy Kittens and Cuddly Cats'" in connection with her competing cat breeding business. (This allegation is puzzling given that Heineman's business appears to be called Boutique Kittens.)

The claims against Arden, Reitenger, ComplaintsBoard.com, and InMotion seek to hold them liable for publishing third-party content (Lowry and Heineman's comments) and refusing to remove this content upon demand by the Johnsons. These claims are likely barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but it does not look like any defendant has asserted this defense so far.

The Johnsons originally filed suit in state court in Missouri in June 2008, but Heineman removed the case to federal court in October 2008. After removal, Heineman, a resident of Colorado, moved to dismiss the complaint against her for lack of personal jurisdiction. This motion was pending as of January 15, 2009.

Before removal, the state court entered a default judgment against Melanie Lowry, who did not appear in the case. Lowry later challenged the default judgment by sending a letter to the federal district judge.

InMotion moved to dismiss the complaint in state court (grounds unknown), but did not refile the motion in federal court after removal. Based on InMotion's failure to answer or file a motion to dismiss in federal court, the Johnsons moved for entry of a default judgment against it. InMotion then appeared, arguing that the court should deny the Johnsons' motion for entry of default and hear its motion to dismiss on the merits.

Arden, Reitenger, and ComplaintsBoard.com have not appeared in the federal action. The reason for this is not clear -- they may have defaulted in the state court action, they may have settled with the Johnsons, or they may never have been served in the first place. The disputed comments no longer appear on ComplaintsBoard.com.

UPDATE:  

6/8/2009 - Court granted the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Heineman, Lowry, and InMotion Hosting 

7/10/2009 - Court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Defendants Elizabeth Arden d/b/a ComplaintsBoard.com, ComplaintsBoard.com, and Michelle Reitenger 

8/4/2010 - 8th Circuit affirms dismissal of claims 

MCW, Inc., a company providing career counseling under the trademark "Bernard Haldane," sued Badbusinessbureau.com, LLC ("BBB") and Edward Magedson in Texas federal court for unfair competition and false advertising under the Lanham Act and trademark infringement and business disparagement under Texas law.  The lawsuit revolved around negative reports about Bernard Haldane services published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices. 

The complaint alleged that BBB and Magedson posted user reports containing false and defamatory statements about MCW's business, independently created defamatory titles, headings, and editorial comments, and used MCW's trademark in conjunction with the offering and selling of banner advertisements, third-party services, rebuttal and collection fees, and "Rip-Off Revenge" services. 

BBB and Magedson moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for publishing third-party content, that they did not use MCW's trademark in commercial advertising or promotion, and that there was no likelihood of confusion between the parties' services. 

In ruling on the motion, the court held that CDA 230 did not bar MCW's claim because it had alleged that BBB and Magedson created false and defamatory report titles, headings, and other editorial content.  It also determined that BBB and Magedson lost immunity by soliciting a consumer to create disparaging material.  Nevertheless, the court dismissed the federal unfair competition and false advertising claims, concluding that MCW lacked standing, that it could not show a likelihood of confusion as a matter of law, and that Ripoff Report did not use MCW's trademark in commercial advertising or promotion.  The court then declined to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.

MCW appealed the ruling, but later voluntarily dismissed its appeal.

Two real estate companies, Parkmerced Investors Properties LLC and Stellar Larkspur Partners LLC, sued eighteen unknown defendants for violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), libel, and tortious interference with contract.  The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, revolves around anonymous and pseudonymous postings to Apartment Ratings, a forum site that invites discussion about residential apartment buildings in locations throughout the United States.

Parkmerced Investors Properties LLC owns Parkmerced, a community of 3000+ units in San Francisco.  Stellar Larkspur Partners LLC owns the Larkspur Shores Apartment Homes, a community of about 350 apartments in Larkspur, California. In the last couple of years, users of Apartment Ratings have posted a large number of comments, both positive and negative, about these two properties.  Some of the postings deal with issues like increasing rents and other expenses, maintenance problems, construction noise, crime, and the responsiveness of management to complaints. 

In their complaint, Parkmerced and Stellar Larkspur identify eighteen allegedly false and misleading statements, all of which purport to relate personal experiences of persons living in or visiting the Parkmerced and Larkspur Shores properties.  They maintain that these false statements not only constitute libel, but violate the Lanham Act:  "Defendants' activities constitute false or misleading descriptions of fact and false or misleading representations of fact in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)[,] because Defendants misrepresent the nature, characteristics and qualities of the Apartments." Cmplt. ¶ 33.  While this looks like a false advertising claim under  15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), there is some indication that the plaintiffs mean to bring a "general Lanham Act claim for misuse of trademark under section 43(a)[, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)]."  Affidavit of Paul Alan Levy, ¶ 8.

Parkmerced and Stellar Larkspur have subpoenaed Apartment Ratings, asking for information identifying the authors of the critical comments made about them.  They asked for the identities of those users who wrote the eighteen statements quoted in the complaint, as well as other users who wrote things not specifically mentioned in the complaint.  One of those users contacted Paul Levy, who filed a brief asking the court for a protective order against the subpoena and moving to strike the plaintiffs' state-law claims under the California anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16). 

Mr. Levy argued that the website's anonymous posters have a qualified right to engage in anonymous speech, and that the plaintiffs' facially invalid Lanham Act claim cannot justify disclosing the posters' identities.  (Without the Lanham Act claim, the federal court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, so the potential merit of the libel and tortious interference claims should not matter.)  Based on the same weakness, Mr. Levy argued that the plaintiffs could not establish the probability of success required to survive his client's anti-SLAPP motion to strike.

Susan Scheff, a self-described “parent advocate” who “assists parents of troubled teens research and identify programs and schools that can assist their troubled teens in getting back on track to a healthy, productive lifestyle” and the publisher of www.suescheff.com, filed an administrative complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against "Psyborgue" pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). (The UDRP is a policy that website operators automatically agree to when they register a domain name; the policy enables trademark owners to initiate an administrative proceeding challenging the registration of a domain name in "bad faith.") 

"Psyborgue" is the name Michael Crawford used to register the domain name "sueschefftruth.com."  Mr. Crawford, who represented himself in the WIPO action, stated in a declaration that he registered the domain name primarily to "provide information to the public regarding Sue Scheff, her company PURE, and the quality of services offered under the name free of charge to parents."  According to the WIPO administrative panel:

The website associated with the Domain Name posts Mr. Crawford’s blog comments, media articles, court documents, and postings by readers concerning [Sue Scheff]. Typical postings question [her] objectivity, assert that she or her daughter have financial ties to some of the institutions and programs that [she] recommends to parents, and allege that some of these programs have been implicated in charges of child abuse or neglect.  A disclaimer at the head of the website advises, “This site is not endorsed by or affiliated with Sue Scheff™.

The WIPO panel denied Scheff's complaint, finding that Mr. Crawford was making a legitimate, nomcommercial fair use of the domain name for purposes of criticism.  The panel indicated that "[t]o the extent the Complaint may be read as suggesting that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith because his purpose was to defame the Complainant, such a claim is essentially outside the scope of the Policy."

On September 4, 2008, John Dozier filed a lawsuit in Virginia state court claiming that Ronald Riley's "gripe site" about him and his firm, www.cybertriallawyer-sucks.com, violates his law firm's trademark because the site uses the firm's name in conjunction with an embedded link that goes, not to the firm's website, but to a page on inventored.org that lists cease-and-desist letters Riley has received from Dozier and Riley's responses to those letters.

According to Paul Alan Levy, Riley's counsel, Dozier "does not seem to have served [the complaint] on Riley.  Instead, he has used the making of a claim for trademark infringement to warn the hosts of Riley’s web site that if they do not take the web site down they risk a further display of Dozier’s wrath, directed at them." 

On October 2, 2008, Riley filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking a ruling by the court that his use of Dozier's trademarks is not infringing or defamatory.

Update:

11/20/08 - The federal court dismissed Riley's complaint for declaratory judgment based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

12/8/08 - The district court denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider dismissal.

1/6/09 - Plaintiff appeals the district court's order of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.