May 21, 2013
Taubman Co. v. Webfeats (Lawsuit)NOTE: The information and commentary contained in this database entry are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information is likely to be in dispute. Information contained in this entry is current as of the last event mentioned in the "Description" section below; additional proceedings might have taken place in this matter since this event.
Posted September 10th, 2007 by DMLP Staff
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Last updated on March 23rd, 2010 |
Browse by SubjectDefamation
Anonymity
Copyright
Legal Threat
Trademark
Third-Party Content
Section 230
User Comments or Submissions
Business Formation
Free Speech
Newsgathering
Access to Gov't Information
SLAPP
Blogs
Criminal
False Light
Access to Courts
Censorship
CMLP
Citizen Journalism
DMCA
Fair Use
Social Media
Privacy
Shield Laws
Recently Updated Threat Entries
Navigation |
||
| Copyright 2007-13 Digital Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details. Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice. |

Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Technorati

minor corrections
I don't know if it's considered tacky for one of the parties to a lawsuit to comment on a posting about that suit, but...
There's a typo in the third paragraph from the end, the word "that" is duplicated.
You say "Mishkoff initially indicated that he would settle, but then refused to sign the agreement." That makes it sound like I backed out of something to which I had already agreed, which is the exact opposite of what happened. I would suggest something like "Mishkoff initially indicated that he would settle, but then refused to sign the agreement when Taubman imposed new terms." (I think that something like "Taubman and Mishkoff agreed to settle, but the settlement broke down when Taubman refused to honor the agreement" would be even better, but I'm guessing that you won't go for that, even though it's more accurate than your characterization.)
You say that "the parties eventually settled," but we did not. Taubman moved to dismiss the case, and we agreed. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the word "settled" implies more than just an agreement to dismiss the case.
Other than those minor points, it's a good article, you've managed to succinctly capture the essence of a complex case.
Yes, It's Appropriate to Comment
It's definitely appropriate for a party to comment on a posting in our database. We want to collect information from all possible sources. I appreciate your clarifications and I've fixed the typo you found. Thanks as well for the positive assessment of our work.