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."

In summer 2007, parents in Santa Clarita, California sought an injunction against Jack McClellan, a self-proclaimed pedophile who maintained websites promoting his belief that "girl-love" is positive and healthy. 

According to the MLRC, McClellan's website stated that its purpose was "to promote association, friendship; and legal, nonsexual, consensual touch[ing] (hugging, cuddling, etc) between men and prepubescent girls."  In 2007, McClellan visited a number of events and places where children congregate in California and the Pacific Northwest in order to photograph children in attendance and to provide commentary on his websites, according to an appellate decision in the case.  His website included photographs of fully clothed children taken at these public events and places.

The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against McClellan and his websites on August 3, 2007.  McClellan was arrested for violating the order and served 10 days in jail.

After a hearing on August 24, 2007, in which McClellan represented himself, the Superior Court issued a permanent injunction barring McClellan from:

(1) harassing, attacking, threatening, assaulting (sexually or otherwise), hitting, following, stalking, keeping under surveillance, blocking the movement, loitering, with or around Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2 [the anonymous plaintiffs], or any minor child; (2) contacting (directly or indirectly), telephoning, sending messages, mailing, e-mailing, photographing, videotaping, and otherwise recording or publishing any image of Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2, or any minor child without the parent or guardian's written consent; (3) taking any action, directly or through others, to obtain the addresses or locations of Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2, or any minor child; (4) being within 10 yards of any place where children congregate, including schools, playgrounds, and child care centers; and (5) loitering where minor children congregate, including, but not limited to schools, parks, and playgrounds.

McClellan appealed, arguing that the injunction violated his First Amendment rights because it was based on the content of his speech that promotes sexual relations with children as being healthy, and because it constituted a prior restraint on his publishing activities. 

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the lower court, reasoning that the injunction did not bar McClellan from expressing his views, but rather from voyeuristic and stalking activity that is "offensive, frightening, menacing, and not protected by McClellan's free speech or assembly rights." Although the decision is not entirely clear, it also suggests that McClellan invaded the privacy of those children whose photographs appeared on his website, both by appropriating their likenesses for an exploitative purpose and casting them in a false light.

In March 2007, the Blue Mountain School District suspended two eighth-grade students after they created a fake MySpace profile for James McGonigle, principal of the Blue Mountain Middle School in Pennsylvania. The MySpace page did not identify McGonigle by name, but it included his picture from the school district's website and identified the person depicted as a "principal." According to court documents, the profile characterized the principal as a sex-obsessed pedophile, and it was laced with profanity and other negative comments about McGonigle and his family.

The school determined that, based on the creation of the fake profile, the two students had violated the school discipline code, which prohibits making false accusations against school staff members. It also determined that the students violated the school's computer use policy, which informs students that they cannot use copyrighted material without permission, by obtaining McGonigle's photo from the school district's website. As a result, the school suspended the two students for ten days out-of-school.

One of the students, going by the initials "J.S.", sued the school district, McMonigle, and the school district superintendent for violating her First Amendment rights. She argued, among other things, that the school could not constitutionally punish her for out-0f-school speech that did not cause a disruption of classes or school administration. The court denied her request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and later granted summary judgment to the school district, ruling that the school could discipline lewd and vulgar off-campus speech that had an effect on campus, even if this effect didn't amount to a "substantial disruption" under Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

J.S. has appealed the ruling to United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Update:

02/04/2010 - The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision granting summary judgment to the school district. The Third Circuit held "... that Tinker applies to student speech, whether on or off campus, that causes or threatens to cause a substantial disruption of or material interference with school or invades the rights of other members of the school community."

04/09/2010 - The Third Circuit granted J.S.'s petition for an en banc rehearing of her appeal.

06/03/2010 - The case was argued before the Third Circuit en banc.

06/13/2011 - The Third Circuit en banc reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the School District on the student speech claims and remanded to the District Court. The court, en banc, held that an exception to Tinker set forth in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), holding that a school district can discipline students for lewd, vulgar, and offensive speech, if it has an effect on the school and educational mission of the district, did not apply to this case.  Accordingly, the Third Circuit concluded "that the Fraser decision did not give the School district the authority to punish J.S. for her off-campus speech."

10/18/2011 - The School District filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.  

01/17/2012 - The Supreme Court denied the School District's Petition for Certiorari. 

Tim Puntarelli, Dean of Roncalli High Scool in Indianapolis, filed a defamation lawsuit against an anonymous Facebook user (or users) who allegedly created a fake profie for him and used it to send inappropriate messages to students.  According to one press report, the lawsuit also claimed that the user engaged in harassment and identity theft.  Puntarelli sought information about the anonymous user or users from Facebook, which resisted this effort. 

The court ultimately ordered Facebook to produce identifying information for its user(s). Facebook removed the profile at Puntarelli's request before the lawsuit was filed.

MySpace provided records subpoenaed by the Boulder County sheriff's department in a criminal libel investigation, commenced after a Colorado woman reported finding pictures of herself on MySpace under a fake profile named "Dirty Whore" that included information indicating that she was interested in meeting “men, women and/or couples who are looking to have a fun time.”

As of September 15, 2008, no criminal charges appear to have been filed. 

Celebrity gossip blogger Mario Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton), who operates the blog perezhilton.com, sued Infuse LLC, Margie E. Rogers and Elizabeth Silver-Fagan, the owner, editor and publisher, respectively, of a rival celebrity blog named PerezRevenge.com, which describes itself as a "website where celebrities could post information about their careers, events and when necessary personal lives without the taint of rumor or speculation." Hilton's complaint asserts that their use of the name PerezRevenge is a violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, as well as unfair competition, federal dilution of trademark, and unfair trade practices.

Hilton seeks injunctive relief and treble damages.

On July 22, 2008, one day after Lavandiera filed his lawsuit, defendant Silver, the publisher of PerezRevenge.com, filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Lavandiera in New York. See the related lawsuit, Silver v. Lavandiera.

UPDATE:

05/06/09 - The court, after awarding a default judgment for Hilton, enjoined Infuse from "using the domain name perezhilton.com... [or] using the term 'Perez' to designate any platform...that contains entertainment or celebrity news or gossip."  Silver's site now resides at www.rPulse.com.