In September 2009, conservative talk show host and self-described "rodeo clown" Glenn Beck filed an administrative complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) against the privacy service for glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com.  (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.")  In response to the compaint, the privacy service revealed the identity of the website operator, whose name is Isaac Eiland-Hall.

The origin of the website is an Internet meme that came into being on Fark.com. The premise of the rape and murder charge comes from a Gilbert Gottfried routine performed during a Comedy Central roast of comedian Bob Saget. During Gottfried's act, he keeps repeating that there are rumors that Bob Saget raped and killed a girl in 1990 and pretends to admonish the audience to stop spreading the until-now-non-existent rumor.  

Picking up on a perceived similarity between Beck's rhetorical style and the Gottfried routine, a Fark user posted this comment in late August: "Why haven't we had an official response to the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?"  The joke caught on immediately, and, according to Mediaite, the Farkers took the meme and plastered it all over the web. 

The next day, Eiland-Hall registered the domain name and posted satirical commentary and links on the site. Picking up on Beck's comments in his famous interview with Congressman Keith Ellison, where he asked the Congressman — a Muslim — to "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," the website says:

This site exists to try and help examine the vicious rumour that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. We don't claim to know the truth -- only that the rumour floating around saying that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 should be discussed. So we're going to do our part to try and help get to the bottom of this.

Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 - in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?

Under the caption "A Plea for Help" and title "Don't Leave Glenn Beck Alone!!!!!," an embedded video clip features a mock-crying woman saying, among other things, "everytime people stop teasing him [Glenn Beck], and ridiculing him, and making fun of him, and laughing and pointing and staring at him, a baby ghost gets turned into a human being. Do you want that to happen?" 

The site contains a disclaimer at the top of the page: "Notice: This website is 100% parody" with a link to a full disclaimer at the bottom of the page:

Beck claims in his UDRP complaint that the domain name is confusingly similar to his trademark "Glenn Beck" and that Eiland-Hall has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name and registered it in bad faith. 

On September 28, 2009, Eiland-Hall filed a response brief arguing that the domain name is not confusingly similar to "Glenn Beck" (except perhaps to a "moron in a hurry"), that Eiland Hall has legitimate rights in the domain name because he uses it to criticize Beck and to participate in an Internet meme, and that Beck has failed to establish that he has trademark rights in his name. 

Update:

10/13/2009 - Beck filed a supplemental brief in response to Eiland-Hall's brief.

10/20/2009 - Eiland-Hall filed a surreply brief. 

10/29/09 - The WIPO panel denied Beck's UDRP complaint.

11/6/09 - Eiland-Hall voluntarily transferred the domain name to Beck.

In July 2008, Union Square Partnership (USP), the nonprofit business improvement district for New York's Union Square neighborhood, sued Savitri Durkee for copyright infringement in New York federal court after she created a website that parodied the official USP website.  (Durkee is an activist who wants to preserve Union Square as a public gathering place and prevent it from being commercialized.)  In August 2008, USP also filed an administrative complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), seeking to have the parody site's domain names (www.unionsquarepartnership.com and www.unionsquarepartnership.org) transferred to it.

Durkee failed to respond to the WIPO proceeding in a timely manner, and on October 22, 2008, the WIPO arbitration panel ordered that her site's domain names be transferred to USP.  On November 18, Durkee filed an answer and counterclaims in the federal court action, seeking a declaration that her domain names did not infringe USP's trademark or constitute cybersquatting.  Durkee also claimed that fair use excused any copyright infringement and that USP's lawsuit violated New York's anti-SLAPP laws.

The parties settled in January 2009.  Durkee agreed to transfer the domain names www.unionsquarepartnership.org and www.unionsquarepartnership.com to USP and to include a disclaimer on her site stating that the site is not affiliated with USP.   The parties also set out certain domain names that Durkee could not attempt to register or use.  Durkee now operates her new website at www.unionsquarepartnershipsucks.org.

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."

Milan Jankovic, aka Philip Zepter, along with two of his businesses, Fieldpoint B.V. and United Business Activities Holding, filed suit against International Crisis Group (ICG), claiming defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with business expectancy. Non-profit ICG publishes newsletters, reports, and other documents aimed at influencing policymakers worldwide, apparently focusing on the prevention of armed conflict. Zepter's claims arose from ICG documents -- two reports and an e-mail -- that accused Zepter and his business ventures of improper ties to deceased Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic.

On May 1, 2006, the district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims as to the e-mail and one of the reports (“Report 141”) because the statute of limitations had run. It dismissed the claims involving the other document (“Report 145”) as to Zepter's businesses because the report did not concern them and as to Zepter himself because the disputed statements were not defamatory as a matter of law. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove ICG employee James Lyon, who had sent the disputed e-mail, after the District Court found that Lyon's presence in the case destroyed diversity for the purposes of jurisdiction.

On July 24, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals upheld the district court's finding that the case in its original form failed due to lack of jurisdiction over Lyons. It also upheld the dismissal of all claims relating to the e-mail and Report 141 due to the statute of limitations, as well as Zepter's businesses' claims arising from Report 145.

However, the Court of Appeals held that Zepter had established a prima facie defamation case regarding certain statements in Report 145. The opinion discussed three disputed portions of Report 145 separately. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims as to the first portion, which had implicated another Zepter venture -- Zepta Banka -- but not Zepter himself. Due to the size and scope of Zepter's business enterprises, spanning more than 50 countries on five continents, the court found that statements regarding Zepta Banka did not concern Zepter.

According to the court, the second statement in Report 145 could give the impression that Zepter was a “crony” of Milosevic and thus was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of defamation. Though the Court of Appeals did not discuss them, it revived plaintiffs' false light and tortious interference claims as to the second statement in Report 145.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims regarding the third statement in Report 145 because the statement referred to a former Zepter employee rather than Zepter himself.

The net result was that all claims against ICG were dismissed except for those involving the second statement from Report 145, which were remanded to the district court. ICG raised a number of defenses not reached by the district court or on appeal -- Opinion and Fair Comment Protection, the Fair Report Privilege, the Neutral-Reportage Doctrine -- which will be considered in the lower court.

Update:

7/24/2007 - Case remanded to district court.

5/13/2008 - ICG filed memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss first amended complaint.

5/23/2008 - Jankovic filed memorandum in opposition to ICG's motion to dismiss.