Trademark

Freecycle Network v. Oey

Date: 

04/04/2006

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Tim Oey; Jane Doe Oey

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

US District Court, District of Arizona

Case Number: 

4:06cv00173

Legal Counsel: 

Ashley Lynn Kirk - Hayes Soloway PC; Ian N. Fienberg, Donald M. Falk, Dennis S. Corgill, Eugene Volokh

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)
Injunction Issued

Description: 

The Freecycle Network (TFN) is a nonprofit corporation that acts as a central administrative point for local recycling communities around the United States and operates a website at www.freecycle.org. It had been operating under this name since 2003, and in 2004 submitted a trademark application for the "The Freecycle Network" and "Freecycle" marks.

Tim Oey, a former volunteer at TFN became a vocal critic of TFN's attempt to trademark its name, expressing his view that "freecycle" had become a generic term and thus not an appropriate word to be protected by trademark .

On April 4, 2006, TFN filed a lawsuit against Oey, alleging trademark infringement. TFN argued that Oey's claims in various Yahoo! Groups that TFN did not own the "freecycle" trademark constituted trademark disparagement, and his encouraging others to freely use the term "freecycle" constituted contributory trademark infringement. TFN also sought relief under the Arizona common law actions of injurious falsehood, defamation, and intentional interference with business relationships.

The action caught the attention of academics, which came out to support Oey. Two amici curiae submissions were filed in the U.S. District Court of Arizona arguing in Oey's favor, and academic Eugene Volokh assisted Oey's lawyers as an adviser.

On April 24, 2006, the court granted TFN's request for a preliminary injunction, restraining Oey from communicating about the merits of TFNs claim of trademark ownership of the disputed terms.

Oey appealled to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the injunction was an "unjustified prior restraint on Oey's constitutional right to speak about TFN's efforts to trademark the word 'freecycle'." Oey's appellate brief also attacked the validity of TFN's trademark claims and common law claims.

On September 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction and remanded the case to the district court, holding that TFN's trademark infringement arguments failed on a number of bases, including that Oey's use of the marks was unlikely to constitute "use in commerce." The court also held that Oey was expressing an opinion about a putative trademark, and the Lanham Act does not restrain such behavior. It held further that trademark disparagement was not a valid action under the Lanham Act.

There has been no significant activity in the district court after remand.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

1/5/08: Check district court docket for action after remand.

nothing since 1/9/08 when one attorney withdrew

AVM 6/17/09 UPDATE check - nothing new, last action was 1/9/2008 withdrawl of Attorney Lynn Kirk - but case isnt marked as closed

also, fixed attorney firms etc

Energy Automation Systems v. Xcentric Ventures

Date: 

11/06/2006

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Issuing Legal Threat: 

Energy Automation Systems, Inc.

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Badbusiness Bureau, d/b/a Badbusinessbureau.com, d/b/a Rip-Off Report, d/b/a Ripoffreport.com; Edward Magedson

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization
Intermediary

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

Case Number: 

3:06CV01079

Legal Counsel: 

James Freeman, Maira Speth, Talmage Watts, William Shreffler

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, operates the Bad Business Bureau, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices. This forum is located on a website that may be accessed through either of two domain names: ripoffreport.com or badbusinessbureau.com. The site solicits and receives complaints from all over the country and recommends tactics for writing “rip-off reports,” providing sample questions to ask companies, and advice for locating similarly situated consumers on the Internet.

On November 6, 2006, Energy Automated Systems filed a lawsuit against Xcentric and a site administrator, Edward Magedson, alleging defamation, interference with business relations, civil conspiracy, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. More specifically, EAS alleges in its complaint that it was listed on the website’s “Top Rip-Off Links” and has been the subject of various “rip-off reports.” Those reports have included titles, headings and editorial messages that, the plaintiff alleges, were created by the defendants, stating that EAS’s dealerships are a “complete” and “long running” “scam,” that EAS is a “damn scam ripoff business from hell,” that EAS’s Chief Executive Officer and other employees are “crooked” and “crooks,” that “EASI likes to threaten anyone that complains whether dealer or ex-employee” and that EAS has engaged in “fraud.”

On March 26, 2007, Xcentric filed a motion to dismiss for lack for personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Xcentric also raised the defense that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1), should mandate dismissal of the claims.

On May 25, 2007, the court held that Xcentric could not raise CDA 230 on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court refused to convert the motion into a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. However, the court stated that CDA 230 could still be used as a defense in a later summary judgment determination.

After the parties proceeded to discovery, the case appears to have settled. On December 12, 2007, the parties filed an Agreed Order of Dismissal.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

TMI v. Maxwell

Date: 

02/08/2002

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Joseph M. Maxwell

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Number: 

4:02CV00494 (district court); 03-20243/03-20291 (appeal)

Legal Counsel: 

Pro se (in district court); Paul Alan Levy, Alan B. Morrison (on appeal)

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)
Material Removed
Verdict (plaintiff)

Description: 

In 2002, TMI Inc., a homebuilder operating under the name Trendmaker Homes, sued Joseph Maxwell over his gripe site, alleging that Maxwell had violated federal and Texas anti-dilution provisions, and the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”).

Maxwell registered the domain name www.trendmakerhome.com and posted a website at this address to air his complaints about Trendmaker Homes, with whom he had a negative business experience. The website told Maxwell's story of his dispute with Trendmaker Homes, contained a "Treasure Chest" section, where users were meant to post information about trustworthy contractors and tradespersons, and included a disclaimer at the top of the home page indicating that it was not TMI's site. After Maxwell's one-year registration expired, TMI sent him a cease-and-desist letter. Maxwell then registered another domain name, www.trendmaker.info, and TMI sued him in federal court in Texas.

After a bench trial, the district court found that Maxwell, who represented himself, had violated the federal and state anti-dilution provisions and the ACPA and ordered him to pay $40,000 in statutory damages and $40,000 in attorneys' fees.

On appeal, Maxwell was wepresented by Public Citizen attorneys Paul Alan Levy and Alan B. Morrison. On April 21, 2004, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and held that the federal anti-dilution provision required a commercial use of the mark in question, and that Maxwell's airing of gripes without any anticipation of commercial gain was not a commercial use. The court emphasized that Maxwell had not attempted to divert business from TMI, the Treasure Chest did not receive any postings (other than one added by Maxwell about a tradesperson he had engaged in the past), and Maxwell's website did not receive any paid advertisements. On the ACPA claim, the Court of Appeals determined that there was no evidence that Maxwell registered the domain name with a bad faith intent to profit. Again, the court emphasized the non-commercial nature of the site, as well as the fact that Maxwell never offered to sell the domain name to TMI. Finally, the court also overturned the district court's adverse finding under the Texas anti-dilution provision, citing Express One Int’l, Inc. v. Steinbeck, 53 S.W.3d 895, 899 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2001) ("[The Texas anti-dilution statute] is not intended to address non-trademark uses of a name to comment on, criticize, ridicule, parody, or disparage the goods or business of the name’s owner").

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Best Buy v. Laughing Squid

Date: 

12/11/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Laughing Squid

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Organization

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

On December 11, 2007, Best Buy sent a cease-and-desist letter to Scott Beale of Laughing Squid for reporting on an "Improv Everywhere" prank and their sales of T-shirts mocking the Best Buy logo. Best Buy claimed the post infringed its trademarks and copyrights by "promoting" sales of a T-shirt that mocked the Best Buy logo. Laughing Squid posted the C&D, where it was picked up by BoingBoing and Slashdot. Beale contacted Best Buy's PR department and clarified the nature of his blog. In response, the company sent him an apology on December 12:

We appreciate your clarification of the nature of your posting. We do object to sales of T-shirts or other products bearing a logo which violates our trademarks or copyrights or other misuse of our logo in commercial ventures. However, we do not object to fair and accurate reporting of facts, and respect the First Amendment rights of Laughing Squid and other bloggers to provide articles or commentary on current events. Now that we have a better understanding of your website, we regret sending you the demand letter.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Lucas Nursery & Landscaping v. Grosse

Date: 

08/17/2001

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Michelle Grosse

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Case Number: 

01-73291 (trial court); 02-1668 (appellate court)

Legal Counsel: 

Jeffrey Wilson

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

When she was dissatisfied with landscaping work performed at her home by Lucas Nursery & Landscaping, Michelle Grosse registered the domain name, www.lucasnursery.com. Grosse posted photographs of her yard and warned other consumers about doing business with Lucas Nursery. Lucas Nursery filed a lawsuit against Grosse in federal court in Michigan, claiming that her use of the company's name in her domain name violated the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).

(Under the ACPA, a person is liable if he or she registers or uses a
domain name that is "identical or confusingly similar" to another's trademark
with the "bad faith intent to profit from that mark.")

The district court granted summary judgment for Grosse, ruling that Grosse did not have a bad faith intent to profit from Lucas Nursery's name. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that Grosse created the website to inform consumers about the practices of a landscaping company that she believed had performed inferior work on her yard, not to profit from use of the company's mark.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Best Buy Apologizes for Cease-and-Desist Blooper

Yesterday, Best Buy sent a cease-and-desist letter to Scott Beale of Laughing Squid for reporting on an "Improv Everywhere" prank and their sales of T-shirts mocking the Best Buy logo. Best Buy claimed the post infringed its trademarks and copyrights by "promoting" sales of a T-shirt that mocked the Best Buy logo.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Rowling v. RDR Books

Date: 

10/31/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

RDR Books; John Does 1-10

Type of Party: 

Individual
Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case Number: 

07 Civ. 9667

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

$6,750.00

Legal Counsel: 

David S. Hammer; Anthony Falzone; Lawrence Lessig

Publication Medium: 

Print
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Injunction Issued
Verdict (plaintiff)

Description: 

J.K. Rowling, the author of the successful Harry Potter books and films, and Warner Brothers, which produces and markets Harry Potter movies and products, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against book publisher RDR Books in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Rowlings and Warner Brothers seek an injunction barring RDR Books from publishing The Harry Potter Lexicon, the print counterpart of the Harry Potter fan website, www.hp-lexicon.com. The website contains information on "the series’ characters, places, animals, magic spells, and potions along with atlases, timelines, and analyses of magical theory," according to a press release issued by Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project, which is acting a co-counsel to RDR Books in the case.

Rowling and Warner Brothers argue that the book, which had been scheduled to be released November 28, 2007, misappropriates elements of Rowling's imaginary world and otherwise violates the plaintiffs' copyright and trademark rights in the books, movies, and related products. RDR argues that it has the right to publish the Lexicon under the fair use doctrine, which is a defense to copyright infringement that permits the use of a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission for limited and "transformative" uses that do not damage the market for the original work.

On November 8, 2007, the court issued a temporary restraining order delaying RDR's publication of the book. Both parties agreed to the entry of this order, pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction scheduled for February 6, 2008.

Update:

The court decided to combine the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, which is scheduled to begin April 14, 2008.

4/16/2008 - The trial ended, and the court took the matter under advisement.

9/8/2008 - Judge Patterson issued a decision finding the defendants liable for copyright infringement; judge issued permanent injunction and $6,750 in statutory damages.

12/4/08 - RDR Books dismissed its appeal and announced that it will publish a revised version of The Lexicon on on January 12, 2009.  Mr. Vander Ark substantially rewrote the book in an effort to bring it in line with Judge Patterson's decision.  J.K. Rowling's agents issued the following statement:

We are delighted that this matter is finally and favourably resolved and that J.K. Rowling's rights  -- and indeed the rights of all authors of creative works -- have been protected.  We are also pleased to hear that rather than continue to litigate, RDR have themselves decided to publish a different book prepared with reference to Judge Patterson's decision.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Falwell v. Lamparello

Date: 

10/01/2003

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Christopher Lamparello

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Administrative
Federal

Court Name: 

National Arbitration Forum; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case Number: 

FA0310000198936 (National Arbitration Forum); 03-1503-A (EDVA)

Legal Counsel: 

Paul Alan Levy, Allison M. Zieve

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

In 1999, Christopher Lamparello registered the domain name www.fallwell.com and used the website to criticize Rev. Jerry Falwell's views concerning gays and lesbians. In September 2003, Falwell initiated an arbitration action against Lamparello pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, claiming trademark infringement, cybersquatting and other torts, and sought to have the domain name transferred to him.

The National Arbitration Forum ruled that Lamparello's use of the domain name was confusing and had been registered in bad faith, and it ordered that the domain name be transferred from Lamaparello to Falwell. Lamparello commenced a lawsuit against Falwell in federal district court, seeking relief from the arbitration decision and a declaration of non-infringement. Falwell counter-claimed, alleging federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition under federal and Virginia law, and cybersquatting.

The district court granted summary judgment to Falwell, enjoined Lamparello from using the mark, and required him to transfer the domain name to Falwell. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and entered judgment for Lamparello. Avoiding the larger question of whether trademark law applies to websites like Lamparello's that do not use the disputed mark to sell a good or service, the court ruled that Lamparello's use of the domain name, in the overall context of his gripe site, did not create a likelihood of confusion between his site and Falwell's official site. The court rejected the doctrine of "initial interest confusion" for establishing trademark infringement, at least as applied to non-commercial sites critical of the trademark holder. The court also found that Lamparello did not have the "bad faith intent to profit" required for a cybersquatting claim, primarily because he used the domain name and website to engage in criticism and did not have a profit motive.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

I'm not sure what to put for the disposition. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff in the case is Lamparello, although Falwell initiated the threat. So, I thought it might be confusing to put that there was a verdict for the plaintif since we call the case "Falwell v. Lamparello."

Ubisoft v. Kyanka

Date: 

11/15/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Richard Kyanka

Type of Party: 

Individual
Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka is the webmaster of SomethingAwful, an online community forum with the catch phrase: "The Internet Makes You Stupid." A member of the community posted a link on the forum to a comic that depicted Jade Raymond engaged in sexual activities. Raymond is a video game producer for Ubisoft.

Ubisoft sent Kyanka a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that the comic be taken down from the site and threatening legal action. The letter claims that the comic infringed upon Ms. Raymond's "personal rights," caused emotional distress, and constituted trademark infringement, among other things.

Mr. Kyanka posted the letter on SomethingAwful in his own forum posting. In the posting, Kyanka claimed that he had no connection to the comic except that a link to it was posted on the forum. He said that he does not know who drew the comic and does not know where the image is located. Kyanka also sent Ubisoft's legal counsel a reply email, indicating that perhaps he did not take the legal threat seriously:

Please let it be known that hereforth I have read the express mail and email sent thereforth by Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP, and furthermore a declaration shall be expressed on the part of Internet User Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka that that forth herethrough I have conducted rigorous tests implemented through a vigorous barrage of legal studies, and furthermore hitherthrough these rigorous tests have therefore proven Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP shall be recognized as a man of the fag persuasion.

Pursuant to the United Dairy Council

Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka
Internet

The link to the comic is no longer on SomethingAwful, and Ubisoft has not taken any legal action against Kyanka.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Requested a PDF of the letter from Kyanka, but haven't heard anything back yet. -Stefani

SB - we have a copy of the comic at issue. We probably don't want to post it, as it is sexually explicit.

DA - I agree.

As of 6/09/2008  - no developments. Do we still want to try and get the letter? (JMC)

Jews for Jesus v. Google (letter)

Date: 

05/05/2005

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Google, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Large Organization
Intermediary

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

Jews for Jesus, an "international outreach ministry," sent Google a threat letter alleging trademark infringement over the Blogspot URL "jewsforjesus.blogspot.com." The blog, whose author wrote under the pseudonym "Whistle Blower," was apparently critical of Jews for Jesus. When Google did not respond, counsel for Jews for Jesus sent a second letter on June 13, 2006, requesting a response from Google by June 24, 2006.

Google responded via email on June 24, 2006, saying that it is not responsible for the content of Blogspot pages and suggesting that Jews for Jesus contact the author of the blog directly. Google did not remove the blog URL, and Jews for Jesus filed suit. (For more on the lawsuit, see CMLP's database entry, Jews for Jesus v. Google.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Jews for Jesus v. Google

Date: 

12/21/2005

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Google, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Large Organization
Intermediary

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case Number: 

05-CV-10684

Legal Counsel: 

Jeffrey Conciatori, Partha Chattaraj - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Jews for Jesus, an "international outreach ministry," filed a lawsuit against Google alleging trademark infringement and other claims after Google refused to remove a Blogspot URL identified as "jewsforjesus.blogspot.com." The blog's author, who wrote under the pseudonym "Whistle Blower," was apparently critical of the organization. Jews for Jesus had previously sent Google a cease-and-desist letter alleging trademark infringement over the use of the Blogspot URL, and Google did not remove the blog URL. (For more on the cease-and-desist letter, please see the CMLP database entry, Jews for Jesus v. Google (letter).)

This suit was most notable for raising the question of whether there is a distinction between top-level domain names (i.e. jewsforjesus.com) and second/third/etc.-level subdomains (i.e. jewsforjesus.blogspot.com) with regard to trademark infringement. However, the parties ultimately settled and dismissed the suit with prejudice. Jews for Jesus now operates the Blogspot URL in question as "The Jews for Jesus Blog."

From Eric Goldman's blog, regarding the settlement:

Instead, the parties have settled their dispute, filing a dismissal with prejudice on July 26. The official notice did not reveal any terms, but according to an announcement on the Jews for Jesus site, the user who registered the third level domain "had a change of heart." As a result, the blog has transferred to Jews for Jesus. This transfer has wiped out all of the old griping content. Plus, there is nothing in the Internet Archive either, and Google's cache has been wiped too. So it appears that Jews for Jesus has done a pretty effective job of shutting down this griper.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Avis v. Turkewitz

Date: 

10/23/2007

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Eric Turkewitz

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Legal Counsel: 

Pro Se

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney who operates a blog. On September 17, 2007, Turkewitz used the Avis and Hertz logos in a blog post concerning a federal court decision striking down the "Graves Amendment," a federal law that had abolished vicarious liability for automobile lessors and renters based solely on ownership. On October 23, counsel for Avis posted a comment to Turkewitz's post. The comment asserted that Turkewitz did not have the right to use Avis's trademark and requested that he immediately remove the Avis logo from his blog and refrain from using it in the future.

Turkewitz published a subsequent post explaining his belief that use of the logo was fair and asking his readers for their opinions. He then published a public response to Avis, outlining his argument that use of the logo was protected by the First Amendment as news reporting. At this time, Avis has not taken any legal action.

As of July 7, 2009, it appears that no action has been taken by any of the parties.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Status checked on 6/02/08 (AAB)

7/7/09 - no new information (CMF)

Eros, LLC v. Simon

Date: 

10/24/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Thomas Simon and John Does 1-10

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Case Number: 

1:07-cv-04447-SLT-JMA

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

$525.00

Legal Counsel: 

Pro se

Publication Medium: 

Virtual World

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Settled (total)

Description: 

Eros, LLC and five other US-based plaintiffs who sell virtual objects in the virtual world known as Second Life filed a lawsuit against Thomas Simon, a New York man who they allege is selling unathorized copies of their objects to other Second Life users.

The objects in question range from virtual clothes to virtual sex toys. The complaint alleges that Simon has, in concert with other as yet unidentified defendants, passed off thousands of unauthorized copies of their objects as genuine products, thereby infringing the plaintiffs' copyrights and engaging in unfair competition, false description of origin, and counterfeiting in breach of the Lanham Act. They also allege that the arrangement in place between the defendants, whereby Simon agreed to create unauthorized copies of the plaintiffs' products and the unidentified defendants agreed to distribute them, amounts to a civil conspiracy.

On December 3, 2007, the parties submitted a proposed judgment by consent with respect to Simon. On January 3, 2008, the judge entered the judgment. The judgment called for Simon to pay $525 to the plaintiffs and enjoined him from further unauthorized copying.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Status updated on 6/3/2008 (AAB)

Video Professor v. Justin Leonard

Date: 

07/11/2007

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Justin Leonard; Leonard Fitness, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Nevada

Case Number: 

07-cv-1726-WYD-CBS

Legal Counsel: 

Paul Alan Levy

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

Justin Leonard runs the websites infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com. These websites give consumers the opportunity to voice their criticisms and defenses of various products and services. Pages on these websites are devoted to criticisms and defenses of Video Professor, Inc., a Colorado company that develops and sells video tutorials on a variety of computer-related topics. Apparently, a number of anonymous posters made critical statements about Video Professor's products on these forum pages.

On July 11, 2007, Video Professor's president sent a letter to Justin Leonard, requesting that Leonard provide the company with contact information for each person who had posted comments to his websites relating to Video Professor. Leonard did not respond to this request.

In August 2007, Video Professor filed a John Doe lawsuit against 100 anonymous defendants (and some anonymous corporations and LLCs too!) in federal court in Colorado. The complaint includes claims for violations of the Lanham Act, violations of a Colorado consumer protection statute, tortious interference with business relations, and common law product disparagement/defamation. The complaint states that the anonymous defendants made false and defamatory statements about Video Professor's products, but does not identify any specific statements.

Video Professor moved ex parte for an order authorizing it to conduct discovery, in the form of third-party subpoenas requiring the recipients to produce documents identifying the anonymous posters. The court granted the motion.

On September 6, 2007, Justin Leonard's company, Leonard Fitness, Inc., received a subpoena, requesting that it produce identifying information for the author of every post on Leonard's websites relating to Video Professor. Along with the subpoena, Video Professor provided a check for $40.81 to compensate Leonard for his expenses in complying with the subpoena.

The Public Citizen Litigation Group took up the matter on behalf of Leonard and sent a letter to Video Professor's counsel objecting to the subpoena and laying out the reasons why, in its view, the subpoena was invalid.

Specifically, the letter argued that the subpoena encroached upon the rights of the anonymous defendants to engage in anonymous speech on the Internet without meeting the legal requirements necessary to justify disclosure of their identities. It also argued that the subpoena was unduly burdensome because it called for information relating to all postings about Video Professor on Leonard's sites, rather than identifying which postings were allegedly defamatory or otherwise unlawful. Finally, the letter stressed that the check provided with the subpoena was not sufficient to compensate Leonard for the work he would have to do to comply with the subpoena.

Communications ensued between Public Citizen and counsel for Video Professor. Video Professor narrowed the list of anonymous posters to 43. It also endeavored to provide Public Citizen with evidence supporting its allegations for each of the postings.

On or around October 18, 2007, Public Citizen sent a notice to each of the 43 posters identified by Video Professor. The letter informed the posters of the pendency of the lawsuit and the request for identifying information about them. It encouraged them to hire a lawyer and explained that Leonard would not produce any documents before October 31, 2007, in order to to give them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena in federal court. It also indicated that Public Citizen had asked Video Professor for evidence to support its claims, and that Public Citizen (on behalf of Leonard) would move to quash the subpoena should it determine that Video Professor had not done so.

On October 19, 2007, Public Citizen sent Video Professor a letter, explaining that it had sent the notice. The letter also questioned the legal adequacy of the Lanham Act claims and the adequacy of Video Professor's factual showing on the defamation claims. It requested more documents to establish, among other things, the falsity of the statements at issue.

We are not aware of the filing of any motion to quash yet.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

to-do: monitor status

Summary Judgment Granted in BidZirk v. Smith

I blogged about Orthomom's victory on Friday. Here's another big win for a blogger recently. Last Monday, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to Philip Smith in the lawsuit brought against him by BidZirk, LLC, Daniel Schmidt, and Jill Patterson.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Video Professor v. Does

Date: 

08/16/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John and Jane Does 1-100; John Doe Corporations 1-10; Other John Doe Entities 1-10

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado

Case Number: 

07-cv-1726

Legal Counsel: 

Paul Alan Levy (for third party, Justin Leonard)

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

Justin Leonard runs the websites infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com. These websites give users of infomerical products the opportunity to voice their criticisms and defenses of these products and associated sales tactics. Pages on these websites are devoted to criticisms and defenses of Video Professor, Inc., a Colorado company that develops and sells video tutorials on a variety of computer-related topics. Apparently, a number of anonymous posters made critical statements about Video Professor's products on these forum pages.

In August 2007, Video Professor filed a John Doe lawsuit against 100 anonymous defendants (and some anonymous corporations and LLCs too!) in federal court in Colorado. The complaint includes claims for violations of the Lanham Act, violations of a Colorado consumer protection statute, tortious interference with business relations, and common law product disparagement/defamation. The complaint states that the anonymous defendants made false and defamatory statements about Video Professor's products, but does not identify any specific statements.

Video Professor moved ex parte for an order authorizing it to conduct discovery, in the form of third-party subpoenas requiring the recipients to produce documents identifying the anonymous posters. The court granted the motion.

On September 6, 2007, Justin Leonard's company, Leonard Fitness, Inc., received a subpoena, requesting that it produce identifying information for the author of every post on Leonard's websites relating to Video Professor. Along with the subpoena, Video Professor provided a check for $40.81 to compensate Leonard for his expenses in complying with the subpoena.

The Public Citizen Litigation Group took up the matter on behalf of Leonard and sent a letter to Video Professor's counsel objecting to the subpoena and laying out the reasons why, in its view, the subpoena was invalid.

Specifically, the letter argued that the subpoena encroached upon the rights of the anonymous defendants to engage in anonymous speech on the Internet without meeting the legal requirements necessary to justify disclosure of their identities. It also argued that the subpoena was unduly burdensome because it called for information relating to all postings about Video Professor on Leonard's sites, rather than identifying which postings were allegedly defamatory or otherwise unlawful. Finally, the letter stressed that the check provided with the subpoena was not sufficient to compensate Leonard for the work he would have to do to comply with the subpoena.

Communications ensued between Public Citizen and counsel for Video Professor. Video Professor narrowed the list of anonymous posters to 43. It also endeavored to provide Public Citizen with evidence supporting its allegations for each of the postings.

On or around October 18, 2007, Public Citizen sent a notice to each of the 43 posters identified by Video Professor. The letter informed the posters of the pendency of the lawsuit and the request for identifying information about them. It encouraged them to hire a lawyer and explained that Leonard would not produce any documents before October 31, 2007, in order to to give them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena in federal court. It also indicated that Public Citizen had asked Video Professor for evidence to support its claims, and that Public Citizen (on behalf of Leonard) would move to quash the subpoena should it determine that Video Professor had not done so.

On October 19, 2007, Public Citizen sent Video Professor a letter, explaining that it had sent the notice. The letter also questioned the legal adequacy of the Lanham Act claims and the adequacy of Video Professor's factual showing on the defamation claims. It requested more documents to establish, among other things, the falsity of the statements at issue.

Update:

12/26/2007 - Video Professor filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, ending the case.

07/10/2009 - Consumer Law and Policy Blog reports that the websites infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com have been taken down.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

 

Taubman v. Mishkoff (Letters)

Date: 

05/17/2001

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Henry Mishkoff; Webfeats

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Lawsuit Filed

Description: 

After hearing that the Taubman Company Limited Partnership was building a large shopping mall near his home, Henry Mishkoff created a website and registered a domain name for it at "shopsatwillowbend.com." (Taubman's official website for the mall was located at "theshopsatwillowbend.com" and "shopwillowbend.com.")

Mishkoff's website featured information about the mall, including a map and links to the individual websites of the tenant stores. The site contained a prominent disclaimer, saying that Mishkoff's site was "unofficial" and providing a link to Taubman's official site. Mishkoff characterized his site as a "fan site" with no commercial purpose, but it linked to the website associated with his web design company, Webfeats, and the website of his girlfriend's shirt company.

Taubman sent Mishkoff a series of letters claiming that Mishkoff's use of the domain name violated its trademark rights and demanding that he remove the site and transfer the domain to them. Preliminary settlement negotations fell through and Taubman filed a lawsuit in federal district court in August 2001. (For more information, please see the CMLP Database entry for the Taubman v. Webfeats lawsuit.)

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Trademark