Sedgwick, a company that provides insurance claims management services, sued Robert Delsman, a former employee of one of Sedgwick's clients, for copyright infringement, defamation, and other torts, after he created gripe sites, blogs, videos and print materials criticizing the company. Delsman's beef with the company started after he filed a claim for disability benefits in 2006.  According to the complaint, Delsman was unhappy with the way in which Sedgwick handled his claims, and began a campaign of harassment which allegedly included:

• Hosting pictures of Sedgwick's CEO and COO on his website and blog, which "morph[ed] . . . into images of Adolph Hitler and Heinrich Himmler," and posting a similar video to YouTube
• Referring to Sedgwick and its employees as "Sedgthugs"
• Unjustly accusing Sedgwick of engaging in criminal behavior on his website and in emails
• "Operation Going Postcard," in which Delsman sent postcards to Sedgwick offices, employees, customers and outside insurance agencies in multiple states.  These postcards allegedly contained copyrighted images of Sedgwick's CEO and COO and an image of a human skull containing Sedgwick's trademark in the eye sockets, along with "defamatory, false and libelous statements against Sedgwick.

(Compl. ¶¶ 12-13.)  Sedgwick sought damages, fees, and an injunction preventing Delsman from sending offensive emails or postcards and further defaming or libeling Sedgwick, and requiring him to remove all of Sedgwick's copyrighted material from his website and blog and to destroy all Sedgwick's copyrighted material in his possession.

Delsman, who is representing himself pro se, has filed a motion for summary judgment.  The court has yet to rule on his motion.

UPDATE:

07/17/2009- The court construed Delsman's motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss and granted the motion.  The court held that the copyright claim failed because Delsman's use of Sedgwick photographs was fair use.  The court dismissed the remaining claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute.

12/16/2009- Sedgwick filed its opening brief on appeal.

01/29/2010 - Delsman filed its response brief.

03/01/2010 - Sedgwick filed its reply brief.

03/21/2011 - In an unpublished, two-page opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.

Bible & Gospel Trust, associated with a religious group known as the Exclusive Brethren, sued Sallie and Timothy Twinam claiming that they were the owners and operators of the website Peebs.net, which is critical of the Exclusive Brethren.  

The complaint, which includes claims of copyright infringement, conversion, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship, arises from the alleged posting of materials from the Exclusive Brethren's now-defunct website, exclusivebrethren.net.  Bible & Gospel Trust claims that all interests in exclusivebrethren.net and its contents were transferred to it as part of a settlement agreement in an earlier case, and that the unauthorized posting of the material on Peebs.net constitutes a violation of Bible & Gospel Trust’s copyrights.  

Although Timothy Twinam denied being the owner of Peebs.net in his answer, he later admitted to owning the site during discovery, according to a Peebs.net press release.  Sallie Twinam admits to having been a “nominal owner” of the site only for the period of time between April 5, 2007 and January 25, 2008.  Both deny that the alleged copyrighted material was published on Peebs.net.  

Bible & Gospel Trust is seeking an injunction preventing the publication of its copyrighted material, an order compelling Twinam and Peebs.net to destroy all copies of the copyrighted material in their possession and to publish a retraction and an apology, and compensatory and punitive damages.

Timothy Twinam has filed a special motion to strike under Vermont's Anti-SLAPP statute (12 V.S.A. § 1041).  The court is treating this motion as a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, but has yet to rule on this motion. 

Marianne Bihari, an interior designer, and her company Bihari Interiors Inc. brought a lawsuit against Craig Gross, a former customer of Bihari, and Yolanda Truglio for federal unfair competition, cybersquatting, trademark dilution, common law unfair competition, libel, and tortious intereference with contract. Bihari sought to enjoin Gross and Truglio from using the marks or meta-tags "Bihari" and "Bihari Interiors" in websites critical of Bihari and Bihari Interiors Inc.

In her six-count complaint, Bihari alleges that Gross, after a failed settlement conference arising from a previous business dealing with Bihari, registered the web addresses "bihari.com" and "bihariinteriors.com." Compl. ¶ 31. Bihari asserts that Truglio sent her a facsimile announcing that "the web site 'www.bihairinteriors' was currently under construction" to ensure that Bihari "knew of the harm Gross was willing and able to inflict." Compl. ¶¶ 32-35. Bihari claims that Gross later registered "designscam.com" and "manhattaninteriordesign.com," each of which had identical content to "bihari.com" and used meta-tags "bihari" and "bihari interiors." Compl. ¶¶ 66-68.

These sites purport to "protect you from experiencing the overwhelming grief and aggravation in dealing with someone that allegedly only has intentions to defraud." Compl. ¶ 79.a. Each site has a large animated banner reading “Do not fall prey to Marianne Bihari or Bihari Interiors” and links to "the scam." Compl. ¶¶ 78, 80. Bihari believes that Gross designed these sites to spread "misleading and defamatory information about [Bihari Interiors] and thereby harm [its] reputation and goodwill." Compl. ¶ 65.

The court denied Bihari's request for an injunction. The court held that Gross' conduct did not violate the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act because by the time of the decision, "Gross ha[d] abandoned [bihari.com and bihariinteriors.com] and promised to transfer the domain names back."  The court also held that Bihari would not succeed in her claims of trademark infringement because she could not show that Gross' conduct was "likely to cause confusion . . . as to the affliation . . . or approval of" the defendant's goods or services. The court reasoned that Gross' use of the "Bihari Interiors" mark in meta-tags for designscam.com and manhattaninteriors.com would not cause consumer confusion since "[n]o reasonable viewer would believe that the disparaging comments regarding Bihari's business ethics . . . are endorsed by Bihari." Secondly, the court held that even if Gross' use of the mark in meta-tags caused confusion, the use would be protected under fair use, as they were "descriptive" and " used . . . in good faith." 

After the denial of an injunction, the parties held a pretrial conference on 12/04/2000. It appears that the parties settled the matter, as the court signed an order of discontinuance with prejudice on 12/06/2000. 

On March 5, 2008, Cintas, a Fortune 500 company and manufacturer of uniforms, sued several unions, including UNITE HERE, Change to Win, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and several individuals, including Bruce Raynor, Ahmer Qadeer, Keith Mestrich, Elizabeth Gres, Peter Demay, Katie Unger, Stefan Antonowicz, and Does 1-100.  The complaint alleged violations of the RICO Act, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and defamation arising out of the defendants' activities online.  

Cintas claims that the defendants first attempted to interfere with their business and exploit fear of economic loss by disseminating false information through print and over the Internet.  Cintas next alleges that defendants made it clear that their interference would only cease if entered into an agreement with defendants regarding union representation.  

The defendants set up several websites that criticized Cintas, including cintasexposed.org (targeting customers), uniformjustice.org (targeting employees) and notonmytrack.info (targeting NASCAR fans).

On June 20, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that Cintas had failed to state any valid federal claims.  In addition, they argued that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.  Specifically, defendants argued that the trademark allegations, including those directed at their website, cintasexposed.org, must fail because their use of the Cintas mark was not commercial and posed no risk of confusion.

On March 9, 2009, the district court dismissed all of Cintas' federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state law claims.  The court dismissed the trademark infringement claim, agreeing that there was no risk of consumer confusion with the use of "Cintas" in cintasexposed.org.  The court noted the obvious critical bent of the website and a disclaimer stating: "CintasExposed.org is an independent website posted by the labor union Unite. It contains criticism and information about the uniform and facilities services rental company Cintas . . . ." 

The court also dismissed the trademark dilution claim, finding that links to the UNITE HERE website, which in turn linked to the UNITE HERE store, did not make the use of the Cintas mark commercial. The court dismissed the cybersquatting claim by noting the defendants were not using the URL as part of a bad faith effort to make a profit.

Cintas filed a notice of appeal in late March 2009.

FORBA Holdings, a dental practice management company, sued blogger Debbie Hagan after she posted internal FORBA documents on her blog, Dentist the Menace, which covers alleged misconduct in the dental profession.

According to the complaint, Google search crawlers indexed a password-protected FTP site hosting FORBA internal documents, and Hagan was able to obtain copies of these documents through a Google search for the term "forbainfo.com." The documents in question included marketing materials, recruitment strategy information, spreadsheets and facility information lists, as well as internal PowerPoint presentations. Hagan allegedly provided links to certain of the FORBA documents and posted copies of others for viewing and download.  FORBA contended that, by posting these materials, Hagan misappropriated trade secrets embodied in the confidential documents and infringed its copyrights in the PowerPoint presentations.  

FORBA also alleged that Hagan defamed the company on her blog by falsely claiming that FORBA engaged in "barbaric back alley dentistry and abusing children children in the process."

After filing suit, FORBA moved for a preliminary injunction barring Hagan from publishing its confidential and copyright-protected materials.  In November 2008, Hagan consented to the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting her from publishing or posting "any internal and/or copyrighted documents or other information of FORBA obtained, directly or indirectly, through access to the FORBA FTP Site . . . and/or . . . any other internal and/or confidential FORBA documents or information. . . ."

FORBA subsequently dismissed its defamation claim voluntarily, and later moved to voluntarily dismiss the entire case without prejudice, leaving the consent injunction in n full force and effect. The court granted the motion in April 2009, dismissing the case and leaving the consent injunction in place. 

In the course of an ongoing lawsuit, Orix Capital Markets, LLC filed a counterclaim against Super Future Equities, Inc., Schumann Rafizadeh, Cyrus Rafizadeh, Houman Thomas Arjmandi, and Keon Michael Arjmandi.  The counterclaim alleged that the defendants set up a website -- www.predatorix.com -- that published false and defamatory statements about Orix.  For example, Orix claimed that the website accused the company of committing tax fraud and being under federal investigation for violating racketeering laws.  Later, Orix filed an amended counterclaim to add a copyright infringement claim arising from Predatorix's re-posting of a page from the Orix website.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which, in March 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part.  The court dismissed Orix's claims for business disparagement, tortious interference, and copyright infringement (notably, the court found that Predatorix's use of the Orix page was fair use), but found that the defamation claim was sufficient to go to the jury.

In February 2009, after a two-week trial, the jury awarded Orix $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, split between the defendants, except Keon Michael Arjmandi, who was not found liable.  After the verdict, the parties settled the case on undisclosed terms.  After the settlement, the Rafizadehs published an apology on Predatorix, acknowledging that the postings were incorrect.

Banking and securities firm Goldman, Sachs & Co. sent a cease-and-desist letter to blogger Michael Morgan alleging that his websites infringed the firm's "Goldman Sachs" trademark.  The websites -- www.goldmansachs666.com and www.goldmansachs13.com -- serve as "an open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis."  Morgan, a registered investment adviser, criticized the firm in site postings.

Goldman Sachs' letter alleges that the sites' domain names and content infringe the "Goldman Sachs" mark, violate other intellectual property rights, and constitute unfair competition.  The letter also alleges that Morgan's use of the mark gives the false impression that Morgan has an affiliation or commercial relationship with Goldman Sachs.

In response, Morgan filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in Florida federal court.  Morgan asked the court to declare that Morgan's websites and domain names did not infringe Goldman Sachs' trademark rights.  Morgan's Complaint also asked for declaratory judgment on Goldman Sachs' other claims.

Update:

7/17/09 - MediaPost reported that the parties settled, with Morgan agreeing to withdraw his lawsuit and Goldman Sachs promising not to sue, provided that Morgan continues to run a disclaimer on the site.