First Call Properties and its officers filed suit against AAA Apartment Locating and Craigslist in Texas state court, alleging, among other claims, trademark infringement, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference.  According to the complaint, First Call began posting advertisements on Craigslist's Corpus Christi site using their trademark phrase "First Call" in March of 2009.  Shortly thereafter, AAA allegedly began posting advertisements to the same Craigslist local site using the words "first call," "call first," and "call us first."  (Compl. 3.)  First Call alleges that AAA posted these ads "deliberately and intentionally in an effort to confuse the public into believing the ads were posted by [First Call]."  (Compl. 3.)  It also claims that AAA's ads contained "false, libelous and misleading information" about First Call.  (Compl. 4.)

First Call asserts that it sent multiple cease and desist notices to AAA, with copies sent to Craigslist.  Based partly on this, it asserts that Craigslist knew of AAA's "unauthorized practice" and did nothing to stop it, materially contributing to AAA's alleged infringement.  (Compl. 5.)  First Call is seeking temporary and permanent injunctions and damages.

On May 29, 2009, the Nueces County District Court entered a temporary restraining order, barring AAA from posting ads containing phrases such as "first call," "call first," or "call us first," which might cause confusion and deceive the public; using a telephone logo similar to that used by First Call; making false or defamatory statement about First Call or its officers, agents, or employees; or causing ads posted by First Call to be removed from Craigslist or any other public domain.  Craigslist was barred from removing legitimate ads posted by First Call. 

The temporary restraining order was made reciprocal by the court, pursuant to an agreement by the parties, thus barring First Call from using AAA's trademarks, making false or defamatory statements about AAA, or causing AAA's ads to be removed.  It was also extended to include Stephan Noak and Sarah Regmund, owner of Free Apartment Locators, neither of whom are parties to the litigation.

On June 26, 2009, the case was removed to the federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  A hearing is scheduled for July 29 before Judge Janis Graham Jack.

UPDATE: 

07/15/09- First Call filed a motion to dismiss the case against Craigslist. However, it continued its suit against the other parties. 

On February 13, 2009, Ascentive LLC, a company that develops software such as FinallyFast to improve computer performance, sued PCPitstop and its CEO, Rob Cheng, along with 1ShoppingCart.com, a conveyer of eCommerce software and ad-tracking services, and ten anonymous posters on PCPitstop’s forums.  Ascentive alleges that PCPitstop, assisted by 1ShoppingCart, purchased search keywords tied to Ascentive’s “FinallyFast.com” trademark on Google and Yahoo!.  The complaint also alleges that false and defamatory statements regarding Ascentive’s software was posted to PCPitstop’s forum by PCPitstop employees and/or third parties.  Ascentive is represented by Steven T. Lovett and Marc Alifanz of Stoel Rives LLP, while PCPitstop is represented by Christopher W. Angius of Holland & Knight LLP.

The six-count complaint alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, and vicarious and contributory Lanham Act violations against PCPitstop, Rob Cheng, and 1ShoppingCart with respect to the alleged purchase of search keywords tied to Ascentive’s “FinallyFast.com” trademark.  It also alleges breach of contract against PCPitstop and Mr. Cheng for the alleged resumption of trademark-linked keyword purchasing in January 2009, after Mr. Cheng had allegedly agreed to curtail such activities in July 2008.  Finally, the complaint alleges defamation against PCPitstop and Does 1-10 for allegedly false factual statements posted to PCPitstop’s forum.  The complaint alleges that such statements include the following assertions:

• FinallyFast is a “scam”;
• Ascentive “promotes adware and phishing scams”;
• FinallyFast is “very difficult to get off” of a computer once installed;
• “Ascentive products are known to scare the user with a long list of false positive results” ;
• “It is likely that these products are cheap knock-offs of well known freeware products”; and
• Dealing with companies such as Ascentive includes the danger that “the program will actually do your computer more harm than good.”

Compl. ¶¶ 65, 67.

Ascentive is seeking an injunction to prevent:

• The purchase or use of Ascentive’s trademarks or similar marks or names by PCPitstop, its advertisers, and affiliates in connection with search keywords or any products not authorized by Ascentive;
• Any conduct by PCPitstop’s advertisers or affiliates that would confuse purchasers into believing any of PCPitstop’s products are associated with or authorized by Ascentive;
• Unfair competition by PCPitstop, its advertisers, and affiliates with Ascentive; and
• The publication or posting of false and defamatory statements regarding Ascentive or its products on the PCPitstop website.

Compl. (Prayer for Relief) ¶ a.  Ascentive seeks damages sustained in consequence of the alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, and defamation.  It also seeks accounting for gains, profits, and advantages derived from PCPitstop’s alleged infringement and unfair competition.  Ascentive is seeking trebled damages under section 1117 of the Lanham Act.

On April 28, 2009, Ascentive voluntarily dismissed its case, with prejudice.

New York City store owner Calvin Gibson sued craiglist, Inc. after a gunman shot him with a handgun allegedly purchased on craigslist. Gibson's lawsuit reportedly claims that neighbor Jesus Ortiz told police he had shot Gibson and that he had obtained the gun through a craigslist classifieds advertisement.  Gibson accuses craigslist of negligence and seeks $10 million in damages.

Craigslist filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the ground that section 230 of the Communication Decency Act ("Section 230") insulates it from liability for content posted by its users.  Gibson has opposed the motion, primarily arguing that Section 230 does not apply to common law claims such as negligence.

6/15/2009 - The court dismissed the complaint, relying on Section 230.