Jamil E. Ezzo, who holds a Supplemental Register trademark in the phrase "Locate Plastic Surgeon," sued Google, AOL.com, various plastic-surgery websites, and other defendants over their alleged use of the phrase.  Ezzo's Supplemental Register trademark is a federally-registered trademark that does not carry all of the legal protections enjoyed by full-fledged trademarks in the Principal Register.

Ezzo's pro se Complaint accuses the defendants of profiting through the improper use of his trademark.  Though the specifics of the defendants' alleged actions are not clear, it appears that Ezzo takes issue with the websites' use of the phrase in keyword advertising.  Ezzo's primary legal claim is fraud; he does not bring direct claims of trademark infringement.  The fraud appears to arise from occasions when the defendants' allegedly "fraudulently induced plaintiff to enter into the written and oral agreements," though the complaint does not describe the substance of these agreements.

iXL Enterprises, an Internet consulting company, sued to obtain the identity of an anonymous internet poster who criticized the company on a Yahoo! message board.  iXL claimed that the defendant was an iXL employee, and that the internet postings violated his/her employment agreement.   

iXL obtained a subpoena to force Yahoo! to reveal the identity of the anonymous user.  The Doe defendant moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that he/she was not an iXL employee and that the First Amendment protected his/her right to speak anonymously.  According to cyberSLAPP.org, "the case was not pursued to decision" because iXL went out of business. 

Nam Tai Electronics, Inc., a Hong Kong-based electronics company, subpoenaed AOL in connection with a lawsuit against 51 "John Doe" defendants alleging libel, trade libel, and violations of California's unfair business practices statute.  The lawsuit revolved around negative comments about Nam Tai posted to a Yahoo! message board pertaining to Nam Tai. 

After filing the complaint, Nam Tai obtained a subpoena in California directing Yahoo! to disclose its subscriber data (IP address) for "scovey2," one of the anonymous forum posters.  Based on this information, Nam Tai determined that "scovey2" obtained his Internet access through AOL.   Nam Tai then obtained a "commission" for out-of-state discovery from the California court to depose AOL's custodian of records in Virginia, in order to seek identifying information for "scovey2."  Nam Tai asked a Virginia state trial court to issue a subpoena, and AOL moved to quash the subpoena. 

The trial court denied AOL's motion to quash, concluding that it would enforce the California "commission" and reasoning that First Amendment concerns implicated by the libel and trade libel claims were not implicated by the California unfair business practices claim.  The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, relying heavily on the principle of "comity" (that is, the respect states extend to the judgments of other states).  

Pharmaceutical company Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. sued several named and anonymous Internet users in Arizone state court over negative posts about the company on the Yahoo! Finance and Silicon Investor message boards.  Although the court filings for the case are not available, filings in related actions state that Matrixx brought claims of defamation, trade libel, and interference with contractual relations and business expectancies.  See Matrixx Initiatives v. Doe, 138 Cal.App.4th 872, 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).  Matrixx alleged that it suffered "unusual" fluctuations in its stock as a result of the statements, including "relatively large-volume selling near the close of the market."  Id.

In an attempt to discern the identities of the anonymous users, Matrixx filed subpoenas against numerous individuals and organizations in other courts.  Two of these subpoenas are addressed in CMLP threat entries Matrixx Intiatives v. Barbary Coast Capital and Matrixx Initiatives v. Mulligan.  Matrixx also appears to have sought discovery in the Arizona court from Qwest Communications International Inc., but the details are not clear from the available record. 

According to the Arizona docket for the case, Matrixx voluntarily withdrew the case but reserved leave to refile at a later date.  The court granted the dismissal without prejudice on January 31, 2007.  As of December 04, 2008, Matrixx does not appear to have refiled the case.

Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals ("HEPH") sued several anonymous users of a Yahoo! forum in California state court for defamation, trade libel, and tortious interference after the posters criticized the company and its management on the Yahoo! Message Board devoted to the company.

According to filings in the case, HEPH identified several statements it claims were defamatory, including the following post by Gpalcus:

Nay Say Not?
by: gpalcus (M/Cell Block 5) 11/3/00 10:40 am
Msg: 15762 of 16806

This company has plainly and simply misserved its investors. Whatever secret wizardry the man/men/monkeys behind the curtain are doing, the value of our investment has not been attended with the same (if only purported) vigor. I don't know a god-damned thing that this company has perfected solidly except a creeping but constant value seep. Is it simply millennial blue smoke and mirrors; propped up by thrice rejected science.... OR rather, is it revolutionary science hindered by an extremely poorly constructed public face and the business acumen of infected macaques.... Either way, investors dollars have been poorly served - by veiled fraud or by incompetance. Certainly, with 'the goods' - even at a preliminary stage - a worthwhile business model should be able to at least find a price support level... IT SHOULD BE ONE OF THE COMPANY's PRIORITIES!

"Enough hyperbole! Enough whispered promise! Enough waiting for firmamnet".... that's what the market has been saying. ENOUGH DISDAIN FOR YOUR INVESTORS - that's my personal rant....

Compl. ¶¶ 12k, 16.  As to a statement by Dickie13, the complaint quotes him or her as stating: "Once again, in my opinion, the Public Relations Department of Hollis-Eden couldn't promote Mickey Mouse into Disneyland." Compl. ¶ 12d.

HEPH also subpoenaed Yahoo! to reveal the identities of the anonymous posters. Upon being notified of the subpoena by Yahoo!, defendants Gpalcus and Dickie13 filed a motion to strike HEPH's claims under California's anti-SLAPP law and to quash the subpoena it had issued to Yahoo!. 

On March 20, 2001, the court granted the motion, finding that HEPH failed to show a sufficient likelihood of success on its claim because the defendants' statements were merely statements of opinion and could not be deemed defamatory.  HEPH appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeals, but later withdrew its appeal before the court issued a decision.

Patrick Atkinson is the founder and executive director of the God's Child Project, a charitable organization that provides health and medical care, food, and education to children in Guatamala. Dr. James McLaughlin and Roberta McLaughlin volunteered for the God's Child Project from July 1997 to March 1998, at which time they were terminated from their volunteer positions. After their dismissal, the McLaughlins made a number of allegations against Atkinson with Guatamalan authorities.

According to court filings, the McLaughlins then returned to the United States and began emailing the Project's board members and supporters claiming that they had been improperly terminated and questioning Atkinson's ethics and character. They subsequently sent additional emails claiming that Atkinson had sexually abused two boys and issued a press release claiming that Atkinson had been arrested on chages of sexual abuse.

The McLaughlins also created a website called "Friends of Guatemalan Children" in November 1998.  According to court filings, they allegedly made statements on the website that suggested that Atkinson misued funds, lied, molested children, and committed criminal acts in Guatamala and the United States, all in connection with Atkinson's previous work for Covenant House, another charitable organization that operated in Guatamala. The McLaughlins also contacted the North Dakota Attorney General's Office concering Atkinson and the Project and repeated their previous accusations of criminal conduct.

In an effort to resolve the present dispute, Atkinson and the God’s Child Project attempted to contact the McLaughlins in October of 2002, to request that they retract their website. At the time the McLaughlins received notice of the letter they were traveling in Argentina and Brazil. On November 7, 2002, an attorney responded on behalf of the McLaughlins and asked what portions of the website were false or misleading. On February 24, 2003, an attorney for Atkinson responded and included a copy of Atkinson’s unfiled complaint.

On July 28, 2003, Atkinson sued the McLaughlins in federal court in North Dakota for defamation and interference with business relations.  For more information on the lawsuit, see the CMLP Database entry: Atkinson v. McLaughlin.

Direct sales company FreeLife International filed a defamation lawsuit against David Lucas Burge, a natural-foods activist whose website purported to expose FreeLife's health claims about its Himalayan Goji Juice drink. Burge's website, breathe.org, featured an in-depth investigative series that disputed FreeLife's contention that its goji drink retains enzymes that other goji drinks lack. FreeLife filed suit in Arizona state court in October 2007, and the defendants removed the case to federal district court in November. 

FreeLife also brought a breach of contract claim against Burge. FreeLife is a multi-level marketing company, and it operates primarily through person-to-person sales. It accomplishes this by allowing interested consumers to sell its goji drinks as "FreeLife Marketing Executives." The online sign-up process for the position includes a contractual provision precluding the signer from disparaging the company. Burge allegedly went through the sign-up process while gathering information on FreeLife and is bound by the provision, according to the company. 

FreeLife also named WhoIs Privacy Protection Services as a defendant. WhoIs is a company that allows website operators to hold domains anonymously by substituting its own contact information for theirs in domain registrations. FreeLife argued that WhoIs helped the operators of breathe.org to remain anonymous and thus assisted in the defamation. WhoIs was dismissed from the case on November 06, 2007, apparently by agreement of the parties.

Burge and the other remaining defendants, including Burge's company American Music Education (AME), filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion with respect to Noelle Boucherle and denied it with respect to Burge. It determined that he had consented to Arizona jurisdiction as part of the terms of the marketing executive contract with FreeLife, and that jurisdiction was appropriate because Burge sufficiently targeted his speech at FreeLife, an Arizona corporation.

The court also dismissed the motion with respect to AME and AME employee Gary Boucherle, but it allowed them to re-file their motions after limited discovery. After completing this limited discovery, the parties agreed the claims against Gary Boucherle would be dismissed. When AME filed a renewed motion to dismiss, the court again denied the motion.

Update:

10/1/2009 - The court denied Burge's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and the defamation claim.  The court granted FreeLife's motion for summary judgment on Burge's counterclaim.

On June 17, 2008, Barry Shy, a Los Angeles real estate developer, and his development company, 5th St Loft, sued Jessica Jordan and Alan Dylan, who reside in a building developed by Shy and allegedly run the website Truedowntown, the "unofficial" site for the Shybary Grand Loft in Los Angeles.  The lawsuit claims that Jordan and Dylan libeled Shy and damaged his businesses by making disparaging comments about him.

Jordan and Dylan are both owners of units in the SB Grand, a prominent development in downtown Los Angeles.  Jordan also runs the website  Truedowntown, which she created to "inspire positive change at the Shybary Grand by identifying issues that need to be dealt with by the board and management company, especially if those issues have ignored California Law." (The suit claims that Dylan also is connected with the website, but Jordan has stated that is incorrect).

According to plaintiffs' complaint, Jordan and Dylan made the following disparaging statements about Shy:

a) Barry Shy is a criminal
b) Barry Shy is a "slum lord"
c) Barry Shy is "dishonest" and only cares about "making a profit"
d) "Do Not Buy or Rent from Barry Shy you will regret it"
e) Barry Shy has broken Federal Laws
f) Barry Shy is a horrible business man with no principals

Although the complaint does not identify where the statements appeared, Blogdowntown, a site that describes itself as a "central point for news and discussion of Downtown Los Angeles," noted that all of the statements were drawn from comments on that site's March of 2006 story about Shy's purchase of buildings in Los Angeles' historic core.  Some of these statements were posted psuedonymously, which likely explains why Shy also named "Does 1-100" as defendants in the suit.

Update:

A case management conference has been schedule for 11/04/2008 at 08:45 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. 

Milton Ohlsen, who runs a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fight promotion company, sued Joel S. Hollenbeck and Paul McElligott for defamation and tortious interference after they allegedly made false statements about him on the Internet.

According to the complaint, Hollenback operates a website called Who is Milton H. Ohlsen III?, which contains statements that Ohlsen is a "federally convicted felon for dealing drugs" and an unethical businessman, among other things. See Cmplt. ¶¶ 10-25.  The website includes photographs purporting to be "police booking photograph[s]" and numberous public records allegedly showing that Ohlsen has a criminal history.

The complaint alleges that McElligott, using the pseudonym "kracker," posted defamatory statements about Ohlsen on a MySpace forum, indicating that he "does not pay his labor" and was under investigation by federal authorities. Cmplt. ¶ 33. It also alleges that McElligot posted a link to Mr. Hollenbeck's website, claiming that the site was a source of "facts about Milton 'Skip' Ohlsen." Cmplt. ¶ 35.

Ohlsen, who claimed the defendants had financially harmed his MMA promotion company and caused his divorce, sued in February 2008 in Missouri state court.  In March 2008, he voluntarily withdrew his claims.

Moving company Nationwide Relocation Services ("Nationwide") sued Tim Walker, Walker's company, Consumers First Corp., which runs the MovingScam.com website, and several contributors to the MovingScam.com forum after Walker and the other contributors criticized the company's services. According to the complaint, the website used the trademarks of Nationwide and other moving companies without permission and published statements indicating that Nationwide engaged in "scams," while at the same time trying to induce customers to purchase moving-related products and services from the site and its advertisers. Nationwide sued for false advertising, trademark infringement, unfair competition, defamation, and tortious interference with business relationships in Florida federal court.

Defendants Sharon Bayolo and Farrah Leigh Wanner each moved to dismiss, Bayolo for lack of jurisidiction and Wanner for failure to state a claim.  As a result, Nationwide amended its complaint, and the court denied the motions as moot. 

In October 2007, Walker and Consumers First moved to dismiss for improper venue, failure to state a claim, and lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court denied the motions, finding that Walker and Consumers First specifically targeted the Southern District of Florida in operation of the website, thereby establishing jurisdiction and venue, and that Nationwide's claims were sufficiently stated.

In April 2008, Nationwide amended its complaint again, and the defendants Walker, Consumer First, and Wanner filed an answer.

Update:

8/6/2008 - The parties settled the case.