In May 2005, NYP Holdings, Inc., the owner of the New York Post, sued Mario Lavandeira (a.k.a Perez Hilton) for trademark law violations and unfair competition in federal court in New York.  NYP Holdings alleged that Lavandeira's operation of the PageSixSixSix gossip blog and use of the domain name "www.pagesixsixsix.com" violated its federal and state trademark rights in its "Page Six" trademark. The parties settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, and Lavandeira changed the website name to PerezHilton.com.

Celebrity gossip blogger Mario Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton), who operates the blog perezhilton.com, sued Infuse LLC, Margie E. Rogers and Elizabeth Silver-Fagan, the owner, editor and publisher, respectively, of a rival celebrity blog named PerezRevenge.com, which describes itself as a "website where celebrities could post information about their careers, events and when necessary personal lives without the taint of rumor or speculation." Hilton's complaint asserts that their use of the name PerezRevenge is a violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, as well as unfair competition, federal dilution of trademark, and unfair trade practices.

Hilton seeks injunctive relief and treble damages.

On July 22, 2008, one day after Lavandiera filed his lawsuit, defendant Silver, the publisher of PerezRevenge.com, filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Lavandiera in New York. See the related lawsuit, Silver v. Lavandiera.

UPDATE:

05/06/09 - The court, after awarding a default judgment for Hilton, enjoined Infuse from "using the domain name perezhilton.com... [or] using the term 'Perez' to designate any platform...that contains entertainment or celebrity news or gossip."  Silver's site now resides at www.rPulse.com.

The Oklahoma Publishing Company and one of its reporters, Jacob Trotter, sued James W. Conradt in federal court in Oklahoma in July 2008, after he posted a fake article that mimicked the appearance of the publishing company's NewsOK.com website and purported to be written by Trotter. According to the complaint, the fake article falsely stated that two University of Oklahoma football players had been arrested for intent to distribute cocaine. Conradt allegedly posted links to the article from his Nebraska football fan site, darthhusker.com, and from the Rivals.com message board. The day after it was posted, Conradt admitted creating the article.

The complaint included claims for federal trademark infringement and dilution, copyright infringement, federal and state unfair competition, violation of Trotter's right of publicity, false light, libel, and deceit. The parties settled for an undisclosed sum, and the court dismissd the case in September 2008.  As part of the settlement, Conradt wrote a letter of apology to be published by the publishing company and Conradt and agreed to never again publish an article in a manner that makes it appear the article was published in The Oklahoman or NewsOK.com.

Founded in 2006, BlockShopper.com is a start-up local online real estate news service covering Chicago, South Florida, Las Vegas, and St. Louis. Its reporting staff is made up of ex-print journalists who collect public real estate sales data, then use information in the public domain (e.g. company web sites) to write news stories about recent transactions. BlockShopper currently produces upwards of 1,000 stories per month and has produced more than 8,000 since its founding, many of which appear in print newspapers as part of content-sharing partnerships with companies like Tribune. Three of those stories, all on BlockShopper's Chicago web site, reported the real estate transactions of partners and associates from Jones Day, the large international law firm.

Jones Day sued BlockShopper.com on Aug. 12, 2008 in federal court in Illinois. The complaint alleges that Blockshopper.com infringed and diluted the firm's service mark and violated state trademark and unfair competition laws by using the word "Jones Day" when referring to the real estate transactions of Jones Day attorneys, linking to its site and using lawyers’ photos from its site. The firm contends that these activities creates the false impression that Jones Day is affiliated with or sponsors BlockShopper.com.

Jones Day sought a temporary restraining order preventing BlockShopper from writing about its lawyers or linking to its web site. BlockShopper agreed to take down the three stories temporarily, to avoid the expense of arguing both a TRO and then the complaint itself against a large law firm. Its executives say they believe the suit is frivolous and they plan to fully defend themselves. Jones Day told BlockShopper it would drop the case if BlockShopper paid it $10,000 and agreed to never write about its lawyers' real estate transactions again, according to the National Law Journal. BlockShopper declined the offer.

Trial is set for late February 2009.

Update:

09/19/2008 - BlockShopper and individual defendants Timpone and Weinhaus field a motion to dismiss the complaint. Public Citizen, EFF, Public Knowledge, and Citizen Media Law Project moved for permission to file an amici curiae brief in support of BlockShopper's motion.

09/23/2008 - Jones Day filed a memorandum in opposition to Amici's motion for permission to file an amici curiae brief.

09/24/2009 - Amici filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion for permission to file an amici curiae brief.

11/13/08 - The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against individual defendants Timpone and Weinhaus, but otherwise denied the motion. The court also denied the motion of EFF, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, and Citizen Media Law Project for permission to file an amici curiae brief.

02/11/09 - According to Alison Grant, a reporter for The Plain Dealer, the parties have settled - the settlement allows BlockShopper to continue linking to the Jones Day site, so long as it does not use embedded links.

02/13/09 - The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to the settlement.

Privé Vegas, LLC and two of its owners sued Las Vegas-based blogger Michael Politz in August 2008, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and "disaparagement" under the Lanham Act, defamation, trade libel, tortious interference with business relations, and extortion. The company operates a nightclub called "Privé" in the Planet Hollywood Casino in Las Vegas.  Politz operates the TheVegasEye.com blog, which covers goings-on in the Las Vegas entertainment and hospitality industries and provides restaurant reviews and reports on celebrity sightings and the like.

According to the complaint, filed in federal district court in Nevada, Politz published a post on July 23, 2008 reporting on a lawsuit Privé brought against four former employees. In his post, Politz allegedly made false statements about the lawsuit and about management "shaking down" employees for tip money to be placed in a "Slush Fund." Cmplt. ¶ 20. At the top of his post, Politz included a graphic of  Privé's trademark (shown on the right).

In addition, on August 12, 2008, Politz allegedly posted on his blog an anonymous letter to the State of Nevada Gaming Control Board, which purported to be written by a former employee of Privé.  The letter made a number of allegedly defamatory statements, including that Privé forced employees to work late hours without pay, that management sold drugs through the nightclub, and that management allowed underaged girls to enter the club and served them liquor. Cmplt. ¶¶ 25, 28, 30, 32, 33. At the top of the post, Politz included a graphic of the Privé trademark surrounded by a red circle with a line through it:

The nightclub filed suit in federal court after Politz did not comply with a demand letter sent in August.

Rob Frankel of i-legions sent an email to tech blogger Jennifer Leggio of ZDNet Feeds complaining about a post by guest author Aaron Strout that used the term "branded communities." Frankel indicated that i-legions owns a federally registered trademark in the term "branded communities" and claimed that Leggio "should not be using the term at all without our express written consent."

Strout's July 23, 2008 post functioned as a "primer" on what steps online businesses should take in evaluating their "community engagement strategies."  It used the term "branded communities" to refer to an online community sponsored by a brand.  For example, it included the following text:

[A company can build or create] a “branded” community by either using open source technology like Drupal OR it can employ the services of a white label community provider like Awareness, Jive Software or Mzinga (the company I work for).

Frankel's July 24 email complained about this paragraph and asked Leggio to "refrain from using the phrase in any other current or future materials." Frankel's company i-legions sells advertising/branding services to online businesses and uses the slogan "Revenue Generating Branded Communities®" in its promotional materials.

In response to Frankel's email, Leggio changed the phrase "branded community" to "branded environment" in the post. She also sought the advice of another ZDNet blogger Denise Howell, who is an intellectual property attorney.  Howell put Leggio in contact with Marty Schwimmer of The Trademark Blog, who indicated to her that i-legion's trademark infringement claim was not strong because its registration was likely limited to use in connection with advertising services, and  Strout's use was "descriptive fair use of words in the English language." Leggio also conferred with ZDNet corporate parent CNET's legal team, which confirmed Schwimmer's assessment. 

Leggio posted all this information, including Frankel's email, on her blog, but she did not change the current version of the Strout's post, which still reads "branded environment" rather than "branded community."

Bosley Medical Institute, a hair restoration company, sued Michael Kremer for federal trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, and cybersquatting after Kremer created anti-Bosley "gripe sites" at bosleymedical.com and bosleymedicalviolations.com. Bosley also included state law claims for libel, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. According to Bosley's amended complaint, Kremer planned to "solicit money from Bosley in exchange for the domain name and Kremer agreeing not to publish the website."

After Bosley filed its complaint in federal court in Illinois, Kremer made a motion to transfer the case to California federal court, which the court granted. In California, Kremer argued that Bosley had not stated with sufficient specificity which statements he made were defamatory, and he moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for a protective order to prevent discovery until Bosley stated its claims more specifically. The court granted Kremer's motion for a protective order. Bosley and Kremer settled the libel claim.

Kremer then moved to dismiss the other claims for failure to state a claim, to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute, and for partial summary judgment. Bosley moved for summary judgment on its claims of trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

The district court denied both of Bosley's motions, and granted all of Kremer's motions. It ruled that Bosley had failed to show that Kremer had made commercial use of its trademarks because Kremer's websites contained no paid advertising, sold no goods or services, and included disclaimers saying that they were "non-profit" and "for consumer information purposes only." The court concluded that the websites' "sole purpose [was] to provide critical content of Bosley and its services, and to inform the public about the varous government inquiries into Bosley's business practices."

Nor did Bosley show, the court wrote, that Kremer's website would cause confusion between Bosley's and Kremer's goods and services, as Kremer offered none. The court also granted summary judgment to Kremer on the claims of cybersquatting. Finally, the court found that Bosley's claims did impair Kremer's exercise of his right to free speech, and as a result, it granted Kremer's motion to strike under the state anti-SLAPP law, thereby making Kremer eligible to receive attorneys' fees.

Bosley appealed the ruling. The court of appeals affirmed the lower court's decision on the trademark claims, but reversed the lower court's decision on cybersquatting, writing that it was necessary for discovery to be completed before summary judgment for Kremer would be appropriate. The court of appeals also overturned the lower court's anti-SLAPP ruling, finding that Bosley's trademark claims did not show the bad faith necessary to merit striking under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Upon remand, Kremer moved to dismiss Bosley's state claims and for summary judgment. Kremer also filed an answer to Bosley's complaint. The court denied both of Kremer's motions. After the court ordered the parties to begin discovery proceedings, the parties settled, and the court dismissed the case.

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.