Milan Jankovic, aka Philip Zepter, along with two of his businesses, Fieldpoint B.V. and United Business Activities Holding, filed suit against International Crisis Group (ICG), claiming defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with business expectancy. Non-profit ICG publishes newsletters, reports, and other documents aimed at influencing policymakers worldwide, apparently focusing on the prevention of armed conflict. Zepter's claims arose from ICG documents -- two reports and an e-mail -- that accused Zepter and his business ventures of improper ties to deceased Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic.

On May 1, 2006, the district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims as to the e-mail and one of the reports (“Report 141”) because the statute of limitations had run. It dismissed the claims involving the other document (“Report 145”) as to Zepter's businesses because the report did not concern them and as to Zepter himself because the disputed statements were not defamatory as a matter of law. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove ICG employee James Lyon, who had sent the disputed e-mail, after the District Court found that Lyon's presence in the case destroyed diversity for the purposes of jurisdiction.

On July 24, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals upheld the district court's finding that the case in its original form failed due to lack of jurisdiction over Lyons. It also upheld the dismissal of all claims relating to the e-mail and Report 141 due to the statute of limitations, as well as Zepter's businesses' claims arising from Report 145.

However, the Court of Appeals held that Zepter had established a prima facie defamation case regarding certain statements in Report 145. The opinion discussed three disputed portions of Report 145 separately. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims as to the first portion, which had implicated another Zepter venture -- Zepta Banka -- but not Zepter himself. Due to the size and scope of Zepter's business enterprises, spanning more than 50 countries on five continents, the court found that statements regarding Zepta Banka did not concern Zepter.

According to the court, the second statement in Report 145 could give the impression that Zepter was a “crony” of Milosevic and thus was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of defamation. Though the Court of Appeals did not discuss them, it revived plaintiffs' false light and tortious interference claims as to the second statement in Report 145.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims regarding the third statement in Report 145 because the statement referred to a former Zepter employee rather than Zepter himself.

The net result was that all claims against ICG were dismissed except for those involving the second statement from Report 145, which were remanded to the district court. ICG raised a number of defenses not reached by the district court or on appeal -- Opinion and Fair Comment Protection, the Fair Report Privilege, the Neutral-Reportage Doctrine -- which will be considered in the lower court.

Update:

7/24/2007 - Case remanded to district court.

5/13/2008 - ICG filed memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss first amended complaint.

5/23/2008 - Jankovic filed memorandum in opposition to ICG's motion to dismiss.

Edward Falk operates a spam watchdog website, the "Spam Tracking Page." On the website, Falk indicated that Jerry Reynolds was associated with a number of spamming companies and pornographic websites.

On August 24, 2004, Reynolds's lawyer sent Falk a cease-and-desist letter, threatening to sue for defamation and unspecified violations of the Lanham Act if Falk did not remove the offending content within 10 days. Falk made some minor changes to the website, but left the bulk of the material relating to Reynolds unchanged. On October 14, 2004, Reynolds's lawyer sent another letter, again claiming that material on Falk's website defamed Reynolds. This letter threatened suit (again) if Falk did not remove the entire website from the Internet within 10 days.

Reynolds filed suit anonymously in February 2006 (Please see the CMLP database entry on Reynold's lawsuit for more information.)

Alvis Coatings sells coating products, including "Alvis Spray-on Siding". The company filed a John Doe lawsuit in 2004 in North Carolina federal court against ten anonymous defendants, alleging that certain anonymous postings about its products violated the Lanham Act and North Carolina state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive trade practices, unfair competition and defamation.

According to court documents, Alvis alleged that, in 2003, internet user(s) posted sixteen messages on home improvement message boards, including bobvila.com and oldhouse.com, about Alvis's products. The unknown poster(s) allegedly commented that Alvis Spray-on Siding was "Duron's siding in a can, privately labelled by Alvis" and that Alvis's officers and dealers were "criminals."

After filing suit, Alvis successfully obtained an order to conduct limited and expedited discovery and thereby obtained from the operators of bobvila.com and oldhouse.com the identity of two relevant ISPs, Roadrunner and Comcast.

When subpoeanaed by Alvis, Comcast refused to provide Alvis with information identifying its customer, and the anonymous poster, under the John Doe moniker, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. He claimed that the subpoena threatened his First Amendent right to anonymous speech.

On December 2, 2004, the Court denied the defendant's motion to quash, applying the "prima facie" standard from Doe v. 2TheMart.com, 140 F. Supp.2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (holding that the plaintiff is entitled to discover the defendant's identity when it can establish a prima facie case against him). The Court held that Alvis was entitled under this standard to compell Comcast to produce information relating to the Doe defendants' identity.

Update:

2/28/06 - Court dismissed the case due to plaintiffs' failure to prosecute the case.

Using the alias "Proud Citizen," an anonymous commenter posted two statements on the "Smyrna/Clayton Issues Blog," a website sponsored by the Delaware State News. The statements criticized Patrick Cahill, a City Councilman of Smyrna, saying that Cahill was "paranoid" and had undergone "an obvious mental deterioration," among other things.

Cahill and his wife filed a John Doe lawsuit in state court in Delaware. Pursuant to a local rule of procedure, they sought and obtained authorization of the court to conduct a pre-service deposition of the operator of the "Smyrna/Clayton Issues Blog." From the blog operator, the Cahills obtained the IP address associated with the postings. They then obtained a court order to compel Comcast (the owner of the IP address) to identify the poster, and Comcast notified Doe of the discovery request. Doe then filed an emergency motion for a protective order.

Applying a good faith standard, the trial judge denied Doe's request for a protective order. Doe filed an interlocutory appeal in the Supreme Court of Delaware.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court ruled that unmasking an anonymous critic requires a stricter standard than "good faith." It held that a plaintiff must provide evidence sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion before a court will order disclosure of an anonymous defendant's identity. To defeat a summary judgment motion, a plaintiff must provide evidence to support each element of his/her claim such that the case would go to trial. Applying this standard, the court held that compelled disclosure of the defendant's identity was improper because no reasonable person would understand the statements at issue to be asserting facts about Cahill.

This is a landmark case on the rights of anonymous posters (and bloggers), and it marked the first time that a state high court addressed the issue.

Despite the Delaware Supreme Court ruling, the Cahills were later able to trace the IP address back to a computer in Smyrna Mayor Mark G. Schaeffer's house.  According to the New York Times, upon remand Schaeffer announced that his step-daughter, Cristina Rawley, was responsible for the comments, and asked that he and his wife, Ruby, be dropped as defendants.

According to the Associated Press, the lawsuit was settled in June 2006.  The details of the settlement were not made public.

Gregerson is a photographer who maintains a website containing his professional photographs. Vilana Financial, Inc. used two of Gregerson's pictures without permission in phone-book and web advertisements, and print advertisements in a local Russian-language newspaper. Gregerson discovered Vilana's use of his photographs and contacted the company asking for compensation. Vilana refused, claiming that it purchased the photographs from a third party (neither party was able to locate this third party during the subsequent litigation).

Gregerson devoted a portion of his website to a discussion of the disagreement over the photographs. On it, he claimed that Andrew Vilenchik had published two of his photos without permission in a series of ads for Vilana. Along with the text, Gregerson posted a photograph of Vilenchik.

According to Gregerson's website, on October 4, 2005, Richard Raver sent him a cease-and-desist letter on behalf of Vilenchik, demanding that Gregerson remove the webpage or face a lawsuit for defamation. Apparently, Gregerson replied with an offer to remove anything that Vilenchik could show was not true.

Vilana Financial filed a lawsuit against Gregerson in Minnesota state court on October 24, 2005. Please see the CMLP's Database Entry on the related lawsuit, Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, for more information on the status of the suit.

Todd Hollis objected to the description posted about him on DontDateHimGirl.com, a website that allows women to post about men and warn other women about them. Mr. Hollis sued Tasha Joseph/Cunningham, the operator of the website, alleging defamation in Pennsylvania state court, after she refused to remove the posts.

According to the initial complaint, four separate profiles were created by anonymous users of the site, which allegedly falsely claimed that Hollis had multiple children and had herpes; was "gay" or "bi"; had given the user an STD; and that he "wears dirty clothes," "complains about paying child support", and that his "crib is a dump."  (Compl. ¶ 20, 25-26, 30, 34.)  Hollis claims to have complained to Joseph/Cunningham, who refused to remove the profiles.  (Compl. ¶ 23.)  

Hollis sued Joseph/Cunningham, the Cavelle Company, Inc. (the registrant for dontdatehimgirl.com), and three individuals who he claims were responsible for the false profiles for defamation, seeking $50,000 in actual damages plus punitive damages.

Joseph and the Cavelle Company moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The Pennsylvania court granted this motion with respect to Joseph/Cunningham, a resident of Florida, and the Cavelle Company.  Hollis filed a second lawsuit in federal court in Florida on November 29, 2007.

Xyience Inc., a manufacturer of energy drinks and supplements, sued Rich Bergeron in Nevada state court over statements posted on his MySpace.com page and website, unlimitedfightnews.com. According to the complaint, Bergeron posted an article to his MySpace page that contained allegations that that Xyience was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and that a class action lawsuit was pending against the company. Xyience contends that Bergeron is the author of these statements, but he maintains that he found these statements in an email widely circulated on the web, which he merely posted to his MySpace page with a disclaimer. (MySpace removed the posting and Bergeron's profile shortly thereafter.) Mr. Bergeron provided us with links to other websites where the article apparently still appears (here, here, and here).

The complaint further alleges that Bergeron posted to his website a report entitled "Xyience Investigative Report: Creator Russell Pike's Criminal Tendencies Revealed," in which he claimed that the company and its majority shareholder, Russell Pike, were defrauding investors and conspiring with Dana White, president of Ultimate Fight Challenge, to defraud investors. The complaint claims also that Bergeron "continues to post defamatory articles" about the company on his website, but does not identify any specific statements.

The complaint sets forth claims for defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional interference with contract. Xyience alleges that Bergeron's reports have cost the company millions of dollars due to lost investor contributions, prompting the company to seek $25 million in damages.

Alongside the complaint, Xyience filed a motion for preliminary injunction to compel Bergeron to take down his reports and to prohibit him from publishing any future reports about Xyience. On July 27, 2007, Bergeron filed a motion to quash service of summons (i.e., a motion to dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Nevada court does not have personal jurisdiction over him because he is a resident of Massachusetts without significant contacts with Nevada.

On September 6, 2007, the court granted Xyience's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court's order requires Bergeron to "remove any and all articles or postings regarding false claims about Xyience from the internet" and prohibits him from making any statements suggesting or implying that Xyience is being investigated by the SEC. It also requires Bergeron to remove "any and all articles or postings claiming that Xyience is defrauding investors and/or is conspiring with Dana White or the Ultimate Fight Challenge to defraud investors" and prohibits him from making any future represenations to that effect. On the same day, the court dismissed Bergeron's motion to quash the service of summons.

Update:

10/01/2007 - Bergeron filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

3/20/2008 - Xyience filed a notice of removal to the United States Bankruptcy Court.

3/28/2008 - Bergeron filed a motion to suspend bankruptcy proceedings and for summary judgement on oustanding claims.

6/05/2008 - Counterdefendant Ferttita filed an application for order to show cause regarding unauthorized recording of court proceedings.

On May 10, 2007, a user on the FreeRepublic forum posted that he had heard on a XM Satellite Radio talk show that DNC Chairman Howard Dean had called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius asking her to politicize the recovery effort from a tornado in Greensburg, Kansas, by dragging her feet on requesting federal aid and then blaming the lack of response on President Bush.

That same day, the DNC, through counsel, sent a cease-and-desist email to the webmaster of FreeRepublic. The email complained that FreeRepublic had not only repeated the defamatory statements of the radio show host, but indicated that the host's source was "extremely reliable and in a position that would give him direct knowledge of these revelations." The email asserted that the statements were "false and defamatory," "libelous and slanderous," and "clearly threaten to interfere with the DNC’s operations and ability to solicit support and raise funds." The email demanded that FreeRepublic remove the defamatory statements and post a prominent retraction.

The FreeRepublic did not remove the statements, and there is no indication that the DNC has taken any further action.

Incidentally, the DNC also sent a cease-and-desist letter to XM Satellite Radio, complaining about the original radio show broadcast. XM posted audio clips of the show on its website, but it does not appear that the DNC sent them a cease-and-desist letter in regard to that posting.

On his blog "Wash Park Prophet," Andrew Oh-Willeke wrote a post entitled "Mr. Trademark Abuse" about Leo Stoller, an entrepreneur who has litigated a number of trademark infringement claims asserting rights in the word "stealth." (According to the New York Times, Mr. Stoller apparently also has registered trademarks for the words "bootlegger," "hoax," and "chutzpah.")

A few days later, Oh-Willeke received an email from Joe Strahl, Vice President of Mr. Trademark Inc., the purported owner of the registered trademark "Mr. Trademark ®." The email asserted trademark rights in the words "Mr. Trademark" and complained that the blog post about Mr. Stoller wrongly created the impression that Stoller was associated with Mr. Trademark Inc. The email also appeared to raise a libel claim, arguing that the company's "reputation as a trademark search company and agent is being harmed by the defamatory and libelous post." Strahl threatened legal action unless all posts using the words "Mr. Trademark" were taken down.

Oh-Willeke responded by adding a disclaimer to the original post, which says:

Notice: The title of this post "Mr. Trademark Abuse", should in no way be confused with the firm "Mr. Trademark® Inc." which has no relation to Mr. Stoller, according to its representative Joe Strahl VP. Of course, if you had a brain, you would have realized that simply from the context of the post, but I'm putting it here for anyone too thick headed to understand that point on July 16, 2007 in response to a cease and desist e-mail I received today when I opened my work e-mail this morning.

Oh-Willeke also wrote Strahl an email denying that he made any false statements of fact and critiquing Strahl's trademark claim. It is worth reproducing here in full:

I have received your e-mail and have posted a disclaimer in the post in an abundance of caution. Nevertheless, I believe that you[r] cease and desist e-mail is off base. I will not remove the post or change the title as you have requested.

1. I am not trying to sell trademark services in this post.
2. I have made no false statements of fact.
3. I clearly identify the factual basis of my statements.
4. You, like Mr. Stoller, seem to fail to appreciate that a registered trademark is not a monopoly on use of certain words, it is merely a ban on marketing goods or services in a confusing fashion.
5. From context, it is clear that "Mr. Trademark Abuse," the title of my post,is something very different, indeed the opposite of, "Mr. Trademark," which you have registered.
6. Also, from context, it is clear that I am not using the words in a manner intended to have secondary meaning.
7. I seriously doubt that your registered trademark would withstand court scrutiny as it is merely descriptive of the services you provide. Descriptive trademarks are inherently weak. In the same way, it is impossible to get a valid trademark on “Liquor Store” or “Dry Cleaner” for a liquor store or dry cleaner respectively. Your own trademark verge[s] on frivolous itself.

Please refrain from taking further unreasonable action.

This precipitated an email exchange between Oh-Willeke and Strahl, in which Strahl continued to assert his trademark rights and demanded that the posting (or at least the title) be taken down. Oh-Willeke pointed out, among other things, that that the registered mark "Mr. Trademark" did not consist of the words "Mr. Trademark" alone, but rather the words in connection with a drawing of a little man, and that the registration document expressly stated that "no claim is made to the exclusive right to use 'trademark' apart from the mark as shown."

No resolution appears to have been reached between Strahl and Oh-Willeke.

Update:

As of 10/08/07, Oh-Willeke's blog had not included any updates regarding the situation.