Trade Libel

A&P v. D'Avella Update: "Produce Paradise" Lawsuit Settles

Posted May 21st, 2008 by Tuna Chatterjee

David's post yesterday got us thinking about one of our favorite cases, A&P v. D'Avella. As some of you will recall, the case involved two brothers who worked at an A&P supermarket in New Jersey and created parodic rap songs with supermarket themes under the name "Fresh Beets." Their crowning achievement, of course, was a video called "Produce Paradise," which they made in the A&P store (after hours) and posted to YouTube and their website fakelaugh.com. A&P was not amused and sued the brothers for trademark infringement and dilution, defamation, and trade libel. To put it mildly, the supermarket's legal claims were questionable (see Sam's August 30th post on the case for details). Through a little digging, I've learned that the parties have settled the case, bringing to a close one of the more humorous episodes chronicled in our legal threats database.   read more »

Bookmark/Search this post with:
in

Last updated on May 13th, 2008

Last updated on May 2nd, 2008

Last updated on April 23rd, 2008

Last updated on June 27th, 2008

Legal Protections for Anonymous Speech in Texas

in

Note: This page covers information specific to Texas. For general information concerning legal protections for anonymous speech see the Legal Protections for Anonymous Speech section of this guide.

The one Texas court to consider an Internet anonymity case adopted a high-burden "summary judgment" standard that requires a plaintiff to bring forward evidence on each element of its claim (other than those dependent on the defendant's identity) before permitting disclosure of an Internet' speaker's identity. This case is described below.

In re Does 1-10, 2007 WL 4328204 (Tex. App. 2007)

In June 2007, a subsidiary of Essent Healthcare, Inc. filed suit in Texas state court against an anonymous blogger and an undefined number of anonymous posters to his blog. Essent's petition contained claims for defamation, trade disparagement, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of loyalty. The dispute revolved around a blog called "The-Paris-site," which focuses on an Essent-run hospital in Paris, Texas. The operator of the blog goes by the pseudonyms "Frank Pasquale" and "fac_p". He posted critical remarks about the hospital on the blog, including statements that, according to Essent, assert or imply that the hospital is engaged in Medicare fraud. He also posted statements that allegedly accuse the hospital of having a high incidences of bacterial infections and post-surgical complications. Anonymous users also posted comments on the blog. Some of the comments included information that Essent claims was confidential patient health information.   read more »

Last updated on April 26th, 2008

Legal Protections for Anonymous Speech in Pennsylvania

in

Note: This page covers information specific to Pennsylvania. For general information concerning legal protections for anonymous speech see the Legal Protections for Anonymous Speech section of this guide.

Pennsylvania law is not entirely clear on what standard the courts will apply before permitting disclosure of an anonymous Internet speaker's identity. The most recent case on the subject, Reunion Industries v. Doe 1, 2007 WL 1453491 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2007), applied a high-burden "summary judgment" standard. However, courts in other cases have imposed less protective standards.

Reunion Industries v. Doe 1, 2007 WL 1453491 (Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County March 5, 2007)

Several anonymous Internet users posted negative comments about the company Reunion Industries on a Yahoo! Finance message board. Reunion Industries sued the anonymous posters for commercial disparagement and found out from Yahoo! that AOL was the ISP for one of the defendants ("Doe 1"). Reunion Industries moved for a court order compelling AOL to reveal Doe 1's identity, and Doe 1 moved for a protective order that would prevent AOL from revealing the information.   read more »

Last updated on April 26th, 2008

Legal Protections for Anonymous Speech in California

in

Note: This page covers information specific to California. For general information concerning legal protections for anonymous speech see the Legal Protections for Anonymous Speech section of this guide.

The court decisions on anonymity in California are mixed. Columbia Insurance v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999), established a "motion to dismiss" standard that puts a relatively low burden on a plaintiff seeking to unmask an anonymous speaker, and other courts have followed it. Bucking this trend, the more recent case Highfields Capital Management v. Doe, 385 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005), applied a high-burden test influenced by Dendrite v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001). Finally, in Krinsky v. Doe 6, H030767 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2008), a California appellate court applied a high-burden test that requires a plaintiff to make a "prima facie" showing on its underlying legal claim, where "prima facie" means bringing forward sufficient evidence for each of element within his or her control.   read more »

Last updated on April 26th, 2008

Last updated on June 5th, 2008

Eagle Broadband v. Mould: Another Internet Defamation Suit Dismissed as SLAPP

Posted December 18th, 2007 by Sam Bayard

It's been a busy month or so for the California anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16). In late October, a California trial court granted Perez Hilton's motion to strike in Ronson v. Lavandeira. More recently, another court granted the anti-SLAPP motion of Richard Silverstein and Joel Beinin in the poltically charged case, Neuwirth v. Silverstein. Adding to this list, last Friday, in Eagle Broadband v. Mould, 2007 WL 4358515 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2007), a California appellate court upheld the trial court's grant of Thomas Mould's motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute and reversed the trial court's denial of Richard Williams's similar motion. The appellate court also affirmed the trial court's award of approximately $65,000 in attorney's fees to Mould pursuant to the statute.  read more »

Bookmark/Search this post with:
in
123next ›last »
  
 
 
Copyright 2007-2008 Citizen Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted,
content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details.
Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice.