Free for a Fee

A New York Supreme Court has dismissed a defamation suit over a private Facebook group that existed primarily for the purpose of mocking a teenaged girl. In the decision, Judge Randy Sue Marber wrote that the group’s malicious postings, which were made by a number of teenagers, were clearly not statements of fact—not to mention that they weren’t even public.

The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/judge-facebook-comments-were-puerile-but-not-defamation.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

By Eric Goldman

Milo v. Martin, 2010 WL 1708895 (Tex. App. Ct. April 29, 2010)

This case involves allegedly defamatory “guestbook” messages posted by unknown users to a website entitled “The Watchdog.” Framed like that, the precedent says the website should get an easy and uncontroversial 47 USC 230 dismissal (and IMO Rule 11 sanctionable).

The plaintiffs try to get around 230 by citing The Watchdog’s first page, which contained the following statements:

* 47 USC 230 and Consumer Protection Talk Notes
* 47 USC 230 Talk at Fordham
* Ninth Circuit Mucks Up 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence….AGAIN!?–Barnes v. Yahoo

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/04/website_gets_23.htmand was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

By Eric Goldman

Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. QIP Holders LLC, 2010 WL 669870 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2010). My prior post on this case.

Today’s post involves subway sandwiches instead of burgers, but it turns out that subway sandwich restaurants’ competition over claims of having more meat is no less stiff. Quiznos kicked off the war in 2006 by launching a “double meat” line of sandwiches. Quiznos ran two TV ads comparing the meat in its sandwiches to Subway’s and set up a website soliciting individuals to make and submit their own comparative digital video ads. Subway was not amused and ultimately filed a seventh amended complaint (!) over Quiznos’ ad campaigns. (What a patient judge).

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/crowdsourced_ad.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

[this case is not an IP case as such... the issue is "false and deceptive advertising." But the ruling on CDA 230 aspect is relevant for new media law. ell]

A hard-fought battle between two sandwich franchises has yielded an opinion dealing with the application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to videos submitted as part of an online contest. The result is an unusual ruling that sends to a jury the issue of whether the advertiser that sponsored the contest was an “information content provider” with respect to the videos, and thus is ineligible for CDA Section 230 protection. Doctor’s Associates v. QIP Holder LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14687 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2010).

more

The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2010/03/articles/online-content/advertiser-protection-under-cda-section-230-for-usergenerated-online-contest-submissions-will-go-to-jury/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

By Eric Goldman

Jurin v. Google, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18208 (E.D. Cal. March 1, 2010)

Jurin v. Google is one of the 10 outstanding trademark-based claims against Google’s AdWords programs–in this case, over advertiser purchases of Jurin’s trademark “styrotrim.” This particular lawsuit took a sizable hit, as Google successfully got a quick dismissal of several claims. As an added perk, the judge awarded Google $6k in legal fees for harassing litigation behavior.

The court dismisses Jurin’s Lanham Act false designation of origin claim because Google never represents that it produces Styrotrim.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/google_gets_dis.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.