Global Wildlife Center v. Hammond Action News, No. 2010-0000866 (La. Dist. Ct., filed ___ 2010)

STATUS: TRO Dissolved.

A satirical website, "Hammond Action News," was forced to temporarily take down a fictional story about a giraffe attack on a tour guide on March 4, 2010. The article named a real nonprofit wildlife sanctuary, the Global Wildlife Center, and used a copyrighted photograph to illustrate the article. The plaintiffs brought suit after the owner of the satirical website refused to take the story down. Without holding a hearing, Louisiana judge Brenda Bedsole Ricks granted a temporary restraining injunction, and scheduled a hearing for Mar. 15. A different judge, Beth Wolfe, heard the evidence and dissolved the injunction. Judge Wolfe also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $500 in attorneys' fees and court costs.

Links and court documents
Judge: Web site must yank story about center giraffe, 2theadvocate.com, Mar. 4, 2010
Judge rules in satirical Web site's favor, USA Today, Mar. 16, 2010
Fake Giraffe Update: Louisiana Court Sides With Satirical Website, Citizen Media Law Project, Mar. 16, 2010
ACLU's Amicus Brief

Mink v. Salazar, Civil No. 04-B-23, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Colo. dismissed Oct. 26, 2004), aff’d, Mink v. Dominguez, No. 04-1496, 482 F.3d 1244, 35 Media L. Rep. 1838 (10th Cir. April 16, 2007), reh’g en banc denied (10th Cir. July 19, 2007), cert. denied, Knox v. Mink, No. 07-516, 128 S.Ct. 1122, 169 L.Ed.2d 949 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2008).
Status: Dismissal affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Thomas Mink brought a civil suit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s criminal libel statute, after he was threatened with a felony prosecution for mocking one of his college professor on his “Howling Pig” website (www.geocities.com/thehowlingpig/). The district court dismissed the civil suit on grounds that the prosecutor had official immunity, that Mink did not have standing to challenge the statute, since he had not actually been charged under the statute. On appeal, the 10th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Mink’s privacy claims, but reversed dismissal of his claims against the prosecutors. Mink asked for the entire court to consider the case, but this was denied. The state then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case; the Court declined, sending the remaining claims back to the trial court. The trial court then dismissed the remaining claims (566 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D.Colo. Jun 12, 2008)); Mink is appealing that dismissal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral argument scheduled for Sept. 21, 2009 (No. 08-1250 (10th Cir. filed July 15, 2008))

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_description.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-01-20-howling-legal_x.htm
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12451
http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20050405/NEWS/104050057&SearchID=7322286462859
http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1160&year=2006
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1672
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1789
Initial trial court dismissal: http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_Ruling_dismissing_case_10-26-04.pdf
Appellate decision: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/04/04-1496.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court docket: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-516.htm

Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil No. 06-526 (N.D. Ga. filed March 6, 2006).

Status: Summary judgment granted to plaintiff, 537 F.Supp.2d 1302 (March 21, 2008).

After Wal-Mart threatened to sue Charles Smith over his use of Wal-Mart’s name, logos and similar-looking logos on his web sites criticizing the company, (www.walocaust.com and www.walqaeda.com), Smith filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that his uses did not violate Wal-Mart’s copyrights. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and Wal-Mart sought transfer of the URLs to its control. The court granted summary judgment to Smith, and denied Wal-Mart’s motion, holding that Smith’s use of Wal-Mart’s trademarks were parodies, protected under the “fair use” copyright doctrine, and would not lead to confusion.

Links and Court Documents:

http://insidebusiness.freedomblogging.com/2008/03/21/wal-mart-as-bad-as-al-qaida/

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1206441810175

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/03/25/walmart_0326.html

Decision granting summary judgment: http://www.citizen.org/documents/WalmartDecision.pdf

Complaint and other court documents: http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=206

X17 Inc. v. Lavandeira, Civil No. 06-07608 (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 30, 2006)
Status: Settled, Feb. 2008 (unknown terms)

A photo agency that specializes in “paparazzi” photographs of celebrities filed suit against blogger Mario Lavandeira, who operates the perezhilton.com website, which adds satirical captions to celebrity photos, for copyright violations. Lavandeira responded to the suit by saying that his work was a parody and thus constitutes fair use. In February 2007, the court denied X17’s motion for an injunction barring Lavandeira from copying, reproducing, displaying, or distributing its photographs. In June 2007, X17 filed numerous infringement claims with the Australian company that hosts the site, leading that company to stop hosting it. The site reappeared with a new web host, and Lavandeira filed his own lawsuit, Lavandeira v. X17, Inc., BC373254 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed June 25, 2007), alleging that X17 was engaged in unfair competition with his site. The court granted a defense motion to dismiss that case; X17 appealed, but the parties then reached a settlement.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/x17-inc-v-lavandeira
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-et-bloggers17dec17,1,5731843.story
http://ww.tmz.com/2007/03/09/perez-hilton-evens-score-in-paparazzi-lawsuit/
http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/litigation/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003604057
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/02/posted-by-mat-7.html
Complaint in Lavandeira v. X17 at http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/photos/Lavandiera_v_X17_complaint.pdf

Virgin America v. Adrants Publishing, No. 3:09-cv-00337-BZ (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 26, 2009).
Status: Pending.

In response to a fake advertisement for airline Virgin America that appeared on website adrants.com, Virgin brought a six-count complaint alleging, among other things, trademark infringement and defamation. A disclaimer was initially placed on the posting, but was later removed. The fake advertisement featured a photo of the crash of US Airways flight 1549 into the Hudson River and included the caption: “The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin.”

Links and Court Documents
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/virgin-america-v-adrants-publishing http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/automotive-travel/e3iabb39aac80c6a278a5c7bb7e0c26cfec Complaint: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv00337/210918/1/

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company v. D'Avella; Civil No. L-515-07 (N.J. Super. filed Aug. 24, 2007).

Status: Confidential settlement.

Brothers Mark and Matthew D'Avella filmed a parody rap music video after hours in the A&P supermarket where they worked, and posted it to their blog site (www.fakelaugh.com) and YouTube. The supermarket company sued for defamation, business and product disparagement, and trademark infringement. The parties reached an undisclosed settlement, and the video was removed from the web.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/ap-v-davella

MacDonald v. Paton, No. ______ (Mass. Super., Worcester filed Sept. 14, 1999).
Status: Dismissed
Plaintiff Mark A. MacDonald, at the time a town selectman in Athol, Mass. sued the operator of a local website who posted a satirical “definition” in the "First Dictionary of Athonics" section of her site which implied that MacDonald was a Nazi. The defendant moved to have the case dismissed under Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion, but on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and granted the motion.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3002

Case information and documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/macdonald-v-paton

Appellate decision: http://www.casp.net/cases/paton.html