Mortgage Specialists v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc., No. 08-E-0572 (N.H. Super. 2008).
Status: Appeal of order to disclose sources pending.
In October 2008, defendant "Mortgage Lender Implode-0-Meter" blog reported that plaintiff mortgage company The Mortgage Specialists was in trouble with the New Hampshire Banking Department for alleged improper mortgage activities. The report included a "2007 Loan Chart" that The Mortgage Specialists had filed with the banking department, as required by New Hampshire law. The law also provides that the chart "shall not be made public" without an overriding reason determined by the banking department.
Within a few days, a commenter using the name "Brianbattersby" posted comments on the "Implode-0-Meter" site, accusing the president of The Mortgage Specialists of fraud.
Mortgage Specialists sent the site a cease-and-desist letter as to the chart. The site removed the chart, but not the accompanying story, and reserved the right to republish the chart. The company sought the identity of the source of the story, including the loan chart, and the identity of "Brianbattersby." The web site refused to identify the source and the commenter, so Mortgage Specialists sued.
In March 2009, a Superior Court judge ordered the site to disclose the information, holding that "The maintenance of a free press does not give a publisher the right to protect the identity of someone who has provided it with unauthorized or defamatory information."
The site, with the support of various amicus, has appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Case Information and Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/mortgage-specialists-inc-v-implode-explode-heavy-industries-inc
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090720/OPINION01/907209949/-1/OPINION01
Showing posts with label Cease and Desist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cease and Desist. Show all posts
New York Times v. Friedland
Status: Cease and desist letter sent
The New York Times sent a cease-and-desist letter to Josh Friedland over the slogan of his The Food Section blog (www.thefoodsection.com), "All the News That's Fit to Eat," which the Times said caused confusion with its "All the News That's Fit to Print" slogan. Friedland removed the slogan, saying he did not have the time or resources for a legal fight.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.thefoodsection.com/foodsection/2009/04/its-not-fit-to-say-all-the-news-thats-fit-to-print.html
Status: Cease and desist letter sent
The New York Times sent a cease-and-desist letter to Josh Friedland over the slogan of his The Food Section blog (www.thefoodsection.com), "All the News That's Fit to Eat," which the Times said caused confusion with its "All the News That's Fit to Print" slogan. Friedland removed the slogan, saying he did not have the time or resources for a legal fight.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.thefoodsection.com/foodsection/2009/04/its-not-fit-to-say-all-the-news-thats-fit-to-print.html
Baltimore Sun v. Jeff Quinton (cease and desist letter April 15, 2009).
Status: Pending.
On April 15, 2009, The Baltimore Sun issued a cease and desist order to blogger Jeff Quinton on the issue of copyright infringement. The newspaper, owned by the Tribune Company, stated that "copying anything more than a headline or a paragraph from [a published news article] plainly constitutes copyright infringement." Quinton had previously admitted to the possibility that he was overstepping the borders of the Fair Use Doctrine. The letter was triggered by a post on Quinton's "Inside Charm City" blog (insidecharmcity.com) which excerpted five sentences from a Sun article, including a link to the original article but no additional disclaimer.
Links and Court Documents:
Infringing Blog Post: http://insidecharmcity.com/2009/04/14/nail-salon-accident-results-in-2nd-degree-burns-over-40-of-victims-body/
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/the-sun-to-balt.html
Status: Pending.
On April 15, 2009, The Baltimore Sun issued a cease and desist order to blogger Jeff Quinton on the issue of copyright infringement. The newspaper, owned by the Tribune Company, stated that "copying anything more than a headline or a paragraph from [a published news article] plainly constitutes copyright infringement." Quinton had previously admitted to the possibility that he was overstepping the borders of the Fair Use Doctrine. The letter was triggered by a post on Quinton's "Inside Charm City" blog (insidecharmcity.com) which excerpted five sentences from a Sun article, including a link to the original article but no additional disclaimer.
Links and Court Documents:
Infringing Blog Post: http://insidecharmcity.com/2009/04/14/nail-salon-accident-results-in-2nd-degree-burns-over-40-of-victims-body/
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/the-sun-to-balt.html
Morgan v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No. 09-14110 (S.D. Fla. filed April 13, 2009).
Status: Settled.
On March 26, 2009, investment advisor (and law school graduate) Michael Morgan began the www.goldmansachs666.com blog (also accessible at www.goldmansachs13.com) as "an open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis." On April 8, the company sent Morgan a letter claiming that he was violating its trademark and demanding that he stop using the domains. Five days later Morgan sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that his use of the domains did not violated the Goldman Sachs trademark. In July 2009, the parties settled with an agreement that Morgan would put a disclaimer on his sites.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/04/goldman-sachs-v-mike-morgan.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5137489/Goldman-Sachs-hires-law-firm-to-shut-bloggers-site.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/mike-morgan-florida-blogg_n_186549.html
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/04/gripe-site-blogger-bites-back-at-goldman-sachs.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/04/23/media-world-short-seller-not-unloading-anti-goldman-site/
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432304181&Goldman_Sachs_Backs_Down_in_Legal_Battle_With_Blogger
Complaint: http://www.morganfl.org/assets/mikesblog/GoldmanSachs666_Complaint.PDF
Stipulation and dismissal: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/files/stipulation-and-dismissal.pdf
Status: Settled.
On March 26, 2009, investment advisor (and law school graduate) Michael Morgan began the www.goldmansachs666.com blog (also accessible at www.goldmansachs13.com) as "an open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis." On April 8, the company sent Morgan a letter claiming that he was violating its trademark and demanding that he stop using the domains. Five days later Morgan sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that his use of the domains did not violated the Goldman Sachs trademark. In July 2009, the parties settled with an agreement that Morgan would put a disclaimer on his sites.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/04/goldman-sachs-v-mike-morgan.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5137489/Goldman-Sachs-hires-law-firm-to-shut-bloggers-site.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/mike-morgan-florida-blogg_n_186549.html
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/04/gripe-site-blogger-bites-back-at-goldman-sachs.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/04/23/media-world-short-seller-not-unloading-anti-goldman-site/
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432304181&Goldman_Sachs_Backs_Down_in_Legal_Battle_With_Blogger
Complaint: http://www.morganfl.org/assets/mikesblog/GoldmanSachs666_Complaint.PDF
Stipulation and dismissal: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/files/stipulation-and-dismissal.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)