College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc.

Last updated
College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Full case nameCollege Network, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc. doing business as iStudySmart, Defendant-Appellee, Debra K. Moore, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee
DecidedMay 12, 2010
Citation(s)No. 09-50596, 2010 WL 1923763 (5th Cir. May 12, 2010)
Case history
Appealed from United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Case opinions
Court vacated the tortious interference relief awarded to Moore Educational, but otherwise affirmed the district court ruling.
Court membership
Judges sitting Carolyn Dineen King, Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., James L. Dennis
Case opinions
Decision by Per curiam
Keywords
Defamation, trademark infringement

College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc., No. 09-50596 (5th Cir. 2010) was an unpublished appellate level case in the Fifth Circuit that upheld a district court jury decision to dismiss the purchase of trademarked keywords as infringing. The original suit was brought on a claim of trademark infringement in the purchase of certain advertising keywords that the defendant countered with claims of defamation and tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations. The main issue addressed in the appeal was the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the counterclaims of the defendant. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, but vacated the award for tortious interference. [1]

Contents

Background

The College Network (TCN), founded in 1995 and based in Indianapolis, and Moore Educational Publishers (MEP), founded in Nashville in 1986 by Debra K. Moore, both published and sold study guides to nursing students nationwide. [1] [2] Both companies participated in sponsored-link advertising on the Internet, purchasing their respective competitor's name as a keyword in which their link would appear. [1]

Business statements

The College Network hosted a regional sales meeting in July 2006 to train that region's sales staff on how to close sales on study guides by responding to potential customers' objections. The regional director informed the sales staff that their competitor, iStudySmart (the name under which Moore Educational Publishers does business), was "out of business" or "going out of business." In addition, the regional manager also directed the sales staff to repeat these statements to potential customers. MEP learned of these statements during their own sales meeting in May 2007. In the trial, these statements were referred to as "Business Statements." [1]

Moore statements

A salesperson at The College Network, Shara Wright, resigned October 2006. She was later hired to work for Moore Educational Publishers. After her resignation, most of her family members who also worked at The College Network were fired. Only Glenn Cason, a high ranking College Network employee and Wright's cousin, remained. One of the terminated family members, Joel Cromer, testified that Cason explained that they were let go because of Shara's new job with Moore Educational Publishers and Debra Moore. He went on to say that Moore was a thief and dishonest, and had stolen The College Network's secrets. Moore Educational Publishers and Debra Moore discovered these statements the day before Cromer's deposition for the case in December 2007. In the case these statements were referred to as the "Moore Statements." [1]

District Court case

On July 19, 2007, The College Network sued Moore Educational Publishers in a Texan court for trademark infringement, citing Section 43 of the Lanham Act. [1] TCN claimed that by purchasing the keyword phrase "The College Network" to use as a click-through link which would display their advertisement, MEP was using The College Network's "trademark in commerce that was likely to cause confusion, in violation of the Lanham Act." [1] Moore Educational Publishers admitted to purchasing the phrase, but argued they had done so only in response to discovering that The College Network was engaging in the same practice with MEP's own trademarked name. Debra Moore entered into the lawsuit on May 20, 2008, submitting counterclaims of defamation for the statements above. Moore Educational Publishers also submitted counterclaims of defamation and tortious interference related to the "Business Statements." [1]

The case was called to trial on January 13, 2009 with a panel of eight jurors. [3] The College Network presented expert witness Otto Wheeler, who testified that MEP's use of “The College Network” as an Internet search term created a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act" [1] and pointed out "purported shortcomings" [1] in the defendant's defamation damages model. [1] Moore Educational Publishers presented evidence of damages from the alleged defamation, citing a correlation between the declaration of the "Business Statements" with a drop in sales, and claiming Moore's reputation suffered from the "Moore Statements." [1] Both sides finished presenting evidence to support their respective claims on January 15, [3] after which both the plaintiff and the defendants submitted motions for judgment as a matter of law, all of which were denied on January 16. [3] The trial was submitted to the jury on January 20, and a verdict returned on January 21, 2009. [1] [2] [3]

Jury verdict

The jury found "The College Network" to be a valid trademark, but did not find Moore Educational Publishers to be infringing on that trademark. On the part of the defendants' claims, the jury acknowledged the defamatory nature of the statements and awarded damages to Moore Educational Publishers and Debra Moore [4] which the district court capped at the total of $137,421 in actual damages and $225,438 in exemplary damages to Moore Educational Publishers; $150,000 actual damages and $250,000 in exemplary damages to Moore. [1] [3]

Following the verdict, The College Network filed again for a motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, for a new trial. Denied by the district court, the plaintiff appealed. [1]

Court analysis

In approaching this case, the Court applied the de novo standard of review, with the expectation to uphold the denials of the motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial unless there was absolutely no evidence backing up the claim.

Judgment in favor of Moore

The first objection raised by The College Network was on the statute of limitation on the discovery of the defamatory statements. The College Network argued that the statements should not have been discoverable as Moore did not file her counterclaim within the statute of limitation. The defendants, and the district court, invoked a Texas law that exempted discovery from limitations. The College Network alleged that Moore and Moore Educational Publishers could not satisfy the two conditions that determined discovery free from limitation:

  1. the nature of the injury incurred is inherently undiscoverable
  2. the evidence of injury is objectively verifiable [1]

The College Network challenged the inherent undiscoverable nature of the "Business Statements" as Moore knew about the remarks long before she filed her claims of defamation. In waiting so long, she rendered the Statements undiscoverable. The Court waived this argument as it was not brought up at the district level, and affirmed the district ruling. Furthermore, The College Network opined that Moore should have been able to discover the "Moore Statements" when interviewing Joel Cromer. The Court denied this argument on the basis it was not discoverable until December 2007, given the defendants' claim “a person interviewing for a job would not start disparaging former employers due to the negative impression it would create at a job interview.” [1] As to the second condition, the plaintiff-appellant claimed that Moore and Moore Educational Publishers had no way of determining whether the defamatory statements were objectively verifiable. As this argument was the first brought up in the appeal, the Court waived the argument. [1]

The second objection to the judgment regarding Moore was the legitimacy and evidence for the reputation damages. The College Network argued that any harm to Moore's reputation was based on the "Business Statements" alone, but as she was not directly harmed by the "Business Statements," there was no basis for reputation damaged. The court, once again, waives the argument as it was the first time brought up before the court. [1]

Judgment in favor of Moore Educational Publishers

In regards to the challenges against the statute of limitations and discovery of the statements in regards to Moore Educational Publisher, the court determined the reasoning to be the same as Moore, and waived the plaintiff-appellant's argument. [1]

The College Network argued for the reputation damages to Moore educational Publishers to be vacated as there was "no evidence of special damages...[to] MEP’s reputation." [1] The Court waived the argument on the basis it was not raised during the trial court. However, the Court argued that even if the argument had not been waived, Moore educational Publishers did provide specific evidence of damaged reputation, from customers who did not buy from the defendants due to the "Business Statements" and the correlation to the drop of sales following the publishing of the "Business Statements." [1]

The subsequent challenge The College Network raised was against the awards for lost profits. They claimed that Moore Education Publishers were already suffering from declining sales, and the defamatory statements did not precipitate this decline. Furthermore, the calculation for lost profits was calculated on a national scale, against the regional nature of the defamatory statements. The court waives both arguments as neither were raised or submitted specifically during the lower court case. Moreover, based on the evidence the defendants provide, Moore Educational Publishers had reasons to see a rise in profits from recent business maneuvers, such as an improved sales staff, an endorsement from an online college, and an economy seeing a rise in school enrollment. [1]

Lastly, The College Network challenged the tortious interference awarded to Moore Educational Publishers as there was no reasonable probability that the defamatory remarks inhibited the formation of contracts. The defendants argued that the loss of profits can infer the tortious interference. On this issue, the Court sided with The College Network's and vacated the $1600 awards. [1]

The Court addressed the issue of trademark infringement last, and set up four criteria for The College Network to show an infringement of trademark as proposed by the Lanham Act: [1] [2]

  1. The existence of a valid trademark
  2. Moore Educational Publishers used the mark in commerce without the plaintiff-appellant's approval
  3. Moore Educational Publishers' use would cause confusion between the two parties
  4. The College Network sustained damage as a result of this confusion

The jury trial determined the validity of The College Network's trademark, yet also determined that Moore Educational Publishers did not infringe this trademark, satisfying the first and second provision. [1] [2] The College Network then filed for justice as a matter of law on the basis that the evidence in trial produced evidence of confusion from the use of the trademark by Moore educational Publishers. However, Moore Educational Publishers countered on that point by arguing their use of the trademark was not in commerce, undoing the need to determine confusion from trademark infringement. [1] At this time the Court acknowledges this was the first time the issue of whether the use of a trademark was in commerce. [1] [2] [5] However, the appellate court declined to comment on the issue of whether or not purchasing a trademark for the purpose of keyword advertising counted as use in commerce, stating that by the standards of the Fifth Circuit's eight-factor test—while rejecting the use of the Ninth Circuit's 'Internet Trinity' test—there was no confusion. [1] [2]

Ruling

Trademark infringement

While affirming the trademark of The College Network, the Court did not reevaluate the district court's decision regarding use in commerce as there was no likelihood of comparison determined under the Fifth Circuit's eight-factor test. The Court also denied to use the Ninth Circuit's 'Internet Trinity,' and so upheld the jury decided district court judgment that determined no trademark infringement occurred on the part of Moore Educational Publishers. [1] [2] [6]

Judgment in favor of defendant-appellees

The Court upheld all but one of the challenged verdict. In the issue regarding tortious interference, it found The College Network correct the verdict could not stand without a reasonable probability that a contract would be established. Moore Educational Publishers had based reasonable probability from its reputation, and the tortious interference was inferred in the falling profits. The Court determined that reasoning was insufficient, and vacated the award. In all other contested awards, the Court waived The College Network's claims for not being put forth during the district court trial. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

Defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime. In several countries, including South Korea, a true statement can also be considered defamation.

Actual malice in United States law is a legal requirement imposed upon public officials or public figures when they file suit for libel. Unlike other individuals who are less well-known to the general public, public officials and public figures are held to a higher standard for what they must prove before they may succeed in a defamation lawsuit.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

Free Dominion was a Canadian conservative internet forum. The site used the phrase "Principled Conservativism" to describe its ideology.

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

Modern libel and slander laws, as implemented in many Commonwealth nations as well as in the United States and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307), though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in place. The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603-1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

Canadian defamation law Commonwealth jurisdictions

Canadian defamation law refers to defamation law as it stands in both common law and civil law jurisdictions in Canada. As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues.

<i>Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.</i>

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. 562 F.3d 123, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which the court held that recommending a trademark for keyword advertising was a commercial use of the trademark, and could constitute trademark infringement. The case involved Rescuecom, a computer repair and support company, and Google, a web search and advertising company. Prior to the case's resolution, Google recommended the 'Rescuecom' trademark to businesses, that were buying keywords through Google's AdWords product.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i>

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

<i>Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC</i>

Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00348, was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in which professional singer Matthew Smith, known as Matt Heart, sued Summit Entertainment. Smith asserted seven causes of action for Summit Entertainment's wrongful use of copyright takedown notice on the website YouTube, among which three were dismissed and four were ruled in Smith's favor. The case is noteworthy given that copyright 17 U.S.C. § 512 claims are hard to win, and the plaintiff's success was due to the combination of his persuasive story and convincing additional claims which complemented § 512.

<i>Krinsky v. Doe 6</i>

Krinsky v. Doe 6, was a decision by the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, addressing the evidentiary standard required of plaintiffs seeking the identification of anonymous Internet posters. The case addressed defamation and the right to anonymous speech on the Internet. Plaintiff Lisa Krinsky sued Doe 6, an anonymous poster to Yahoo! message boards, for defamation. Krinsky served a subpoena to Yahoo! for Doe 6's identity. Doe 6 filed a motion to quash the subpoena, "contending that he had a First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the Internet."

<i>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</i>

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.

<i>Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.</i>

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (2010), was a patent infringement case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving "proactive scanning" technology for computer security. The Federal Circuit made a mixed decision after hearing the appeals from both sides. In terms of infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed Secure Computing's infringement on Finjan's system and storage medium patent claims but reversed the infringement on Finjan's method claim. In terms of damage award, the Federal Circuit not only affirmed the previous $9.18 million award by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, but also remanded for the district court to assess the extra damages between the post-judgement and pre-injunction period.

<i>Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.</i>

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. was a copyright case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving a DMCA takedown notice dispute between companies that produce virtual animals on Second Life. Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice to Linden Research, the makers of Second life, claiming that Amaretto's horse infringed on their bunnies and demanding their removal. Consequently, Amaretto responded with a counter-DMCA notice and applied to the court for a temporary restraining order to forbid Linden Research from removing their virtual horses. This was granted and held in effect as the case proceeded. Amaretto claimed in court that Ozimal's DMCA notice was copyright misuse and asked for a declaration that its horses did not infringe copyright. Ozimals counterclaimed for copyright infringement. The court eventually dismissed both claims.

<i>Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.</i>

Rosetta Stone v. Google, 676 F.3d 144, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The Court overturned a grant of summary judgment for Google that had held Google AdWords was not a violation of trademark law.

New Directions for Young Adults, Inc. v. Davis is a 2014 decision of a Florida state circuit court holding that using sock puppet accounts online is tortious interference with business relations, and awarding injunctive relief against it during the pendency of litigation.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9-0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.