This is Paul Levy's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Paul Levy's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Paul Levy
Cyberlitigator on free speech issues at Public Citizen
Recent Activity
by Paul Alan Levy Over the past decade, I have had occasion in several separate cases to help consumers in opposing creative ways in which dentists (Stacy Makhnevich, Mitul Patel, Gordon Austin, and others) have tried to insulate themselves from... Continue reading
Posted Oct 13, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy Profile Defenders, which has been linked to a pattern of defrauding courts to get material removed from the Internet altogether or, at least, suppressed in search engine results, has refused to comment directly on the spate... Continue reading
Posted Oct 13, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy I had previously suggested that similarities in the wording of consent orders in Patel v. Chan, filed in state court in Baltimore, and Smith v. Garcia, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, implied that some... Continue reading
Posted Oct 10, 2016 at CL&P Blog
BY PAUL ALAN LEVY AND EUGENE VOLOKH There are about 25 court cases throughout the country that have a suspicious profile: All involve allegedly self-represented plaintiffs, yet they have similar snippets of legalese that suggest a common organization behind them.... Continue reading
Posted Oct 10, 2016 at CL&P Blog
To Anthony's first point: The First Amendment does not limit what a private company can do, but it DOES apply to court rulings that impose injunctions or damages (or enforce subpoenas!). So the way this plays out in litigation is that the company sues, the fan asserts the First Amendment as a defense to the lawsuit, the company says that the agreement waived the First Amendment rights being asserted, and the court has to decide whether the waiver was effective (or whether the contract clause violates the applicable law). You can read the briefs we filed in the Prestigious Pets case (linked from the main post) to see how that plays out. Anthony's other points are spot on. Not copyright or trademark, but a different sort of right at issue.....
by Paul Alan Levy My friends know that one of my main passions outside of work is soccer; I root for various teams abroad, for the US national teams, and especially for my home team, DC United; I even travel... Continue reading
Posted Sep 28, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy The New York Times carries a story this morning about patient advocacy groups that do not speak out on high drug prices because they are dependent on financial support from the companies that charge those prices.... Continue reading
Posted Sep 28, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy Late yesterday, we filed an application for an award of attorney fees and sanctions, seeking a six-figure award against Prestigious Pets, the Dallas pet-sitting firm whose suit for breach of a nondisparagement clause was dismissed last... Continue reading
Posted Sep 27, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy In Doe v. Coleman, a decision issued yesterday, the Kentucky Supreme Court overruled a decision of the state court of appeals which, considering the validity of a subpoena to identify defendants who had been sued for... Continue reading
Posted Sep 23, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy News comes from Chris Morran over at Consumerist that the House version of a bill banning non-disparagement clauses in form consumer contracts, which passed the Senate late last year, was passed on a voice vote in... Continue reading
Posted Sep 12, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy This blog has carried a number of articles recently about the bizarre story of “Patel v. Chan” a case in which a pro se lawsuit, seeking relief for defamation based on comments posted on several interactive... Continue reading
Posted Sep 8, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy I blogged here last month about a peculiar pro se lawsuit and consent order which, in retrospect, has all the hallmarks of a sloppy effort by some blackhat SEO outfit trying to help a dentai client,... Continue reading
Posted Sep 7, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy A state District Court in Dallas (Judge Jim Jordan of the 160th District) has struck down a lawsuit over a non-disparagement clause in a form consumer agreement, holding that it could not be enforced against a... Continue reading
Posted Aug 30, 2016 at CL&P Blog
When I first posted about the bogus court order compelling the removal of Matthew Chan's reviews of Mitul Patel from five web sites, I criticized for removing the version of the review that was posted there without giving any... Continue reading
Posted Aug 25, 2016 at CL&P Blog
A few days ago I wrote here about a lawsuit and consent order that were filed in Baltimore, Maryland, determining that a series of criticisms posted against Georgia dentist Mitul Patel by Matthew Chan, one of his patients in Georgia,... Continue reading
Posted Aug 23, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy At a time when the California Supreme Court is deciding whether to grant discretionary review of the decision of the California Court of Appeal in Hassell v. Bird, which held that Yelp could be required to... Continue reading
Posted Aug 19, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy There is somebody on the other side of the Pacific Ocean who has a strongly negative perspective on Nicholas Assef, the head honcho at an Australian financial services firm called Lincoln Crowne – or at least,... Continue reading
Posted Jul 14, 2016 at CL&P Blog
I blogged a couple of weeks ago about a "country hip-hop" musician who had part of his lawsuit against Facebook, for hosting pages that denigrate him, dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP law but managed to hang onto his claims that Facebook... Continue reading
Posted Jun 15, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy In a comment posted yesterday to my blog post last week about an amicus brief that Public Citizen and EFF filed in the First Circuit, Ripoff Report founder Ed Magedson announced that his company is going... Continue reading
Posted Jun 14, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy Cases involving Xcentric Ventures, the company that owns Ripoff Report, frequently push the boundaries of the legal protections that are provided for the hosts of online expression, and we have often come to that company's defense... Continue reading
Posted Jun 7, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy A California Superior Court judge has issued a decision that threatens to blow a gaping hole in the protection that online hosts for critical speech have enjoyed under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and,... Continue reading
Posted Jun 3, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy I blogged back in February about a small-claims act proceeding that a Dallas pet-sitting company called “Prestigious Pets” had filed against a couple named Michelle and Robert Duchouquette over the fact that Michelle Duchouquette had posted... Continue reading
Posted Jun 2, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy The city of Mesa, Arizona, has threatened suit against a local businessman, Jeremy Whittaker, who is running for city council in opposition to a longtime city employee who enjoys endorsements from several current elected city officials.... Continue reading
Posted May 23, 2016 at CL&P Blog
by Paul Alan Levy When I saw the Popehat Signal a few years ago, seeking counsel to help Todd DeShong fend off a lawsuit in federal court in Texas claiming that he defamed Clark Baker on his "HIV Innocence Group... Continue reading
Posted May 3, 2016 at CL&P Blog
It is generally our practice not to allow comments posted in an effort to draw paying business to a commercial web site. However the comment above from "Jason Yungbluth" includes a substantive comment as well as trying to sell his own product: basically, if you follow the hyperlink in his comment, you will see that he argues that the Liberty Maniacs Sanders parody is indefensible because it does not change the Sanders campaign's logo. In a comment on his site, I tried to set him straight; he, in turn, responded to me. I then posted a more direct response, which he has so far "held pending moderation" -- perhaps it hits too close to home? Given that Yungbluth is unwilling to face trenchant criticism in the comments, I am posting them here (with some typos corrected, and switch from second to third person; readers will only be able to understand my criticisms on the context of his blog post and comments; apologies for the inconvenience): Yungbluth has gone seriously astray in three respects. First, he is apparently focused on ways in which people do parodies of logos – certainly if it is the logo that is being parodied, then you make changes in the logo. But if the objective is to parody the trademark owner, then by all means the logo can be used to identify the trademark owner. We often see that with respect to attacks on Barack Obama, which use his familiar Obama rising sun logo, unchanged, in the context of disagreeable criticism (for example, here and here,572488382. Similarly, we often see attacks on Wal-Mart, using its familiar blue-block name with a star in the middle, perhaps with the cursive Always, but coupled with words that express disdain for what Wal-Mart “always” does (for example here and here Similarly, what McCall did here is use the Sanders campaign’s logo to make clear which “Bernie” is the target of his design’s commentary, and he does it in a way that poses no likelihood of confusion about whether the campaign is behind it. Second, Yungbluth's blog post and particularly his chat with McCall incorrectly suggest that one needs “permission” from a trademark owner to do a parody using its logo. That is a foolish suggestion: parody is protected both by the fair use defense to the Lanham Act and by the First Amendment; indeed, when a parody is plainly a parody, it does not create an actionable likelihood of confusion (if the mark is “famous,” then dilution considerations come into play and the analysis is a bit different). In fact, although Yungbluth's reproduction of the “chat” he conducted with Dan McCall elides this part of the conversation, McCall told him exactly that. I was a bit suspicious and so I asked both of them about that. When Yungbluth and I spoke on the phone, he equivocated but ultimately denied having been told by McCall that he did not need permission. However, McCall has supplied me with an unexpurgated version of the chat, and at the location where Yungbluth's image of the chat says “a bit of the chat got lost when my computer crashed,” McCall told Yungbluth that, if what he was doing was a parody, Yungbluth didn’t need his (McCzll's) permission. Certainly that was a convenient “computer crash.” But I do not appreciate the fact that Yungbluth lied to me when we spoke. Finally, Yungbluth has asked me a number of times to tell me whether “my client” objects to what he characterizes as a “hilarious parody.” I have tried to explain to him that I am not McCall’s general counsel. I have represented McCall a few times to defend some of his parodies. I have never represented him in affirmative enforcement of HIS intellectual property. And he has not asked me for help in addressing Yungbluth's design; thus I have no occasion to address whether he has done a parody. (Readers are welcome to express their opinions) In fact, to my knowledge, McCall has done nothing to stop Yungbluth. Whether that is because he thinks what this image is a protected parody, or whether it is because he thinks Yungbluth is making a play for attention by trying to bait McCall into objecting so that Yungbluth can make a stink about it, you would have to ask McCall.