Spamming Travel Firm Sues Anti-Spammer

from the more-of-the-same dept

Here’s yet another case of a company accused of spamming getting pretty upset when they’re called on it. Someone asked a travel company, named cruise.com, to stop sending him spam. They continued to send him spam. He threatened to sue them under Oklahoma spam laws, and featured them on his website. They turned around and sued him for $4 million for defamation and trademark infringement. They might have trouble on both those claims. First, the guy seems to have the spams pretty well documented, including his repeated attempts to opt-out. It’s tough to win a defamation claim when the facts alleged are true. Second, the trademark infringement concerns the use of their logo on his website about them — but, as has been explained numerous times, trademark law is only to protect against confusion, not to give full rights to the trademark. It’s quite unlikely that anyone going to this guy’s website about how the company was spamming him would confuse the site as one officially sanctioned by the spamming company.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Spamming Travel Firm Sues Anti-Spammer”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
3 Comments
nemo says:

No Subject Given

If the spammer’s case fails on jurisdiction, the first line of defense, then the VA fed district court will never address the merits.

Having read the complaint, motions and P&As, I’m inclined to believe it will fail on jurisdictional grounds alone.

Defendant has no business contact with anyone in VA, has never sought contact, and has never set foot there. That’s pretty persuasive that defendant did not purposefully avail himself of benefits of VA law before the suit, the longstanding test for jurisdiction.

Whether defendant can make the case for Rule 11 sanctions against spammer’s shyster is more doubtful though. That’s hard, even when the plaintiff’s pleading looks hinky.

But we can always hope. It would be nice to see a spammer’s shyster go down hard.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...