Trademark Case Too “Banal” To Justify Social Media Gag Order

by Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition
Contact

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition

Before the social media era really kicked into gear, I was representing a defendant in a defamation case who was being sued by a very wealthy plaintiff. Because of his charitable generosity, the plaintiff’s name was on everything in town (I’m not saying which town), including schools, buildings, bus stops and highway exit signs. There was even (I swear this is true) a statue of the plaintiff’s mother in the city park across from the courthouse. We moved to change the venue, on the theory that the defendant could not get a fair trial because jurors literally could not travel from their homes to the courthouse without being bombarded with information about how wonderful our opponent was.  The case settled before this novel motion was tested.

Now, in the social media era, the problem I was worried about back then can pop up in any case. If a litigant builds up a sufficient social media following and gets a few Facebook posts or tweets to go viral– VOILA! — tainted jury pool.  At least that was the theory behind the gag order issued by the Southern District of California in San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Productions. However, the Ninth Circuit recently vacated that order, finding among other things that a “run-of-the-mill” trademark case just wasn’t important enough to justify a prior restraint on speech.

Background: Battle of the COMIC-CONs

In August 2014, the organizers of the San Diego Comic-Con (“SDCC”), which has been doing business since 1975 and is the owner of the registered COMIC CON mark, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the organizers of a rival “Comic Con” in Salt Lake City (“SLCC”). SLCC, noting that over a hundred other comic book conventions also use some form of the COMIC CON mark, asserts in its defense that the mark is descriptive, that it has become generic, and that SDCC obtained its registration by fraud.

SLCC, perceiving itself as the David to SDCC’s Goliath, also did what many a David does nowadays – it took to social media and rallied the troops in favor of the little guy. SLCC uploaded court documents, provided a running commentary on case developments, and encouraged online discussion around its accusation that SDCC engaged in “fraud.” This campaign was wildly successful, according to SDCC, which asserted that its reputation was smeared and that SLCC secured “more than 200,000 media articles . . .  favorable to” SLCC. Internet users took the bait and chimed in, largely agreeing that “SLCC is awesome” and SDCC’s case was “BS.” Among many other comments, internet users stated:

[SDCC’s] entire lawsuit was predicated on a falsehood. LOL

There is no excuse for this suit, the law is clear.

These documents are fascinating, and show a clear falsehood (holy crap someone is in big trouble) . . . .

Sounds like perjury to me and they should be held accountable for the felonies committed

The entire case for SDCC was based on a lie. It’s what bullies do.

The District Court’s Gag Order

On July 6, 2017, SDCC filed a “Motion for a Protective Order,” arguing that SLCC’s social media activity was tainting the jury pool with extraneous evidence, thus depriving SDCC of its right to a fair trial.

The Southern District of California agreed. The Court recognized that ordering SLCC to shut up would be a prior restraint on speech, which was “one of the most extraordinary remedies known to our jurisprudence.” However, the Court found that SLCC’s social media activity was a “clear and present danger or serious and imminent threat” to SDCC’s right to a fair trial. Key to the Court’s decision was the fact that SLCC had over 30,000 Twitter followers so “any posting, sharing, liking or dissemination of information . . . would reach an extensive amount of people.”

Based on the foregoing, the Court prohibited SLCC from making:

  1. Any statement that accuses, suggests, implies, or states that SDCC lied and/or committed fraud (other than in documents to be filed with the Court);
  2. Any statement about the genericness of the term comic con (other than in documents to be filed with the Court);
  3. Any statement about whether the term comic con is descriptive; and
  4. Any statement about whether SDCC abandoned any trademark rights (other than in documents to be filed with the Court).

When SDCC subsequently accused SLCC of violating the order, the Court further prohibited SLCC from making any “references to the pending litigation” at all, and also from uploading even publicly-filed documents. The judge explained:

Now, I’m basically saying you post no documents about the issues in the case – no comment, no postings.

The Ninth Circuit Vacates

SLCC appealed and, on October 26, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court vacated the District Court’s order. The Ninth Circuit held that the District Court “clearly erred” and that its order was an “unconstitutional prior restraint on speech” because, among other reasons:

  • There was no “serious and imminent threat” to SDCC’s right to a fair trial because, even if some potential jurors had seen SLCC’s posts, the voir dire process and jury instructions provide alternative, less restrictive, means of ensuring a fair trial.
  • The District Court neglected to consider the size of the community, in this case San Mateo County, California, which was the “type of populous, heterogeneous metropolitan area where prejudicial publicity is less likely to endanger the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
  • The District Court also neglected to inquire whether the subject matter that SLCC was publicizing was “lurid or highly inflammatory.” In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the answer to that inquiry would have been “no,” because this was just a “banal” and “run-of-the-mill,” albeit “vigorously litigated,” trademark case.
  • Finally, the Ninth Circuit held that the order, which was limited to SLCC’s internet activities, was illogically “unmoored” from the interest it purported to protect. Why? Because the order didn’t even bother to prohibit SLCC from making exactly the same statements in the non-internet world, for example, on television (FYI: that’s the box your parents used to stare at). The subtext: the Ninth Circuit was concerned that the order was punishing SLCC for the “transgressive” content of specific past online speech (for which the appropriate remedy is a defamation action), as opposed to legitimately protecting the sanctity of a future jury pool.

Throughout the appeals process, the underlying case on the merits has continued to move forward in the District Court. According to the docket, trial is scheduled to begin later this month.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition
Contact
more
less

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.