Anastasia sued various defendants for trademark infringement
and false advertising, along with related state torts. Anastasia runs Anastasiadate.com, an
“international dating service which, for a fee, matches men in the United
States with women located in Russia and the Ukraine,” and alleged that EM
Online offered a competing service through Elenasmodels.com. Defendant Juha Natunen owned Anastasiadatefraud.com,
and allegedly contained fictional accounts of and complaints about Anastasia’s
members’ experiences. The “fraud” site stated that the women featured in
Anastasia’s dating service are “paid employees of Anastasiadate.com or dating
agencies,” and also allegedly contained a link to Elenasmodels.com that was
removed a few days after EM Online received Anastasia’s complaint. Anastasia alleged that EM Online or its
agents hired Natunen to create the “fraud” site to disparage Anastasia’s
services and divert customers.
Finding that Anastasia utterly failed to allege facts
showing an agency relationship or any connection between the two defendants,
the court found the complaint implausible and dismissed it, with a fee award
for EM Online.
An agency relationship required a showing that Natunen acted
subject to EM Online’s direction and control.
Anastasia failed to plead specific allegations allowing an inference of
such a relationship. The strongest factual claim was the alleged link to
Elenasmodels.com removed shortly after EM Online received the complaint, but
that temporary proximity “is not enough to show any connection or communication
whatsoever, let alone an agency relationship, between Natunen and EM Online.” Anastasia’s claim of a paid relationship
between the parties on “information and belief” was merely a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation. “Without
further allegations of facts showing a connection between the Defendants, it is
just as plausible that Natunen created this website himself as that he created
the website pursuant to an agency relationship with EM Online.”
Lanham Act fees are only available in the Second Circuit on
evidence of fraud or bad faith.
Anastasia filed three versions of its complaint, each time refusing to
dismiss EM Online as a defendant despite its failure to allege any relationship
between EM Online and Anastasiadatefraud.com. This was done without any reasonable basis in
fact or law, and the court inferred an anticompetitive motive, making the case
exceptional and allowing EM Online to recover reasonable fees and costs.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment