“This dispute arises out of the pursuit of business
opportunities in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in the wake of the NATO
campaign against the Taliban and the subsequent souring of the business
relationships established to execute those opportunities.” Plaintiffs, collectively RMA, sued defendants
Leonard Delunas and Mohammad Wahab for various business torts.
The plaintiffs provide products and services for
infrastructure in conflict-plagued countries.
Delunas was allegedly hired to serve as a country manager for RMA in
Afghanistan, charged with procuring registration of RMA Afghan entities and
holding shares of those companies for the beneficial interst of RMA. Wahab was a friend and associate of Delunas,
and listed as a corporate officer and shareholder of record of the Afghan
entities, but allegedly held the shares as a trustee.
In late 2001, which is to say after September 11, 2001, the
RMA plaintiffs and Delunas, who worked in construction/engineering
services/construction, started to discuss business opportunities that they
expected to arise in post-conflict Afghanistan. RMA hired Delunas, allegedly under an
agreement that “Delunas was to manage the operations of the RMA Afghan
Entities” and not engage in other business; he was thus to get 25% of the net
profits, and would reimburse RMA for up to 25% of net losses. RMA alleged that Delunas breached in various
ways, such as advancing himself funds and pursuing corporate opportunities for
his own personal benefit. Despite RMA’s
termination of their agreement, Delunas allegedly continued to hold himself out
to current and prospective customers as RMA’s authorized representative. He ran a website that directed actual or
prospective customers or suppliers who wish to contact the RMA Group’s current
Country Manager in Afghanistan to Delunas’s email address, not the actual
current Country Manager. The website formed the basis of the Lanham Act and
CFAA claims on which I will focus.
On the Lanham Act claims, the court began by distinguishing
§43(a)(1)(A) false association claims from §43(a)(1)(B) false advertising
claims. The complaint alleged that
Delunas’s website implied continued affiliation with RMA by listing his contact
info for those seeking to do business with the RMA Afghan Entities and with RMA
Group companies in other countries where Delunas was never employed nor
affiliated with in any capacity. (Lurking issue: is this extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act? If the website solicits business in the US and other countries, how should we think about that?)
Defendants, amazingly, challenged standing, which in the
Sixth Circuit is governed by the reasonable interest test. Defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked
standing because the complaint alleged that the official RMA site was owned by
the RMA Group, which isn’t an actual entity.
But the plaintiffs alleged that they were among those comprising the RMA
Group, which gave them a reasonable interest.
There was also “a reasonable basis for believing that the interest is
likely to be damaged” by the defendant’s alleged false association or false
advertising, because of the allegedly attempted diversion.
Defendants argued that there was no false association,
because he actually is affiliated with the entities listed on the offending
website; the complaint alleged that he was a 25% shareholder in the Afghan entities.
But the complaint pled that his ownership interest had terminated. And the complaint sufficiently pled likely
confusion:
The Complaint alleges that Delunas
is operating a website that suggests to all who view it that he is the RMA
Group’s Country Manager in Afghanistan and that directs inquiries to his email
address instead of the email address of the current Country Manager. The
website references contracts performed by the RMA Plaintiffs’ companies and
displays icons of companies with which the RMA Plaintiffs conduct business.
Such allegations do, in fact, permit the Court to infer that confusion is
likely.
Anyway, confusion is a fact question, and dismissal on that
ground should be rare.
For similar reasons, the false advertising claim
survived. “In this Court’s opinion,
advertising the services, contracts, and customer relationships of another as
one’s own to deceive customers into believing that ‘RM Asia’ performed work
actually performed by the RMA Group Plaintiffs constitutes a false or
misleading statement of fact concerning the services and commercial activities
advertised on the internet.”
However, the CFAA claim failed. It was based on Delunas’s continued use and
operation of the website post-termination. The complaint plainly alleged that the
plaintiffs had no affiliation with or control of the website. Although the plaintiffs vaguely implied that
they once owned the site, the complaint didn’t allege that they did own or
control it. An entity lacking ownership
and control “simply has no basis for granting or withholding authorization to
the website.” The CFAA doesn’t apply
when the defendant accesses a computer not
owned by the plaintiff.
Some contract-related and tortious interference claims
survived. However, allegations of
“repeated abusive telephone calls” to the plaintiffs’ current Afghanistan
country manager, allegedly threatening him with arrest and prosecution if he
stayed in country, along with allegations of instigation of a meritless and
spurious complaint against a non-party country at the Afghanistan Ministry of
Justice, were insufficient to allege tortious interference with prospective
economic advantage. Unjust enrichment
claims also survived, pled in the alternative to the contract-based claims.
The court then turned to plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction. They sought an order requiring defendants to
discontinue operating the offending website, restore control of it and its
server to plaintiffs, turn over emails and other communications that passed
through it, and return various documents.
Plaintiffs argued that they showed likely success on the
merits because of actual customer confusion.
They pointed to emails Delunas forwarded to the current Country Manager
during a brief thawing in tensions. The
emails sought services from the RMA plaintiffs, but were sent to Delunas (who
uses the same email he used when the Country Manager of Afghanistan), not to
the actual Country Manager. Though the complaint stated a cause of action, this
wasn’t enough to show likely success because of “the number of important
factual discrepancies between the parties’ positions regarding the ownership of
the RMA Afghan Entities.”
Without that, the RMA plaintiffs didn’t show irreparable
harm. They alleged that they’d lose “good
will, client trust, confidence and confidentiality and competitive advantage,”
but didn’t show that such harm was actual and imminent. Their delay until November 2013 in moving for
a preliminary injunction, when Delunas allegedly ceased his affiliation with
them in March 2011, was damaging. That
was a year after filing the complaint and six months after amending the
complaint. Delay alone may preclude a finding of irreparable harm.
The RMA plaintiffs argued that courts can presume
irreparable harm from likely success in showing confusion. But it’s not clear that this rule survived eBay, and even if it did, “it would be
inappropriate to apply the presumption in this case given the lingering factual
questions surrounding ownership of and right of access to the website as well
as the lengthy delay in seeking injunctive relief and the possibility that
monetary damages would sufficiently rectify any harm the RMA Group Plaintiffs
experience while the Court is able to adjudicate this dispute on the merits.”
No comments:
Post a Comment