[Volokh] New post at The Volokh Conspiracy

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Yet Another Ridiculous Lawsuit:

   [1]Ted Frank (OverLawyered) reports:

     Michael J. Zwebner, the CEO of penny-stock holding company
     Universal Communication Systems, is unhappy that he's being flamed
     on the RagingBull.com message board, run by Lycos. He may have a
     legitimate beef to some extent. . . .

     [But] Zwebner's litigation methods . . .are questionable. He's
     filed five lawsuits in federal court in Miami, against anonymous
     posters, against Lycos (for, among other things, "trademark
     violations" for naming a message board after the ticker symbol
     UCSY), and even a couple of purported class actions. He's
     especially upset at one anonymous poster, who has the especially
     credible username of Wolfblitzzer0 [sic].

     So, Zwebner has sued . . . CNN and the real-life Wolf Blitzer! It
     seems, according to Zwebner's view of the world, that Blitzer is
     supposed to be on the lookout for anonymous posters using similar
     names, and should be held liable for such posters' postings when he
     fails to police the use of such usernames. . . .

   Appalling. First, I doubt that Blitzer even had a legal right to stop
   Wolfblitzzer0 from his posts; unless the posts were commercial
   advertising (which I doubt), Blitzer wouldn't have a right of
   publicity or trademark claim against Wolfblitzzer0. And I doubt
   Blitzer would have a libel claim (on the theory that Wolfblitzzer0 is
   hurting Blitzer's reputation by posting things under his name) because
   few readers would really think that the poster is Wolf Blitzer.

   But second, Blitzer certainly has no legal duty to spend his time,
   money, and effort litigating over every schmoe's misuse of his name --
   even if he had a legal right to stop such misuses -- especially when
   readers would realize that the poster isn't the real Blitzer. (Under
   the doctrine of "apparent authority," A may sometimes end up bound by
   contracts that B made on his behalf, when reasonable observers would
   assume that B actually has the authority to act for A; but that surely
   isn't the case here.)

   Sounds like a sure loser of a case to me, perhaps even sanctionable
   (though that's a tougher call).

References

   1. http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/002043.html