HITSGALORE.COM (HITT) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : HITSGALORE.COM (HITT)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: bob sims who wrote (2476)	6/22/1999 2:45:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) of 7056

Here's an even better way to spell it: M - o - t - i - o - n - T - o - S - t - r - i - k - e (bobmeister, have you figured out how to read yet?) webnode.com I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND II. THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE STRICKEN PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE BECAUSE IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO CHILL LEGITIMATE FREE SPEECH A. The California Anti-SLAPP Procedures Apply in Federal Court B. Where Defendants Have Communicated in a Public Forum on an Issue of Public Interest, Each Claim Against Them Must Be Stricken Unless the Plaintiff Establishes That It Is Probable That the Plaintiff Will Prevail on the Claim III. THE DEFENDANTS' WEB SITE CONSTITUTES STATEMENTS MADE IN A PUBLIC FORUM IN CONNECTION WITH AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC INTEREST IV. IT IS NOT PROBABLE THAT BUSINESS WIRE WILL PREVAIL ON ITS CAUSES OF ACTION A. There Is No Violation of the Federal “False Advertising” Statutes 1. There Was No False Designation of Origin and No Likelihood of Confusion Between Business Wire and Webnode 2. The Prohibitions of Section 1125(a) Apply Only to Commercial Speech, Which Is Not Present Here B. Federal Trademark Dilution Requires Both Dilution and Commercial Use—And Neither is Present Here C. There Was No Federal Trademark Infringement Because Business Wire Consented to the Use and Because There Is No Likelihood of Confusion. D. There Was no California Trademark Dilution Because There Was No Weakening Of the Mark or Commercial Use E. There Simply Was No Breach of Contract at All F. Business Wire Was Not Defrauded Because the Defendants Made No Representations Regarding the Press Release and Because Business Wire Made No Reasonable Reliances G. The Defamation Claim Cannot Stand Because There Is No Provably False Factual Assertion and Because Truth Is an Absolute Defense 1. There Is No Provably False Factual Assertion in the Statement Made by the Defendants 2. The Gist of “Parody Dilutes Our Trademark But Fraud Does Not” Is True With Respect to Business Wire H. The California Unfair Competition Claims Still Fail to Meet the First Amendment Problems I. The Civil Conspiracy Claim Fails Because Business Wire Cannot Prove It Is Probable That It Will Prevail on the Underlying Tort Causes of Action V. THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD RECEIVE THEIR ATTORNEYS FEES BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE VI. CONCLUSION

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next