PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge has dismissed a weight-loss company's lawsuit against two online review sites for allegedly violating a federal trademark statute, ruling that the statute doesn't apply in this case.
The plaintiff in the case, GOLO, which offers a weight-loss program through its website, sued two online review companies, HighYa and BrightReviews, alleging that false information had been posted on their websites in violation of the Lanham Act. The defendants, for their part, argued that the Lanham Act does not apply in this case.
U.S. District Judge Gerald Austin McHugh Jr., on the bench for Pennsylvania's Eastern District, agreed with the defendants' arguments.
U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Austin McHugh Jr.
"Because I conclude that [the] defendants were not engaged in commercial speech in publishing the reviews, [the] plaintiff has failed to state a claim for unfair competition as a matter of law," he wrote in his memorandum, which was issued on May 4. "[The] plaintiff's trade libel claim also fails because it lacks at least one essential element. Accordingly, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice."
In June, GOLO filed a complaint against Highya, BrightReviews, Dmitry Ozik and Vladimir Rappaport, alleging that misleading information had been published in reviews that were on the defendants' websites. GOLO claimed that the defendants were liable for the posts because they allowed the reviews to be posted and because they misled internet users by using the "GOLO" mark on their websites in an attempt to drive traffic.
The defendants filed a memorandum in September, arguing that GOLO's allegations are an attempt to suppress the defendants' freedom of speech. The defense also offered several reasons why the case should be dismissed. One of the reasons was in reference to the Lantham Act, which generally applies to trademark registration with some prohibitions on false advertising. The defendants claimed that the act does not apply to this case because it doesn't cover non-commercial speech.
"This case demonstrates one of the challenges presented by new forms of online commerce—specifically, how to apply the Lanham Act to companies that generate income through websites that review the products of others," McHugh wrote in his memorandum.