Somebody registered SYLVANFRANCHISEISSUES.COM and posted information about ‘issues’ that franchisees allegedly have with the SYLVAN franchise. Sylvan alleges that some of this information is false and defamatory.
If you’re in the mood, read Lamparello v Falwell and Bosely v Kremer to start thinking about the ACPA analysis of ‘critical’ websites.
If Sylvan can prove defamation, how does that affect the ACPA and dilution analysis?
This is an in rem action in Virginia (home of Verisign). However Sylvan has a hunch that the true website operator is a disgruntled franchisee in Ohio. Sylvan alleges that franchisees are bound by their agreement not to tarnish Sylvan.
Read the bits about tracking down the identity of the registrant. It’s a ripping yarn.