Joseph Farah v. Esquire Magazine

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a satirical article about a book in a magazine’s online blog was not commercial speech subject to Lan-ham Act liability even though “writers write and publishers publish ... for commercial purposes”
• recognizing that protected opinion may be expressed through “strong rhetoric and salty language”
• stating that “[e]very circuit court of appeals to address the scope of [the Lanham Act] provisions have held that they apply only to commercial speech.”
• “To meet the requirements for defamation under District ' of Columbia law, a plaintiff must prove ... that the statement was published to a third party[.]”
• dismissal of defamation count for failure to state a claim is proper where the statements are not actionable
• “To meet the requirements for defamation under District of Columbia law, a plaintiff must prove . . . that the statement was published to a third party[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).