World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Bozell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that personal jurisdiction was proper where the defendant “appeared in a fundraising video for the PTC,” which contained the defamatory statements and “which was distributed to New York residents”
• stating that the \defendants' use of the Internet also satisfies the Lanham Act's 'in commerce' requirement\ (citations omitted)
• holding statements posted online used plaintiff’s trademark in commerce because, inter alia, “defendants’ conduct affects the [plaintiff’s] ability to attract and retain consumers, sponsors, -30- and advertisers of its products”
• declining to decide whether the plaintiff pleaded actual malice on a motion to dismiss
• stating the judicial proceedings privilege protects statements by parties and their attorneys related to litigation but does not extend to protect allegedly defamatory statements made on radio and television programs
• same, where defendant posted statements online using plaintiff’s mark that “affected [plaintiff’s] ability to attract and retain customers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).