Hy Cite Corp. Vs. Badbusinessbureau the Court

Hy Cite Corp. Vs. Badbusinessbureau

The court case Hy Cite Corp v Badbusinessbureau.com is about a consumer protection firm that ran several websites (i.e. The RIP off Report and Bad Business Bureau). They would post negative reviews about those companies who did not meet the expectations of their customers. This was accomplished through monitoring an excessive amount of reports they received. On one occasion, they posted an advisory about Royal Prestige Cookware. ("Hy Cite Corp v Badbusinessbureau.com," 2005)

The parent company (Hy Cite Corp.) contacted the firm and asked them to cease with their activities. As the claims that they made about: the product and company were completely false. In response, the defendant offered to help the plaintiff solve these and future disputes for a fee of $50 thousand per month along with a $1,500.00 retainer. In response, Hy Cite Corp. sued claiming that the firm was in violation of a number of different statutes these include: extortion, wire fraud (under the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act), unfair competition, false advertising, disparagement (under the Lanham Act) and common law trademark infringement. ("Hy Cite Corp v Badbusinessbureau.com," 2005)

How should the District court resolve this motion?

The best way that this motion can be resolved is to rule in favor of the plaintiff on the common law trade infringement. The other areas have no merit based on: previous case precedent and other rulings. For example, in Bosley Medical v. Kremer the U.S. District Court ruled that a defendant can use the plaintiff's domain name and image to criticize their product. This means that the various claims surrounding extortion, wire fraud, unfair competition, false advertising and disparagement should be dismissed. As these legal arguments, do not follow previous case precedent and various interpretations of the law. However, beyond these issues the common law trade infringement could apply because of the broad guidelines in the statutes. ("Hy Cite Corp v Badbusinessbureau.com," 2005)

What challenges does the Internet present in the area of personal jurisdiction?

The Internet is making it possible for someone to publically accuse an organization or individual of questionable activities. The problem is that many of these statements could be false and misleading. This will have an impact on the reputation and image of: a person, brand or organization. These areas are directly conflicting with what is considered to be personal privacy and opinions that are expressed (versus the actual facts). In the future, this means that there will be lingering questions about what kind of activities are considered to be a clear violation of the law. ("Hy Cite Corp v Badbusinessbureau.com," 2005)

Should the rules regarding personal jurisdiction be different for web-based businesses and transactions? Why or Why not?